Why exactly is this thing so expensive? Surely the tech used

It's not rare it's a currently manufactured product. It requires a very fast processor so yes the tech being used really is appreciable. There's really no competition though so they can charge whatever they want, which is probably a matter of setting the price at a point where their production all gets bought up. The fact that they have "budget" models like xrgb mini tells you it's not just BS markup though.

Make your own, charge less, and out compete them then, OP.

>>2885452
Good idea. I'll get started on the logo.

So, what does it do? Does it make your snes look HD on a flatscreen?

Could I just save the 400 bucks and run an HDMI from my pc to tv?

>>2885447
>budget model
>$20 dollars cheaper than the xrgb-3

It's mini because it's smaller, not because it's budget.

>>2885425
it's a niche product with little competition and is somewhat complicated due to working with analog->digital video with low latency, something which eludes TV manufacturers

So, the price ends up being high.

>>2885447
>>2885473
There's lots of competition. It's either cheap chink shit or $1000+ dvddo and other devices designed for laser disk and vhs.

Newcomers think these scales are new or pricy. Those comments just make me shake my head that you post on /vr/ with your ignorant opinions.

The xrgb scalers are the best for their application and well priced. And the micomsoft xrgb has been around since the very late 90s.

My trintron died and after hunting for a PVM or BVM for months in my are i ende up caving and getting one of these. Im pretty happy with it and it obviously takes up less space which is a HUGE plus. I even found an LG 1080p tv that gives me like 5ms so i seriously lucked out.

That said, I do miss my old RGB monitor and wish it was immortal but sadly they are all doomed a pitiable death. Those of you with working ones are fortunate, but the next best thing is easily one of these Framemeisters. Quite possibly my favorite purchase in the last few years.

File: Faroudja.jpg (191KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1600x1063px

That's nothing. The Faroudja VP-400 cost $30000 when it was new.

>>2885505
Holy why

File: CJzE-o9UYAA5rz4.jpg large.jpg (65KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 960x960px

Hahaha. You think $300 is expensive?

Try designing one. And then producing it, producing the plastics, case, packaging...

Shit adds up. When you have a niche product you HAVE to charge more because all NRE can't be amortized over a huge volume.

>>2885525
Same reason PVMs cost that much when they were new. It's professional video equipment for production use.

>>2885452
Fuck off capitalist shill

>>2885525
>>2885558
In addition to pro applications, these Faroudjas were used in high end home theaters with $40k 9 inch CRT projectors like Electrohome Marquee 9500. The peak of 90s video tech. I have a Faroudja LD-100 doubler and it's a solid piece: those knobs are solid metal, all BNC connectors, and the inside is packed with circuit boards and components.

>>2885425
Where's the cheapest place to get a mini?

>>2885593
>Faroudja LD-100
Does that one only take RGB or component YPbPr as well?

>>2885425
Just save up a few paychecks and buy it. It is so worth it.

>>2885648
eBay probably, you can usually find them (even new) for $50-100 under micomsoft.

File: faroudja_system_ld100_super_ntsc.jpg (145KB, 1024x411px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x411px

>>2885734
It takes component input as well as RGB.

>>2885735
The xrgb-mini is fine if you're just playing games for casual fun but if you play games with strict timings, speed running, arcade cabinets etc it's not the best option. It's also nice if you can't really afford tons of RGB mods for your consoles and don't have the money or space for high-quality CRT to play them on.

The unit adds almost 1.5-2 frames of lag to the picture, not counting the lag if your LCD which is probably going to be another 1-5 frames of lag depending on how good your TV/monitor is (unless you use one of those low-latency gaming monitors). Games that have strict timing will be frustrating and almost feel like they play different tot he original.

Anyone knows of a simple linedoubler that can turn 15khz 240p / 480i into 31khz 480p? I still have a CRT monitor I can use, but it doesn't work with 15khz signals.

I don't want to go full crazy with HDMI output and such, I just want something that can turn both 240p and 480i into 480p VGA.

Handling 288p/576i PAL would be a bonus.

>>2885764
Look for GBS8200 on newegg or ebay. They are pretty cheap and work, and there are other models for I forget the name of them.

Read up reviews before you buy, because it has its advantages and disadvantages.

>>2885779
>>2885779
I might add that it has at least a frame of lag

>>2885736
>cheap
>$50-$100
What if I told you you can get them for less than $30 if you only know how to buy from Japanese Amazon.

>>2885763
Lag is greatly overstimated and it's relative.

Even the fastest crt with a 60hz refresh has at best 8ms of lag. Since they are top down refresh.

>>2885763

I've beaten Mega Man X in like 38 minutes on a XRGB, which is pretty much identical to my time off of it. I can't recall, but my time was always only a few minutes off the best speed runs, and that's just one of my games that I speed run. So depending on the game, its fine.

That said unless you're lucky like I was, you're going to be hunting for a good HDTV to pair with it. I found a LG that gives me practically nothing I only have the base lag the unit gives. I don't recommend fighters or SHMUPs, but anything else is actually fine provided you find a good HDTV.

tl;dr its fine but the planets need to align

>>2885791
Actually I meant $300.
So I guess yours is cheaper.
I fail at converting from yen to dollars, orz.

>>2885792
>Even the fastest crt with a 60hz refresh has at best 8ms of lag. Since they are top down refresh.
So are LCDs (in the best case, in the worst case they buffer the whole frame first). The GPU/PPU/whatever renders a pixel at a time, the cable transmits a pixel at a time, the only way to speed it up is with 120Hz + emulator BFI. The point is CRTs have zero additional latency beyond this unavoidable latency.

>>2885791
>if you only know how to buy from Japanese Amazon.

Teach me how to do it.
Any time I tried, I got errors stating that they don't ship to my location (Europe).

Middlemen would probably work but at that rate I might as well buy it directly from Solaris.

