| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Inside the desperate fight to keep old TVs alive
#373855 - 02/11/18 11:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of that
[Re: B2K24]
#373859 - 02/12/18 02:12 AM
|
|
|
How about we make modern TVs better by working to get rid of the latency, supporting old resolutions/refresh rates beside the new and even including the older inputs. Including advanced screen configuration options would also be nice.
Yes, realize some of this might not be possible and manufacturers are to damn interested in selling shit.
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: DiodeDude]
#373874 - 02/12/18 01:23 PM
|
|
|
> How about we make modern TVs better by working to get rid of the latency, supporting
> old resolutions/refresh rates beside the new and even including the older inputs.
> Including advanced screen configuration options would also be nice.
Supporting more resolutions requires upscaling. That's more processing, and more ways to make the picture look subjectively "bad".
Analog inputs need to be digitised before you can feed them to an LCD, and you get even more issues with analog distortion, phasing, etc. Remember having to display a black/white pixel chequerboard to get perfect phase alignment when changing resolution on VGA-input LCDs?
Advanced screen configurations is more stuff for people to screw up. What do you actually want, anyway? Besides brightness, contrast, gamma and target colour temperature, you're left with silly gimmicks that just make the displayed image look less like the source material.
> Yes, realize some of this might not be possible and manufacturers are to damn
> interested in selling shit.
No, they're interested in making a profit. Margins on TVs are actually pretty thin - that's why so many manufacturers have pulled out of the market. People will pay for big and bright, but for the most part they don't actually appreciate faithful rendition. You end up with gimmicks added to try and attract consumers while at the same time making severe compromises like chroma subsampling.
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#373876 - 02/12/18 02:41 PM
|
|
|
> Supporting more resolutions requires upscaling. That's more processing, and more ways
> to make the picture look subjectively "bad".
Speaking out of ignorance, but why can't they just blow the image up with more pixels and maybe add some anti-aliasing options? Sure they'd have to include hardware for that but its not like the tech doesn't exist.
> Analog inputs need to be digitised before you can feed them to an LCD, and you get
> even more issues with analog distortion, phasing, etc. Remember having to display a
> black/white pixel chequerboard to get perfect phase alignment when changing
> resolution on VGA-input LCDs?
I have no memory of this. My first LCD PC monitor didn't do that.
> Advanced screen configurations is more stuff for people to screw up. What do you
> actually want, anyway? Besides brightness, contrast, gamma and target colour
> temperature, you're left with silly gimmicks that just make the displayed image look
> less like the source material.
Resolution/Upscaling filters selection, filters on/off, adaptive sync
> No, they're interested in making a profit. Margins on TVs are actually pretty thin -
> that's why so many manufacturers have pulled out of the market. People will pay for
> big and bright, but for the most part they don't actually appreciate faithful
> rendition. You end up with gimmicks added to try and attract consumers while at the
> same time making severe compromises like chroma subsampling.
Thats a shame. I have limits for what I'll pay for a TV or Monitor, but if the features are there along with build quality, I'm willing to pay a bit more. You put some stupid markup on it, like they do with gsync displays and it a no-go.
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: DiodeDude]
#373877 - 02/12/18 04:51 PM
|
|
|
blowing the pic up is what upscaling is and not doing that would make the image super small also old light guns need scanlines for them to work like the Guncon 2
|
|
|
|
I know this
[Re: Nate]
#373880 - 02/12/18 07:28 PM
|
|
|
But I was under the impression that most upscalers on tvs today apply additional processing (filters etc) which make the image look shittier increases lag and you may or may not be able to disable the extra stuff?
|
|
|
| smf |
|
I've been here before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/16/15
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: I know this
[Re: DiodeDude]
#373888 - 02/13/18 01:48 AM
|
|
|
> But I was under the impression that most upscalers on tvs today apply additional
> processing (filters etc) which make the image look shittier increases lag and you may
> or may not be able to disable the extra stuff?
They aren't all like that.
But if you feed a 4K tv with a composite video signal then it will look terrible no matter what the tv tries to do to it.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#373916 - 02/13/18 06:39 PM
|
|
|
> People will pay for
> big and bright, but for the most part they don't actually appreciate faithful
> rendition. You end up with gimmicks added to try and attract consumers while at the
> same time making severe compromises like chroma subsampling.
Yup. Hence my "cold dead hands" policy with my Panasonic ZT-60. (Last, best year they made plasma sets. 5 years later some OLEDs are starting to look almost as good, but at a lot higher price).
