Quote: "Actually my above post wasn't written by me, but my brother who visisted me yesterday. Believe me, he knows his stuff, he's (professionally) in TV and Video electronics since 25 years."
Good for your brother. Then perhaps he can sit down and explain to you about Screen Formats.
4:3 Format = PAL 720x512@50Hz, NTSC 720x480x60Hz ... they ALWAYS = that for a digital output, as it is considered the standard.
While the resolutions *could* be done differently, they would have to adhear to the old PAL/NTSC rules, rather than the Generic format.
This means console/dvd/vhs/cable electronic companies would have to release thier boxes with regional RF Modules.
Also on your point about RF = Radio Frequencies, well give the boy a medal he knows what it means. It is still the signal type, which is different from RGB (Scart) and DVI (Digital Video Interface).
RF is the old Run-Length Scanline format in YrCrB Colour Space; Modualation depth will = the depth of colours within the analog signal... a bit like the difference between 16bit and 32bit colour spaces.
Not that, any of that has anything to do with the actual fact here that 4:3 Format = Ratio & Resolution, when talking about DVD/TV/Consoles.
Quote: "Oh, yes. This is bs."
Really, well then; that is upto you to believe or not really isn't it. I'm not stopping you doing a google for the standards.
Quote: "RF means Radio Frequency (sometimes also refered to as HF, High Frequency) and has itself little to do with scan lines of TV devices or the difference between interlaced scan or progressive scan. Even TV sets with a composite input don't necessarily understand progressive scan signals."
Composite input doesn't have anything to do with Progressive and Scanline modes. All that does is get an entire at once, Progressive Scan requires the TV to have an entire frame of data at once though; which means it is currently unknown how to achieve this via a standard run-length RF Signal.
If you know how though, then i'm sure you can go off and make yourself a very rich man.
Quote: "Polygon performance (the rendering of polygons) is a direct relationship of the texel performance (the cost to draw/transform one pixel). You can't equate a meaningful polygons per second rating without knowing number of texels per polygon, thus the expense per texel. "
Alright, well i'm going to stop this right here.
Really, I don't think you honestly know what Texels are for.
While Texels are used for the Rendering, there is alot more information that goes into Polygon Rendering Pipelines than just the on-screen information.
You appear to be trying to convince me here that performance is purely based on how quickly you can solve the last peice of the puzzle rather than how long all the peices have taken.