>>2885810
I didn't mean to imply lcds were faster. Just crts aren't lag free. As you said they add no lag in theory.

Bfi and emulating is a whole mess and really has no benifit since there's much better options.

>>2885763
Lag is true. But, you could get lucky like me an have an amazing tv, lag wise.

http://www.amazon.com/RCA-LED42C45RQ-42-Inch-1080p-Black/dp/B0093YV4R2

Using the 240p test suite on this TV with the Framemeister, I consistently get around 0.04 frames of lag, which is incredible.

>>2885832
>>2885798
No experience with that LG but it's looking like last year was the last year for great 1080p sets. Oleds are the only thing that may come about and change that. We'll know soon with ces coming up.

>>2885837
That 42" RCA is dirt cheap as well ($250 a year ago).

Regarding the Frameister, you just have to get lucky and get a TV with low lag. I don't think a human can detect 0.04 frames of lag.

>>2885841
Some assholes will claim so. Or some smash kid from /v/

>>2885832
It's still high persistence sample-and-hold garbage.

>>2885843
>Some assholes will claim so. Or some smash kid from /v/
Lol you ain't lying. I'm surprised one hasn't chimed in here yet. I've played through many fast, precision based games lately and can't tell anything.

I'm still toying with finding the optimum framemeister settings for each console. I wish they would fix is issue with scanlines on 1080p.

>>2885425
It is functionally identical to the scart to HDMI scalers that are like 50 dollars. People say it looks "way better" but there's no side by side difference.

>>2885425
>these exist and people pay absurd prices for them when there's still dozens of free CRT's on craigslist

>>2885936
>It is functionally identical to the scart to HDMI scalers that are like 50 dollars. People say it looks "way better" but there's no side by side difference.
There is very much a difference. Maybe not enough of a difference for you to spend the extra money, but the XRGB scales a much better picture.

I had the $50 upscaler everyone has, and it did look decent on a still screen, but any background or sprite movement caused a blurry mess.

>>2885763
this is bullshit, it adds ~16ms which is like one frame of lag.

any additional lag beyond that is your monitor.

>>2885764
You can't disaply 480i without deinterlacing.

And you need a framebuffer for that. And it needs to have a nontrivial amount of processing to not look like shit. That's why the framemeister costs more.

File: 1448309506043.gif (2MB, 495x471px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 495x471px

>>2885425
>Why exactly is this thing so expensive?
Very niche product and literally no competition as of right now.
If you're willing to wait, there's a guy on the Shmups forums who's currently working on an alternative that's gonna be cheaper and apparently superior to Micomsoft's offerings as far as features go.
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52158

File: s-l300.jpg (9KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x300px

What's wrong with this?
It's £10 and works pretty well. No noticeable input latency.

Only gripe is that it outputs in widescreen. As long as your screen has it's own ratio scaler then you're golden.

>>2885832
Where you comparing it with a CRT?

>>2886382
Huh?

File: wow.jpg (14KB, 480x293px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x293px

>>2886332
>doesn't even handle the SD-to-HD upscaling where most of the latency is introduced

>>2887816
he has quite a ways to go before he can get anything worth shipping

having a prototype is only 20% of the work

I have a basic understanding of how CRT's and HDTV's handle resolutions.

From what I've been told, CRT's could technically handle any native resolution you could throw at them, up to a certain point. Making sure devices being shown properly at their native resolution don't have any problems and look the most optimal. Output resolution of the console syncing up 1:1 with the output resolution of the tv

With modern displays like HDTV's and Monitors, they only have 1 Native resolution that is absolutely assured to handle the content and display it correctly. Because that's how just how the video scalers in modern displays are. Any oddball resolution causes a blurry output and high latency, depending on the quality of the scaler in the tv.

Two things. How wrong am I?
And what's stopping TV manufacturers from putting in better scalers into their tv's? shouldn't this problem have been solved by now? Is it simply neligence on the manufacturers part or is there a technical reason?

>>2886335
seconded, i would also like to know

>>2888089

Why would they waste time and money on a feature that barely anyone is going to use? For every schmuck like me that wants to retro game with a great picture and little lag, you're gonna have like 1000 normies who just want to watch netflix in HD and even more normies that just want to play CoD/Madden or watch sports in HD.

Theres no reason for them to actually put time into that when designing and manufacturing a television.

Honestly, I prefer RGB monitors and the XRGB to most CRTs.

>>2888154

It only has component input, for one thing.

retrorgb.com

File: 723640713967092.png (800B, 80x80px) Image search: [Google]

800B, 80x80px

>>2885425
In short, nothing. Nothing. does. It's a cash in designed to take advantage of consumer whores who are gullible into believing they are some how missing out on some deep connection with their old games because how they play isn't authentic enough, probably because they never grew up and connected with these systems and games as only a kid can, but rather because they were told as adults what was to be revered and coached into having taste.

If you have RCA cables, play your retro system on the TV 'the way it was meant to'. If not, just hook up your computer to your TV and emulate what you can, add filters if you want, or maybe hack a game. Just have fun with the game, don't be caught up in minor details. The people designing these games surely weren't. Try to keep in mind what makes retro special to us, and while there is a physical aspect to it that is for the realm of diehard collectors or people who never tossed their systems away, just being able to freely talk about games that impact us for one reason another is way more important than how you project it on your Guy-Montag sized LCD screen display.

Just enjoy the game, especially because they are free for the taking, and you are doing them a service IMHO by keeping them alive. Share with your friends some Soul Calibur, not you fancy gizmo that adds fake rips in your jeans for $400.

Periphery not necessary

>>2888192

if you say so. I really enjoy mine.

If you really think that your post has merit when you imply I lost sight of what makes retro special just because I use RGB cables and a XRGB mini then shit friend, you've got to start learning how to not generalize just because you've seen some picture quality elitists in the CRT/RGB monitor general.

