shmups.system11.org

the pixels will age differently. But I also don't see the issue. Offer an auto-display off function after xx seconds or make the static info rolling/scrolling instead. Issue solved.

Some luminance level between the ideal/target "on" and "off" levels?

There are good reasons for this concern. Consulting the NHD-0220CW-AW3 datasheet:



The OSSC Pro is probably a device most people would like to keep using for some time – time until half-brightness for average 50% pixels on is specified as ~5.7 years "minimum". Most people presumably won't have their OSSC Pro switched on 24/7, which should increase that timespan; the display probably also degrades, more slowly, while switched off. The current input video status is probably what is displayed most of the time, which is relatively static – in the worst case (left on 24/7 with same pixels lit and a bit of misfortune), these pixels may reach half-brightness in ~2.9 years, based on that data.

I'm not worried about luminance degradation or burn-in if the Pro FW can switch the display off after some sensible amount of time without user input, as has been suggested. Interestingly, the yellow variant of the display has a lifetime rating of 80,000h (the datasheet of the NHD-C0216CZ-FSW-FBW-3V3, used by the OSSC Classic, doesn't include a lifetime rating).

You can't always predict how long any display lasts for.

The #1 thing that can be done is to choose a display unit that is easily replaceable. If you go out of your way to find a display that is "perfect" for you use-case, but it ends up being an esoteric one-of-a-kind unit, then it will create an issue down the line if and when one of them fails or people choose to refresh the unit. If you choose a display form-factor that is fairly standardized (made by multiple manufacturers over an amount of time) then it's not such a big deal anymore. I've had to deal with part obsolescence many times, and this seems to be a good approach (in my own experience anyway).

Why are we discussing OLED burn in anyway? What the hell does that have to do with an OSSC or the OSSC Pro? You can also burn in the phosphor based display of your choice by pausing a TV show or movie for extended periods, allowing your sets menu to stay on screen indefinitely, watching cable news networks all day, etc, etc. How bout we simply dont leave up any OSD or menu from the OSSC (Pro) on the screen when we're not changing settings??

My goodness the comments here have really begun to veer off into the weeds.

They're talking about the OLED on the OSSC Pro.

But anyway, the backlight on the regular OSSC's screen I have set to go off after what, 15 seconds? No backlight on an OLED, but it could be dimmed or turned off in the same manner. Who would want it on at full brightness 24/7?????

Presumably the OSSC Pro will have an even more robust OSD than the current OSSC's, which is already totally sufficient. There are times when one might want to be configuring on the screen itself (due to not getting a picture, for instance), but the typical operations of swapping inputs, changing profiles, selecting an optimal timing mode, etc. will take 10 seconds and then the display can shut off again. It's a nonfactor unless the user is being dumb.

Oops! Pardon my ignorance! Regarding the display on the unit itself, my vote is to go the most affordable route possible that can sufficiently get the job done. OLED definitely sounds like overkill. A small color LCD should be plenty good.

I’m all for the OLED display. They are much easier to read and if it shuts off automatically I can’t imagine burn-in ever being an issue in regards to readability.

Requesting OLED on a scaler display...

These tiny OLED displays are not what you think when you think of expensive OLED TVs and monitors. They're relatively cheap and readily available.

I would like the display to last 10+ years.

OLED degrades even when not in use, so it seems to me OLED is more likely to fail over time even if an image is rarely shown. Second, why OLED? For better blacks and a bit lower power consumption on a tiny display that may have a timeout anyway?

Order of my desired priorities:

1) It lasts.
2) It's legible.
3) It's cheap.
4) It's pretty.

OLED monitors never then, right?

They are. As long as they pick a unit with a fairly common pinout and physical size it should be easy enough to replace a failed or worn unit. IMHO standardization should be the main concern. There are definitely some units and form factors out there that are becoming less common or are niche to begin with. It's possible to fall into a trap with parts like that because they are 1) cheaper because EOL or 2) seem to fit into the physical or electrical design in just the right way and a more standard unit would take a little bit more work to massage into a design. Been there, done that, regretted it.

The VFD on my Sony soundbar AV receiver, which I have left on 24/7 for a few years now, has now faded to pretty much invisible for the pixels/segments that were on. Those are no good for longevity either.

I don't think marqs needs to be told that. Also, the OSSC Pro will be open source, so it will be much easier to alter/fork it in the future if necessary compared to a proprietary design. It's not like you'd necessarily be locked to a particular design/display decision, Hobson's choice style.