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#374002 - 02/16/18 05:29 PM
|
|
|
> > How about we make modern TVs better by working to get rid of the latency,
> supporting
> > old resolutions/refresh rates beside the new and even including the older inputs.
> > Including advanced screen configuration options would also be nice.
>
> Supporting more resolutions requires upscaling. That's more processing, and more ways
> to make the picture look subjectively "bad".
>
> Analog inputs need to be digitised before you can feed them to an LCD, and you get
> even more issues with analog distortion, phasing, etc. Remember having to display a
> black/white pixel chequerboard to get perfect phase alignment when changing
> resolution on VGA-input LCDs?
>
> Advanced screen configurations is more stuff for people to screw up. What do you
> actually want, anyway? Besides brightness, contrast, gamma and target colour
> temperature, you're left with silly gimmicks that just make the displayed image look
> less like the source material.
>
> > Yes, realize some of this might not be possible and manufacturers are to damn
> > interested in selling shit.
>
> No, they're interested in making a profit. Margins on TVs are actually pretty thin -
> that's why so many manufacturers have pulled out of the market. People will pay for
> big and bright, but for the most part they don't actually appreciate faithful
> rendition. You end up with gimmicks added to try and attract consumers while at the
> same time making severe compromises like chroma subsampling.
100% Agree on that. Also the marketing is so wrong. Instead of pushing 4K HDR monitors at a size 35" <, they try to do that for the consumer tv market, where the entry 4k HDR models start at 55". At a distance of 2-2,5meters and on a 55" tv, the human eye wont see a difference between a 2k and 4k picture, except the tv is much, much bigger (80">).
Sony is actually the only manufacturer, that has models with only Full HD support, but with HDR technology onboard and the biggest is 49" (which makes sense).
On the other hand, if you just sit 35" away from screen (typical for pc work/gaming), you will see the difference from 2k to 4k HDR no matter what. But this niche is barely filled with acceptable price tag models.
GroovyMAME and a Trisync-CRT is still the most enjoyable setup i can imagine. At this point, i want to say that i am grateful for the linked article. It was nice to read  .
|
|
|
| smf |
|
I've been here before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/16/15
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: uman]
#374015 - 02/17/18 07:55 PM
|
|
|
> the entry 4k HDR models start at 55". At a distance of 2-2,5meters and on a 55" tv,
I think it says more about where you live if you think 2 meters is a standard viewing distance.
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: smf]
#374018 - 02/17/18 08:59 PM
|
|
|
> > the entry 4k HDR models start at 55". At a distance of 2-2,5meters and on a 55" tv,
>
> I think it says more about where you live if you think 2 meters is a standard viewing
> distance.
No, it just says that you have no clue about this issue. This is just a example here. The larger the distance to the TV is, the bigger it needs to be, to see a difference between 2k and 4k.
|
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: uman]
#374021 - 02/18/18 12:37 AM
|
|
|
> No, it just says that you have no clue about this issue. This is just a example here.
> The larger the distance to the TV is, the bigger it needs to be, to see a difference
> between 2k and 4k.
Man, I appreciate everything you've done for the handheld emulation effort, but I think you're trying to apply a broad principle on something that requires a bit more nuance.
I have a 50" 1080p TV that I treat as a monitor:
Yet at 3 meters away, I can still tell that it would take a 4K display to truly go below the threshold where I can see individual pixels.
You really can't give any consistently accurate advice, given how wildly differently peoples' visual acuity is. Maybe my vision is much better than average. I don't know. But it's worth considering regardless.
|
|
|
| smf |
|
I've been here before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/16/15
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Instead of that
[Re: MooglyGuy]
#374042 - 02/20/18 10:11 PM
|
|
|
> Yet at 3 meters away,
That is pretty far away. Mine is less than 2 meters
> No, it just says that you have no clue about this issue. This is just a example here.
> The larger the distance to the TV is, the bigger it needs to be, to see a difference
> between 2k and 4k.
I understand the issue 100%, my point is that there are a lot of people with 50" screens sitting less than 2 meters away. You probably live in an area where people have much larger rooms or buy much smaller tv's.
Of course people are free to buy whatever size tv they want and sit as near or far away from the tv as they want. I don't see that as the manufacturers fault.
Edited by John Doe (02/20/18 10:18 PM)
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Inside the desperate fight to keep old TVs alive
Reply
[Re: 
.