>>2888192
Good luck with enjoying old games when most HDTVs stop supporting 240p and eventually drop composite/component all together.

File: Beatrix-battle.png (125KB, 395x488px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 395x488px

>>2888196
I've been feeling cynical lately because of all the bad threads on this board. I don't contest that you get something out of your device, how can I? If that's the case, this thread has merit. But I am always suspicious of shills for obvious reasons.

What I am cautioning about is the over worry of trying to recreate an experience rather than let the experience naturally talk to you. If you're cool with that, I think we can see eye-to-eye.

File: a tried and true classic with a new twist 1445278986115.gif (2MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x225px

>>2888192
>LCD screen display
>Liquid Crystal Display screen display

>>2888205
That reminds me, I gotta find an ATM Machine soon.

>>2888220
Don't forget you PIN number

>>2888192
Holy fuck, worst bait ever.

>>2885452
>>2885456
Yeah, just emulate.

>>2885593
>those knobs are solid metal
Placebo and muh tech benis
>inside is packed with circuit boards and components.
Yeah all that tech is replicated with a single processor chip these days. You as retarded as audiophiles and muh golden ears.

>>2888202
>Shill b8
Fine.I'll bite. If you're gonna insist on using a modern TV instead of a cheapass CRT that people are literally giving away, you might as well emulate on a computer with cheap but decent monitor. Any nVidia or AMD videocard can output to almost any resolution. If not, just add a 3X Raw filter and stop being autistic with muh scanlines.

I swear shillfags are innit with the CRTfags to trigger me.

There are a bunch of people who insist that anything that is not a high quality CRT is garbage, yet there are people who say a HDTV with a framemeister is just about the best you can get. Sections of the CRT crowd go into detail about not just why CRTs are great, but the many problems with LCDs, plasmas and every other display technology. Yet somehow this $400 memebox supposedly bypasses all the flaws of a LCD.

The upscaler crowd is just weird. The only conclusion that made sense was a mix of crowd mentality and buyer's denial on a large scale.

>>2885854

I just started ignoring everyone after I kept asking for research done on human latency perception. All the people arguing couldn't provide anything more than their own feelings. The whole conversation is riddled with bad science and confirmation bias.

>>2888484
>research done on human latency perception
Irrelevant. Latency harms your score/win rate whether you notice it or not.

>>2888495
>I can't prove shit but you can take my word for it

Yeah, no thanks.

>>2888507
>nothing in games depends on reaction time

>>2888463
Are you that stupid? Unless you have a PVM, a CRT isn't going to have RGB inputs. $300 is not that bad for the Framemeister.

You used several /v/ buzzwords in one post, so we all can see your agenda in this thread. The poster you claimed to be "shilling" is just stating cold hard facts. How is that a shill?

>>2888495
>Latency harms your score/win rate whether you notice it or not.
Just get an LCD/LED with low lag. Its not rocket science.

>>2888585
You still have sample-and-hold blur.

120Hz + emulator + BFI is acceptable.

>>2888589
I have absolutely zero blur on mine.

>>2888589
>emulator
>acceptable
kek

>>2888627
There are accuracy tests that prove certain emulators are more accurate than the real thing.

>>2885457
Yes. My emulated copy of MMX looked amazing.

I get the appeal of making everything as authentic as possible but that is sometimes the way to go.

>>2888204

I appreciate the concern. I dont really think there is anything wrong with gsetting the best quality picture from your old systems. And that is using RGB.

Playing Mega Man X on an emulator with filters like that other anon is not really the way to go, but is likely a better option than a really shitty CRT or playing on a LCD or HDTV without a scaler like the XRGB

>>2888624
What technique are you using to eliminate it? If you don't know then the answer is almost certainly "nothing" and you are lying about the blur.

>>2888647
>There are accuracy tests that prove certain emulators are more accurate than the real thing.

I know the emulation crowd is disillusion about "emulation is 100% perfect", but I didn't believe anyone thought that they could be "more accurate than what they emulate". That's such a logic fail, I'm surprised typing it didn't cripple your brain.

>>2888459
So much butthurt. Some of us appreciate things that aren't made out of plastic. Good luck repairing the latest junk from China which has everything integrated into a single ASIC. Those Faroudja processors won Emmy awards for advancing NTSC broadcast technology, and I'm sure the analog stages in them are still better than what's around today given the required stability and accuracy for pro use.

Bullshit about any audiophile analogy, stuff that's built well is simply better. I have an Ikegami pro monitor that has a solid metal faceplate around the CRT and it's fucking sweet.

Even audiophiles have a point: you would probably prefer a Durabrand boombox from Walmart over a Mark Levinson amp because the boombox is highly integrated while the Levinson has all discrete output transistors...kek.

>>2889079
The only way to get 100% accurate emulation is to decap the custom chips and emulate the hardware on a transistor level.

I think the only system to ever get to that level of emulation is the main cpu of the C64 (but not any of the rest of the system).

>>2889079
In the case of machines with mixed signal parts (eg. the SID in the Commodore 64), emulation can be more accurate than the original, with accurate meaning "more like a typical example of real hardware". Your real hardware SID chip might have weird filters because they are analog with poor tolerances.

>>2888464
>>2888589
>>2888192
Why has the quality of /vr/ posts been in such a decline lately?

>>2888584
$300 for something any emulator and PC mustard rice videocard can do in terms of MUH HD upscaling? Yeah, shill >>>/g/

>>2889191
>Audiophile
>Rational
Poor B8. Remember to report all shills and spammers.

>>2889203
The only reason to emulate at transistor level is if you want to emulate broken or misused (eg. cartridge tilting) hardware. For normal use, it is a digital system, so RTL is sufficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register-transfer_level

And theoretically it is possibly to formally prove that a conventional emulator is equivalent to an RTL hardware description, so if you managed to do that a conventional emulation with such proof would be equally perfect.