That is a thought-terminating cliché and meaningless. Of course, it is not possible to predict the lifetime of any part of the device, or anything about anything in the physical world, with absolute confidence—nobody claimed that this would be possible. As marqs wrote below, the number in the datasheet is the only thing one can meaningfully go by until someone proves otherwise.

And, especially as a user, I don't fancy finding myself needing to replace a part because someone deemed it "easy to replace" and neglected other aspects as a consequence (note that I'm not saying that anyone does or did), especially on a device as valuable as estimated ($350-550 is the current estimate, which might undergo an increase; see below), that purports to be a professional piece of equipment, and is supposed to improve all aspects of the original. Without a doubt, replaceability and reliability/longevity are important.

If OLED, the display would need to turn off after a time. I do not see why the same could not be done for other types of displays. The only difference with regards to longevity, to my understanding, is that an OLED display would degrade even if it's just sitting in a box in the attic.

nixie tube display or gtfo

Yes, my mistake. I've now done some initial evaluations and 2560x1440@60Hz (242MHz) seems plausible, at least for line multiplication and simple post-processing. 1080p@120Hz (277MHz/297MHz) would more challenging, though. Both options most likely would still require upgrading the FPGA model with 1 or 2 higher speed grade which increases the price of the already most expensive part by 25% or 50%, respectively. Tough call to make, then, if one wants to guarantee operation at these high frequencies. And no, it doesn't make sense to make & sell multiple variants with different parts since then any benefits of scale (in component purchasing) are lost.

The OLED was selected since the Pro model is supposed to improve all aspects of the original. The price difference is insignificant in big picture with the FPGA and other expensive parts to worry about. About longetivity, lifetime rating in datasheet is currently the only number to rely on until someone proves otherwise. At least the display is fairly easy to replace.

That FPGA thing aside, remaining hurdles on HW side are enclosure design and finding a reliable manufacturer, otherwise things are looking well.

I'll put my 2 cents in and say a 2560x1440 mode would be very useful to me for integer scaling 3x 480p and 2x 720p, since neither of those scale cleanly up to 1080p. Especially useful now that the Pro has an HDMI input.

Imo, the premium would be worth for most people and it would be the first of its kind too. There are, and will be, plenty of cheaper alternatives in the future too, so yea, use the juiced up FPGA.

Cant wait to use 1440p straight to my CRT monitor on the VGA output without needing shitty HDMI->VGA converters that barely work. Also means I could have an AIO solution to connect my PS3 and other consoles to my CRT cleanly.

but why? who are these most people in desperate need of >1080p60? As others have shown previously, the delta between a decent TV's upscaler from 1080p to 4k and native 4k NN scaling is pretty negligible even in the worst case. 1080p120 is even more niche. Really don't understand the desire some people seem to have to feature creep this box in to being as expensive as the professional closed source units in the 1k+ category.

Also note that 240p x6, 480p x3 and 720p x2 would already be possible with the current design (meaning without the beefier FPGA and HDMI chip) with an output resolution of 1920x1440@60Hz.

Isomorphic 16:9 720p input would not be without compromises though. See the following pages where this is further discussed. [update]

Voting for this.

More power now, more possibilities in the future with more room to spare on the FPGA, things we may not even think of now but which may be lifesavers once available.

A higher speed grade does not give you more "room to spare" as in more "room" for logic. It allows for higher frequencies, essentially.

At what point did this become a request thread??

What's the mainstream use case for 1080p@120Hz? I wouldn't pay a premuim for that.

I honestly don't think this thread is anything to close to representative of the whole audience for the product, most likely every increase in price will result in significantly fewer purchases. Especially since a lot of the people here asking for "bigger and better" are gonna buy it no matter what.

The OSSC Pro market would be the most demanding kind of user, or at least that's my impression. After all, the original OSSC will continue to be available for those with simpler needs and/or smaller budgets.

Yea, if price is an issue stick to the original OSSC or buy the Retrotink/RADX machines. I understand the Pro has additional features over those machines, but if it's a device aimed towards the power user then why not go all the way and add exclusive features? I think that despite the price it would be very marketable to have the first video processor/scaler that outputs 120hz and linetriples 480p and linedoubles 720p.

And about 1080p@120hz, some monitors support black frame insertion/strobing at these frequencies, and afaik it's very effective at reducing that nasty sample and hold blur.

120Hz should also reduce input lag, right?