The Super Nintendo’s interlaced video mode was basically never ever used. It could output 60Hz and more than often did.
Only some games had limited framerate for various reasons, such as Another World being limited by cartridge ram or Star Fox being limited by the power of the SuperFX. Yoshis Island also used the SuperFX and wasn’t limited like Star Fox was. Occasionally there was slowdown if a developer put too much on screen at once, but these were momentary and similar to today when a game hitches while trying to load a new area during gameplay.
At 480i. SNES used 240p, which is technically not standard NTSC, but compatible. Nintendo called this “double strike”, since each field would display in the same location.
It is 59.94 fields per second, translating into 29.97 FPS. Interlaced video is fun. Reason why it’s not a round 60 or 30 FPS is due to maintaining compatibility with black and white sets.
240p uses each field as a frame, though, while still maintaining compatibility with NTSC. This is what most consoles pre-6th generation uses (same with PAL, but 288p at 50 FPS)
I’m just being nitpicky because you are using CRT interchangeably with Television. CRT’s are used in TV’s but aren’t interlaced unless the circuitry around them sends interlaced. So no, interlacing is not native on CRT’s when receiving an interlaced signal. If I plugged a Nintendo into my old ViewSonic CRT, I wouldn’t get a signal because it didn’t support NTSC interlaced input.
It’s like saying interlacing is native on LCDs. LCD TVs are interlaced, not LCDs.
I’m just being nitpicky because you are using CRT interchangeably with Television.
That was intentional on my part because of the audience and good communication. You’re technically correct, but without a paragraph of tangential and irrelevant explanation your audience isn’t going to understand you. Modern parlance usage of “television” isn’t the CRT appliance, its any appliance that shows the moving pictures and sound content of television programming. If you walk into any store today and buy a TV, you’re going to get an LCD, AMOLED, or quantum dot display. None of those are CRTs, yet everyone born after about 2002 will associate a TV or Television with a flat panel non-CRT display.
So no, interlacing is not native on CRT’s when receiving an interlaced signal.
And in nobody’s mind was the vision of plugging a SNES into a computer monitor CRT. You introduced that idea only to show how its wrong. You win at pedantry, but lose at communication.
If someone says to you “I’m watching TV”, do you poke your head around the back of the unit to make sure it has a tuner in it and if it doesn’t you quip back to correct them “You’re not actually watching a TV, you’re watching a monitor. A TV requires a tuner, which this unit does not have, making it a monitor, not a TV”?
Sure they were technically 30 “fields” per second, but most games updated 60 times a second, even SMB on NES. You only saw one half of what the internal console rendered which is an output issue, not a rendering one.
Add on 480p and you get both 60 frames and 60 fields per second
NTSC is 30 fps.
The console ran at 60 on NTSC, and 50 for PAL. Divide by two to get the standard.
Cuz interlacing
The Super Nintendo’s interlaced video mode was basically never ever used. It could output 60Hz and more than often did.
Only some games had limited framerate for various reasons, such as Another World being limited by cartridge ram or Star Fox being limited by the power of the SuperFX. Yoshis Island also used the SuperFX and wasn’t limited like Star Fox was. Occasionally there was slowdown if a developer put too much on screen at once, but these were momentary and similar to today when a game hitches while trying to load a new area during gameplay.
At 480i. SNES used 240p, which is technically not standard NTSC, but compatible. Nintendo called this “double strike”, since each field would display in the same location.
Interesting.
NTSC is 59.94hz ???
It is 59.94 fields per second, translating into 29.97 FPS. Interlaced video is fun. Reason why it’s not a round 60 or 30 FPS is due to maintaining compatibility with black and white sets.
240p uses each field as a frame, though, while still maintaining compatibility with NTSC. This is what most consoles pre-6th generation uses (same with PAL, but 288p at 50 FPS)
Interlaced
Kinda but also kinda 60
Interlacing is trash
Interlacing is native on CRT displays, which is what SNES was made for.
Interlacing is native to US broadcast TV. Crt’s don’t have to be interlaced. Computer CRT’s were rarely interlaced.
Okay fine, be particular and ignore the context. Interlacing is native on CRT displays WHEN DISPLAYING NTSC OR PAL, which is what SNES was made for.
I’m just being nitpicky because you are using CRT interchangeably with Television. CRT’s are used in TV’s but aren’t interlaced unless the circuitry around them sends interlaced. So no, interlacing is not native on CRT’s when receiving an interlaced signal. If I plugged a Nintendo into my old ViewSonic CRT, I wouldn’t get a signal because it didn’t support NTSC interlaced input.
It’s like saying interlacing is native on LCDs. LCD TVs are interlaced, not LCDs.
That was intentional on my part because of the audience and good communication. You’re technically correct, but without a paragraph of tangential and irrelevant explanation your audience isn’t going to understand you. Modern parlance usage of “television” isn’t the CRT appliance, its any appliance that shows the moving pictures and sound content of television programming. If you walk into any store today and buy a TV, you’re going to get an LCD, AMOLED, or quantum dot display. None of those are CRTs, yet everyone born after about 2002 will associate a TV or Television with a flat panel non-CRT display.
And in nobody’s mind was the vision of plugging a SNES into a computer monitor CRT. You introduced that idea only to show how its wrong. You win at pedantry, but lose at communication.
If someone says to you “I’m watching TV”, do you poke your head around the back of the unit to make sure it has a tuner in it and if it doesn’t you quip back to correct them “You’re not actually watching a TV, you’re watching a monitor. A TV requires a tuner, which this unit does not have, making it a monitor, not a TV”?
If you were trying for good communication you would have said, "Interlacing is native on TV’s which is what the SNES was made for. "
Everyone knows what a TV is.
Yes, hence my comments.
Even interlaced it’s still 60 frames per second.
Sure they were technically 30 “fields” per second, but most games updated 60 times a second, even SMB on NES. You only saw one half of what the internal console rendered which is an output issue, not a rendering one.
Add on 480p and you get both 60 frames and 60 fields per second