>>2889330
Shitposters getting banned off of other boards by new mods/janitors, so they are moving elsewhere. Report the grievous offenders and move on.

>>2889487
>Calling out rampant shillers and spamming
>Considered shitposting
Shill.

>>2889410

If you want to use your old consoles and don't have the space for a RGB monitor or great tube, this is the way to go.

Go back to /v/ already.

>>2889417
>>2889617

Haven't you shit up /vr/ enough already with this bullshit?

I can only wonder why /vr/ attracts such mentally unbalanced weirdos.

File: 001aaa04.png (397KB, 720x675px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 720x675px

>>2890916

No, he has not yet begun to shitpost.

This I can readily assure you.

>>2889410
>emulator and PC
Vastly inferior to the Framemeister and a good LCD/LED. Go ahead and cry shill.

>>2889410
I don't think you understand what "shill" means.

>>2891036
Objectively wrong. The vast majority of TVs are high persistence, and those that aren't have unacceptably high latency. There are literally only 2 ways to get low persistence + low latency:
Original hardware + CRT
Emulator + 120Hz LCD + BFI

>>2891041
The tv I use has been tested numerous times and has practically zero latency. I guess you could get a TV with high lag, but I don't.

>>2891041
If you care are about blur, then the only two acceptable ways to get rid of it is high refresh rates. 120 or 144hz. Not really applicable to retro games.

The other way is a strobe.

BFI is trash. It's distracting and still causes blur. It's essentially a very long strobe.

CRTs have their own quirks and anyone that isn't a fanboy has to admit they are terrible at displaying an image properly.
You can write paragraphs on that. All a CRT really offers in this application and in this modern time is a nice feeling of playing on old hardware. Even that is really pushing it with the popularity of using CRTs that were released years and decades after the game came out.


The other way is a strobe.

BFI is trash. It's distracting and still causes blur. It's essentially a very long strobe.

CRTs have their own quirks and anyone that isn't a fanboy has to admit they are terrible at displaying an image properly.

File: 15120_2.jpg (42KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x800px

>>2885425

Does anyone know if this thing is worth buying for running a Gamecube via a D-terminal cable on a 55" HD tv?

>>2891147
It handles 480p ok. If your TV is worth a damn and modern it should handle 480p very well.

>>2891041
I am waiting for 120 Hz LCD input but it aint here yet mang. Next hdmi version I think.

>>2888179
that's composite, retard

>>2891147
Those cables are freakin expensive from memory. Is there any benefit over scart on the GC?

>>2891171
Not him. They enable progressive scan.

Wii is practically the same quality. I had a component cable for GC I sold last year. Some guy made a mod for component cables for GC. Nobody is making them though yet.

>>2891153
The tv handles it ok, it's just that some Gamecube games look better than others.

Paper Mario and Wind Waker have aged well for instance.

I'm just not sure if I want to spend the coin on a Framemeister or put the money towards building a microATX PC and hooking it up to the 55" tv. Then I could use emulation for NES and GC games.

>>2891171
Couldn't tell you sorry, I don't have a scart cable.

>>2891192
The XRGB line and the mini are for 240p primarily. 480i and 480p are just meh on them. Certainly not bad but it's not the best.

File: Whos_Awesome_by_lutrius.jpg (30KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x600px

>>2891198

Gotcha, thanks for all your help and others who helped me out.

I'll go with building a microATX PC.

>>2891069
>CRTs have their own quirks and anyone that isn't a fanboy has to admit they are terrible at displaying an image properly.
What, an SD CRT doesn't display old SD content well? Or did you mean a PC CRT doesn't display SD content well?

>>2891662
To sum up the display problems. I don’t really want to provide example or go into detail. If you mess with CRTs or have you run into this shit.

Most of these issues never got taken care of. Some really high end monitors got rid of or greatly minimalized the things but not all.

-Geometry issues
-convergence issues
-bloom
-Linearity
-terrible contrast
-color “decay”
-too sensitive to ambient light
-limited service menus

LCDs aren’t prefect but for image quality they are leaps ahead of the best CRTs these days.

>>2891662
I was born in the early 80's, and love CRT with a passion, but this anon is right: >>2891684

With some of the new very low latency LCD's and tools like the one in this thread, it's a hard sell to stay on a CRT. For me, the biggest thing is that I am pretty tired of the screaming high pitched noise from the flyback transformer.

>>2891684
>Geometry issues
Never solved, this is the only real problem with CRTs
>convergence issues
No problem on high end sets
>bloom
Solved by playing in a dark room and not setting the brightness stupidly high
>Linearity
As in gamma? That's intentional
>terrible contrast
Competitive with LCDs even in the crappiest sets, close to OLED level in high end
>-color “decay”
>too sensitive to ambient light
See bloom
>limited service menus
Depends on the CRT

>>2891842
>For me, the biggest thing is that I am pretty tired of the screaming high pitched noise from the flyback transformer.
That's only a problem if you insist on using a SD CRT. They have ugly scanlines and are generally worse in every way than a good PC monitor CRT. Use a high end PC monitor CRT + emulation, and the whine will be 100kHz+, so not even your dog will hear it.

>>2891851
The bloom isn't what you think it is. Neither is the linearity. I don’t think you mess with CRT much. At least not seriously.

Bloom on a CRT is when you have a bright scene and the image gets larger. Usually horizontal since most CRTs have voltage control for the vertical.

> Competitive with LCDs even in the crappiest sets, close to OLED level in high end
No. CRTs measured with the ANSI test fail miserably compared to a LCD. They have the worse contrast of any display.

>Solved by playing in a dark room and not setting the brightness stupidly high
Great if the CRT is new. Not some much after 10+ years. The colors decay.

