12th June 2005, 6:22 PM
That all depends on the fill rate of the screen, which can be improved.
I didn't read it, but I was under the impression the technology already existed to simply increase the line by line fill rate to the point where the frame rate issue was moot.
What do I have to support this? My computer moniter has a LOT more pixels to fill than the average HDTV. Whether the screen size ratio is off or not, that's the same thing in that it should take more time to fill the screen. Well, the screen refresh rate I can manage on my moniter settings can be VERY high indeed. Wide screen is just a ratio issue. The point they were trying to get from that is more pixels to fill, and well, as I said, since the wide screen thing is just ratio then that doesn't matter so much as the number of pixels period. And, moniters today have refresh rates a lot higher than the average TV.
IGN is idiots.
I didn't read it, but I was under the impression the technology already existed to simply increase the line by line fill rate to the point where the frame rate issue was moot.
What do I have to support this? My computer moniter has a LOT more pixels to fill than the average HDTV. Whether the screen size ratio is off or not, that's the same thing in that it should take more time to fill the screen. Well, the screen refresh rate I can manage on my moniter settings can be VERY high indeed. Wide screen is just a ratio issue. The point they were trying to get from that is more pixels to fill, and well, as I said, since the wide screen thing is just ratio then that doesn't matter so much as the number of pixels period. And, moniters today have refresh rates a lot higher than the average TV.
IGN is idiots.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)