3 ms·

> up until the HDMI era I think that's wrong: didn't PS2-era consoles use interlacing to get higher resolution? You're definitely right for PS1 and earlier tho

> up until the HDMI era I think that's wrong: didn't PS2-era consoles use interlacing to get higher resolution? You're definitely right for PS1 and earlier though.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I think what parent is saying is that camera-captured interlaced video was displaying scanlines from different images in each field, whereas game consoles using interlacing displayed the even/odd lines of the same image in two fields. Thus parent's argument is that we can consider camera-captured interlaced video to be 60 (or 50 for PAL) fps despite being interlaced, but games using interlacing were 30 fps. It makes sense to me.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It was a choice of the game. There were definitely truly 60FPS interlaced games during the PS2 generation.