>>2891871
Alright, not him, but you clearly know a fair bit. What about persistence vs lag in LCD? Why do people say CRT's have better black levels. And why do station engineers say that OLED has only been better than a (new?) CRT for master monitor use for about two years, and that most places can't afford to use it because it fades like nobody's business? Surely that's way faster than a CRT ages?

How are CRTs sensitive to ambient light?

What about halation and the simple glow of the phosphors? That alone makes SD content look far better than any other way, IMO. Can LCD do anything like that?

>>2892113
>What about persistence vs lag in LCD?
It’s over blown since a strobe and modern LCD tech solve both. Strobe gives you no blur just like a CRT. Modern LCD tech has near no lag these days. On LCDs that take advantage of that of course. Most still have well above 3 frames of lag with a 60hz game.

There are tricks to get past pixel persistence blur too. Just being smart with the strobe. That enables zero blur. It is equal or better to a CRT.

>Why do people say CRT's have better black levels
They do for the most part.
This is confused with contrast very often. Contrast on these CRTs is measured by a black screen vs a gray screen. The ANSI test uses a more realistic test with a checkerboard pattern. CRTs can’t handle that and the black levels plummet. You can easily see this with white text on a black background.

>And why do station engineers say that OLED has only been better than a (new?) CRT for master monitor use for about two years, and that most places can't afford to use it because it fades like nobody's business?
I don’t know the tech that well but I do see people saying the half-life with the brightness is a huge issue. I assume it’s an issue like burn in with plasmas that will get fixed down the road.

>Surely that's way faster than a CRT ages?
Probably. CRTs have a long usable life but a short life if you’re really crazy about having accurate colors. At the very least they have to be recalibrated often if you’re that crazy about it.

>How are CRTs sensitive to ambient light?
A couple ways.
You have the glare from the glass.
Ambient light causes black levels and colors to be off.

>>2892871
>What about halation and the simple glow of the phosphors?
That comes down to resolution and manufacture more than anything. The CRTs we’re talking about aren’t very sharp. If you like that look then a LCD won’t give it to you.

This is where I differ because while I do like to play on a CRT every now and then I prefer the sharpness a LCD and scaler like an XRGB gives me.

You also have scanlines. Some games I like to turn them on and some games I leave it off. Most the time just leave them off. It’s something pretty specific to retro games.

To me these are more flaws as far as display quality goes. But I grew up with them and do admit they are nice to look at sometimes.

>>2892871
Strobing gives half a frame of extra lag. For true CRT-tier performance you need a scanning backlight.

>>2892946
Scanning backlights strobe. Pretty interchangeable term these days.

The old tech from the mid 2000s that people seem to get hung up on is very different.

There is no added lag.

>>2892951
You don't seem dumb enough to be the previous anonymous who thought strobing backlights were powered by time travel, so maybe you are somebody else. Yes, there is added latency with a simple strobe (approx half a frame average), because the backlight cannot be lit up until the entire frame data is transfered. CRT starts drawing immediately. If you want to match CRT latency you have to strobe a large number of vertical sections immediately as the pixels in that section update.

File: bestcase-300x221.png (6KB, 300x221px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x221px

>>2892958

>>2892958
I thought you were the same asshole. The guy who ignores fact and videos supporting it.

There is no added lag.
>Yes, there is added latency with a simple strobe (approx half a frame average), because the backlight cannot be lit up until the entire frame data is transfered. CRT starts drawing immediately.
I was never and am still not talking about simple strobes or whatever the hell you’re talking about.
You’re comparing a top down refresh to full screen refresh and saying that somehow adds more lag. You have zero support for this claim. None. You never did.

Regardless if it’s a full strobe or a scanning strobe it’s only on for .5ms or less.

I posted two real world tests last time. One done with a high speed camera the other in comparison with a CRT to fully support this.
Both had well under a frame of lag. Here are the links again.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=48662


This image explains the chain. Hopefully even you can understand.
Once the display has the frame information it needs then it strobes. There is no added lag here. Please tell me where the added lag is? Actually before you start typing. Find me a single test that shows a modern strobe having added lag because of the strobe.

What I don’t think you understand is the display can strobe multiple milliseconds before the entire frame is “done”. Completely dependent on the hz of the strobe and framerate.

>>2893076

Strobe with slow motion video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
And before you be a dumbass again like last time. The first part is a comparison without strobe. Please don’t go off on another misunderstand rant like last time about that.

The simplified breakdown with a modern strobe is
-start refresh
-wait for pixel persistence/ghosting to be done
-wait for enough frame data
-strobe
-end for next refresh

With that there is no added lag. Unlike what you’re confusing
-start refresh
-wait fucking forever because you say so and apparently manufactures are dumb or something. I really don’t know. Best I can make out of your logic
-wait for the whole fucking frame
-strobe for like 5 mins
-end and start again


With a proper strobe the whole thing should done just before or at the end of the frame transmission.

The strobe adds no additional lag. As supported by multiple tests with strobe on and off. No additional lag between them.

>>2893076
>You’re comparing a top down refresh to full screen refresh and saying that somehow adds more lag.
Of course it does, because you console renders at the same speed regardless of your display, and your cable transmits a single pixel at a time. Pre-5th gen. consoles don't even have a frame-buffer, so it's obviously impossible to speed up the frame transmission.

>>2893081
>-wait for enough frame data
And there is where the added lag come from.

>>2893076
Frame transmission time is even the biggest contribution to latency in the image you posted! Your own image contradicts you. You can cut that latency by half if you use a CRT (reducing it to zero at the top of the screen, and not changing it at the bottom, so halved on average).

>>2893121
>Of course it does, because you console renders at the same speed regardless of your display, and your cable transmits a single pixel at a time. Pre-5th gen. consoles don't even have a frame-buffer, so it's obviously impossible to speed up the frame transmission.
>And there is where the added lag come from.
There’s no added lag. The panel is refreshing itself while the strobe is off. It then strobes for a full frame refresh.
Again as supported by the tests there is no added lag on these panels compared to the strobe being off for this very reason.

You don’t know what you’re talking about and still provide zero evidence for your claims.

>>2893130
>Frame transmission time is even the biggest contribution to latency in the image you posted! Your own image contradicts you. You can cut that latency by half if you use a CRT (reducing it to zero at the top of the screen, and not changing it at the bottom, so halved on average).
What the fuck are you saying?
A CRT speed up frame transmission now?
A CRT is a top down refresh display. It ain’t speeding anything up.

A CRT doesn’t instantly begin drawing lines either.

>>2893135
>There’s no added lag. The panel is refreshing itself while the strobe is off. It then strobes for a full frame refresh.
The CRT refreshes each line sequentially (like an unstrobed LCD). You see it without having to wait for the whole frame to be transmitted before the strobe.

>>2893139
>A CRT doesn’t instantly begin drawing lines either.
There's no frame buffer in a CRT either. You're claiming data storage by literal magic. When a CRT receives the data for a pixel it displays it immediately. With a strobed LCD it also updates the display immediately, but you can't see it because the backlight is turned off. You have to wait for it to finish updating *all* the pixels before it can turn the backlight on.

>>2893173
>but you can't see it because the backlight is turned off. You have to wait for it to finish updating *all* the pixels before it can turn the backlight on.
False. You still don't read any evidence I posted.

Your understanding of CRTs is flawed too.

>>2893179
Your "evidence" contradicts you.

The NES (and similar) has no framebuffer:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4824106

The CRT has no framebuffer:
(google image search "CRT schematic")

Therefore the only possible way to transfer the data is a pixel at a time. There is literally no place to store it.

The CRT moves the electron beam in a raster scan, and lights up the pixels in order as they are received. It has no choice but to do this. If it does not display the data immediately it would be lost, because there is nowhere to store it.

The LCD can have a frame buffer, but more commonly it has a line buffer, because that's simpler and cheaper. Watch the high speed videos of non-strobed LCDs and you will see it update line by line. The time taken to see the new image data is approximately the same as the CRT + the pixel response time.

The strobed LCD does the exact same thing, but you cannot see the new image data immediately because the backlight is turned off. The backlight is only turned on after the complete frame transfer, otherwise you would see tearing artifacts. That is the source of the additional latency.

In the case of the scanning backlight, you do not have to wait for the whole frame transfer, because you can strobe vertical sections as soon as they are updated. With small enough vertical sections the latency could match the non-strobed case.

>>2893201
The___strobe___can___be___on___before___the___complete___ frame___transfer

Again this explained in the blur buster site.

Both a full strobe and scanning strobe can do this.
Add the clever trick of the the pixel response time being taken care of in the off cycle of the strobe and you get no added lag.

>>2893206
>The___strobe___can___be___on___before___the___complete___ frame___transfer

Sure, if it's a scanning strobe. But if it's a single strobe like it usually is then you *must* wait for the whole frame transfer or you get tearing artifacts. You are claiming your strobe is capable of time travel. You can't show pixels before they are transferred to the display.

>Add the clever trick of the the pixel response time being taken care of in the off cycle of the strobe
That makes no difference to latency, you wait for the response time whether you watch it or not.

>>2893217
>Sure, if it's a scanning strobe. But if it's a single strobe like it usually is then you *must* wait for the whole frame transfer or you get tearing artifacts. You are claiming your strobe is capable of time travel. You can't show pixels before they are transferred to the display.
See already posted evidence.
>That makes no difference to latency, you wait for the response time whether you watch it or not.
Same as above.

Or continue to just spout your opinion with zero evidence.

>>2893220
>See already posted evidence.
You posted no such thing.

>Same as above.
Turning the strobe off doesn't cause time-travel either.

>>2893224
>You posted no such thing.
Damn, ya those links I posted must be something else.

>>2893231
Yes, that's exactly what they are.

>>2893232
Damn. Ya that link I thought I posted that has two sources measuring no lag difference..It just isn't there.

I thought the one even went into great detail about all things relating to strobes. Would had been a great source of information.

Time-travel anonymous - I have a money making scheme for you:
1. Get access to a high speed stock trading center
2. Set up a DAC outputting stock prices, add blanking generator so it's a valid video signal.
3. Hook it up to your strobed LCD.
4. Put a photodiode pointing at the bottom of the screen, connect to an ADC
5. Strobe before the complete frame transfer
6. By the power of magic, you can read the ADC and figure out what the stock prices will be a few milliseconds into the future
7. Profit!

>>2893238
You're measuring LCD vs LCD, not LCD vs CRT. And your measurement methodology is highly dubious - you don't even report what sensors you used or where they were positioned, which is critically important as added latency depends entirely on vertical position. That's why I keep saying "average" -- the added latency varies from zero to approx one frame depending on position.

>>2893240
Unfortunately that's not how it works. Again as explained in the links I gave.

>>2893241
> you don't even report what sensors you used or where they were positioned
You continue and continue and continue to prove you haven't read a damn thing in the links I posted.

You just repeatedly spout bullshit opinion as fact with nothing for support.

>>2893245
That's what you're claiming is possible. You say that you can strobe the backlight before a complete frame is transfered and yet still see the complete frame. If you can see into the future, why aren't you rich? A few milliseconds of precognition will result in great wealth in high-speed trading.

>>2893256
You seem to think a strobe is instant. "Time traveling" even.

>>2893260
The better the strobe, the lower the duty cycle. Obviously a sufficiently bad strobe is indistinguishable from the unstrobed case with 100% duty cycle. This degenerate case of "strobing" adds no additional latency because there is no real strobing. Your argument is now "strobing doesn't add additional latency if you turn it off and pretend it's still there", which is correct, and also retarded.

>>2893270
Difference between my argument is I have multiple source to back it up.

I also can read.

Feel free to post a single piece of evidence to support your claim.

>>2893274
I have already posted multiple pieces of evidence. You have posted nothing relevant.

Wanted time travel to be real doesn't make it so. You cannot display image data before you have transfered it. If your magical display was real it would be used by high-speed traders.

>>2893278
>I have already posted multiple pieces of evidence.
Oh ya? Where the link?

And while you're at it please point to where I said a frame is displayed before the frame transmission is done? Because I can assure you I never said that and you are just being a fucking retard.

>>2893283
You said it here: >>2893206

Note that even if you're willing to accept tearing artifacts (which nobody else is, and I've never seen on a strobed LCD), you *still* have a latency penalty, because the strobe on time is always shorter than the frame transfer time. No matter how you time the strobe there will always be some pixels that you have to wait to see because the strobe happened to be turned off when they were updated.

The solution is the scanning backlight. Here the "strobe on time" can be equal to the frame transfer time without causing sample-and-hold blur, because it's spread out spatially.

>>2893298
The strobe isn't the frame. How retarded are you?

I'm honestly curious. How fucking brain dead retarded are you?


Your claim of
>>2892946
>"Strobing gives half a frame of extra lag."
has been completely disproved.


All that's left is to laugh at your dumbass really.

The blur buster site has multiple tests showing anywhere from no added lag in best case scenario to about 3-4ms with lighboost which is not a scanning backlight.
The other source showed no lag as well.

>>2893326
>The strobe isn't the frame.
But the frame is invisible when the strobe is turned off.

None of your tests actually measure LCD vs CRT.

You are claiming something literally impossible. No pixels are visible unless the strobe is turned on. Pixels are updated on the display, visible or not, for the entire frame transfer time. This is an unavoidable consequence of serial pixel-by-pixel transfer. The frame transfer time cannot be sped up because it's a fixed property on the console's PPU.

Therefore if the strobe is turned on for less time than the whole frame transfer time (which it has to be or it is completely pointless), there will always be some pixels which are not immediately visible. They will not become visible until the next time the strobe is turned on. No other technical details matter, it's simple fact that something that takes 15ms to finish cannot be completely shown in 5ms. You can't get around this with any kind of timing tricks. 15 is bigger than 5. Some of those pixels will not be shown immediately.

The only solution is to increase the strobe time, and the only way to do that without adding sample-and-hold blur is with a scanning backlight. CRT raster scan is effectively a scanning backlight.

>>2893352
Read the links again. I don't even know what time this is. You keep posting shit that is talked about in the links.

Post a single piece of evidence to support your claim.

>>2893359
>You keep posting shit that is talked about in the links.
There's absolutely nothing in your links supporting what you claim.

>Post a single piece of evidence to support your claim.
15ms > 5ms. It's that simple. If the frame transfer time is greater than the time your non-scanned strobe is turned on, then you cannot see the whole frame until the next strobe. There is no trick for making 15ms equal 5ms. Time travel is not real.

>>2893371
So you just gonna keep failing at reading and posting ignorant opinion or you actually going to post a single test showing "over a frame of lag" with a strobe?

>>2893373
No test will show that because that's not what I claimed. The additional lag caused by non-scanned strobing is (frame time - vertical blanking time) / 2, averaged over the whole screen. It varies from 0 to (frame time - vertical blanking time) depending on where you measure it vertically. In no case can it be over a frame.

For your tests to actually prove it can be less than this, they would have to specify where the measurement was taken, and they would have to actually show less lag than (frame time - vertical blanking time)/2 at center of the screen.

That's just over 3ms for a 144Hz display as compared to a CRT. No such LCD exists.

>>2893394
>they would have to specify where the measurement was taken
Can't read and still no test.

And you said half a frame not over a frame. My mistake.

>>2893405
I read your articles last time you claimed this magical bullshit, vertical position was not reported, and no latencies low enough to disprove my claim were reported. I'm not the one claiming literal magic. If you have a precognitive monitor, go claim your $1M from the JREF.

>>2893412
>vertical position was not reported
First and second paragraph of first link. Picture of the set up, equipment used, etc

Still no test for your claims though?

File: plsundastand1437666716115.jpg (48KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x484px

>>2893419
dude, let it go already. >>2893412 is right, why can't you see that?

>>2893482
Oh ya? You have the test to support that claim of a strobe adding half a frame of lag?

>>2893486
Who claimed that a strobe adds that much lag? I have a cheap LCD and with the framemeister, I have 0.03 to 0.05 frames of lag. That is near perfection. A human literally cannot notice that minuscule amount of lag.

>>2893554
That's what the argument has been about for the past like 60 posts.

>>2893486
If you can start watching something that takes 15ms and see the whole thing in only 5ms, then you are a genuine magical wizard and you should be out taking over the world instead of shitposting on 4chan.

>>2893557
I guess I have a magical tv then. Lol

>>2893554
>I have 0.03 to 0.05 frames of lag
Bullshit. You're claiming 0.5ms to 0.8ms. Not even the fastest gaming LCDs can do this, and that's even before you take into account strobing. Your measurements are wrong.

>>2893562
>>2893563
About that test to support you bullshit claim?

Or how about some more dank reaction images.

>>2893571
Apparently obeying the laws of physics is "bullshit". What's it like having reality warping powers?

>>2893573
Guess the people measuring less then half a frame of lag with their strobe LCDs are time travelers. Damn what a world we live in.

>>2893579
Or they're measuring at the very bottom of the screen, or they have a scanning backlight.

All measurements relative to a CRT of course.

>>2893601
You idiots love to not read huh? Assuming you're a different anon.

>>2893568
Nope. I'm using the 240p test suite on both the SD2SNES and Mega Everdrive flash carts. I can do it 3 times in a row and it will never be higher than 0.05 frames of lag.

>>2893627
And now we have proof you're lying because 240p test suite doesn't measure fractional frames.

>>2893645
Not him but the newer versions do. No idea if the old versions didn't.
Though it's measured in ms.

>>2893647
>Though it's measured in ms.
It's still limited to 1 frame resolution because input latch is strobed once a frame and the output is by definition only updated once a frame. And even if really did have millisecond resolution, that anonymous is claiming sub-millisecond resolution, so he would still be lying.

>>2893653
I'm just saying that it has it. Clear you haven't used it.

I don't know what the other anon is saying. I assumed he mixed up frame with ms. The test isn't exactly the most accurate thing so.

>>2893657
I just checked out the latest SNES version and it's only 1 frame resolution.

>>2893627
Here's how to do it properly:
Get a CRT, an upscaler, an LCD, a 4th gen. or older console, a signal splitter, a dual channel oscilloscope, and two light sensors (eg. phototransistor + resistor + power supply). Put the light sensors dead center on each screen. Connect one to each scope channel. Set up some software on a flash cart to show a black screen, wait for input, and then display a white screen. Trigger on the CRT's sensor. Measure the time taken for the LCD's sensor to reach 90% of peak (or whatever threshold you consider sufficient, 90% is generous to LCDs).

Assuming your LCD is non-scanned strobed, the time difference will vary according to the position of the sensors.

>>2893664
>I just checked out the latest SNES version and it's only 1 frame resolution.

Are you blind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paMeQ1wOtXw

>>2893669
>>2893669
Lag test starts at 1:43. Single frame resolution, same as the SNES version. Manual lag test is also single frame resolution (it even says "offset 1: 1 frame", so even retarded people like you should be able to figure it out). You appear to be the blind one.

>>2893672
Yep you really are blind and have never used it. Try waiting for the test to finish, champ.

>>2893676
>implying averaging the manual lag test readings means anything
I can hit single frame windows, I can give you whatever result you want. The manual lag test is completely invalid for argument purposes, because it's trivial to bias it. Only objective measurements, preferably with an oscilloscope are valid.

>>2893680
Want to backtrack a little more there kiddo?

>>2893684
Anybody who's not completely incompetent at video games can force the manual lag test to output whatever number they like. The fact that it averages its single frame precision readings is irrelevant when all those readings are potentially meaningless. And somebody who's spent a lot of money on an inferior system has a strong incentive to bias the result, even if only subconsciously.

>>2893690
Man you sure trying to change the argument. Went from it not displaying lag in ms to it being shit real quick there, slugger.

>>2893690
Does that mean that anyone who isn't completely incompetent can adjust during gameplay to make the lag irrelevant or at worst manageable?

>>2893696
I never said it didn't display ms, I said it didn't measure fractional frames, which it doesn't.

It's very clear that the claim of 0.5ms to 0.8ms is bullshit, and an obvious result of manipulating the manual lag tester (if it's not completely made up, which is more likely). Even getting that level of consistency isn't humanly possible without deliberately biasing the timing to correct for the missed frame windows.

>>2893698
If lower scores and less wins counts as "manageable", sure.

>>2893705
>I never said it didn't display ms
Oh ya?
>It's still limited to 1 frame resolution

>>2893714
For the purposes of internet arguments it is, because the manual lag test cannot prove anything. Averaged bullshit is still bullshit.

>>2893647
After completion of the manual lag test on the 240p test suite, it says the "x.xx FRAMES OF LAG"

>>2893657
>I assumed he mixed up frame with ms
No. Read my post above. Idk what 240p test suite you're using.

I honestly don't think there's anything inherent to it that makes it so pricey. It's just because it's a niche thing and it basically has no competition.

From what I undestand, it's not so much what the framemeister does, but what it doesn't do. Other scalers make the same mistakes as TVs as interpret 240p as 480i and then use line doubling and other shit, whereas the FM just straight-up takes the 240p signal and upscales it. This results in a better picture. Again, this is from what I understand, and I'm not talking about the extra features the FM has.

It doesn't seem that complicated to do a straight-up upscaling without doing any interlacing or deinterlacing. Only issue if you ignore that stuff is the fact that 1080p isn't an even multiple of 240p (it's 4.5x as big). What I would do is just scale it to 4x (ie, 960p) and then have a set amount of junk pixels around the border of the screen to bring it technically up to 1080p without compromising on pixels and not needing to worry about that sort of shit. Not sure if that's trickier to do than it sounds (I'm sure it is) but I think it would be possible to make a cheap no-frills upscaler just as cheap as the shitty ones that interlace and deinterlace everything

Or maybe I'm talking out my ass, who knows

>>2885452
Not OP, I've been dreaming about doing this for a while now. I'm a burnt-out electrical engineer looking for a way out of the hamster wheel, and I've been wanting to start a project at home. I've really wanted to redesign a lot of retro products using all-American manufacturing and superior quality to the Hong Kong specials I see all over eBay and Amazon, but I don't know if it will even be profitable if it costs more per unit.

>>2894245
it won't be profitable at all. the american dream is dead. china did it in long ago.

>>2894256
Reason leads me to believe you might be right; it's fashionable to make cheap shit that can't quite color within the lines. But is no one willing to pay a few dollars more for a quality product? I paid a few dollars more for those SNES and N64 security bits that were made in the USA, just so I know I can use them years from now. I mean, I'm willing to pay one hundred dollars for a Metal Warriors instruction manual, so maybe I have a few extra bucks, right?

I've bought cheap, foreign made USB cables that are sold in bunches just because they fail often enough that you need a hundred or so to get a functioning ten. Most of us have had to deal with garbage audio connectors that fail within a month or two after use. Is this acceptable to you all? I want to change this shit.

Please forgive the soapbox, I'm drunk on gin and feeling a little megalomaniacal.

>>2894245
If you can prove that its better, someone will buy it. I don't know if you will hit your profit targets though. Its a niche thing.