CRT vs. OSSC for 480i/480p consoles (PS2, Xbox, Wii/GC)

[N64]

I can pickup a Sony 27" FS Trinitron for ~$50. At 100 lbs, having to move it doesn't sound fun, and space is already limited. Also, the last time I had a CRT, I found the high pitched whine it made when powered on a bit annoying. At the very core of this debate, I think I prefer modern TVs to CRTs for the convenience. The only problem is how poorly HD and 4K TVs handle low resolutions and scaling, though the OSSC mostly solves that. I should also mention I will eventually get Dan Kunz' Xbox Digital mod, and I already have a solution for the N64 with the UltraHDMI mod. If I could get pure digital mods like these on all of these consoles that would be the ultimate goal.

Trying to decide if it's worth it to get a CRT if my main use of it would be the 6th gen 480i+ consoles, or if I should stick with using modern TVs and a get an OSSC. I would own one already but I decided to wait for the OSSC Pro. I already have the component cables for the PS2, Xbox, and Wii, and the consoles are modded so I can force 480p and 16:9 for many games that didn't officially support it. None of that would be useful on an SD CRT though. So what I'm interested to know is how 480i on a CRT compares to 480p x2 on an OSSC. For games that can run in 480p, is it actually a better or worse experience playing in 480i on a CRT?

Also, the PS2 can play PS1 games, though I seldom play either. So at the end of the day, the majority will be GameCube/Wii games on the Wii with component out when comparing CRT vs OSSC. The earlier generations of consoles like SNES and Genesis and anything before that I generally emulate as I don't see huge differences when playing on actual hardware, though I know the Wii can output emulated games at 240p so maybe that would be a cool use for the CRT.

Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Osirus]

I personally prefer HD TVs using component video for those consoles but a CRT for anything older, and I think $50 is too much for a 27" Trinitron anyway but that can vary depending on where you are. In the past month I've gotten 2 32" Trinitrons, one for $20 and the other for free.

[クリスチャン]

A lot of games on the PS2 are interlaced only and use field rendering. Forcing progressive modes on these games results in half the vertical resolution making everything very aliased. Another quirk of progressive output on the PS2 is that some games switch to 16bit color (5R:5G:5B:1A) to reduce memory consumption. Soulcalibur II in particular does this.

Another thing to consider is how the OSSC and your display handle interlaced video. A lot of TVs in their low latency "game mode" will use some really poor de-interlacing. The OSSC de-interlacing (bob) isn't amazing but actually looks somewhat like a CRT in the way the picture flickers. On top of this, with field rendered games things become even harder to "properly" de-interlace as each field is a unique frame which is not how most interlaced video works.

16:9 support on the PS2 is also rather janky. The console always outputs 720x480, not renders but outputs, which just like DVD is anamorphic widescreen when configured to 16:9. This means you'll need to manually adjust the aspect ratio on your display per-game along with the other negatives of anamorphic widescreen. Most PS2 games render at a resolution below 720x480 which results in letterboxing regardless of 4:3 or 16:9 modes; 512x448 (4:3) and 640x448 (16:9) are common resolutions.

Personally, I've been enjoying my PS2 on a 21inch JVC I'Art CRT with YPbPr a little bit more than on my 4K 32 inch monitor via OSSC. It really comes down to personal preference though, and I think you can't go wrong with either choice here. If you can't grab a CRT with YPbPr/RGB then I'd probably go with an OSSC and modern display.

[azmun]

So what I'm interested to know is how 480i on a CRT compares to 480p x2 on an OSSC. For games that can run in 480p, is it actually a better or worse experience playing in 480i on a CRT?

Lately, I'm been having a change of heart and now perceive flat panels (at least with my 1080p monitor) as a proper display option for retro consoles, the PS2 included. But the caveat here is the game should run natively in 480p (or 240p) as I can not accept the 480i bob deinterlacing mode on the OSSC. It's too jittery with noticeable flicker. Sadly, the PS2 has few games with progressive scan but you did mention you have some sort of mod or hack that can get around this.

It's almost a toss up between my 27" SDTV CRT and 27" flat panel. If it's 480i content then I'd definitely choose the CRT, no question (480p isn't an option in the first place). But you will miss some games that run and look beautifully on native 480p. So I guess what I'd like to say is, why not have the best of both worlds? Perhaps I'm in the minority to believe CRTs and flat panels can coexist.

[NormalFish]

imo, a 480p compatible CRT is easily the best solution for the PS2 (the xbox and wii/gc can almost entirely run in 480p so interlacing isn't a concern) IF AND ONLY IF you don't mind using a CRT. CRTs have a lot of attributes that might make them less appropriate not for any one console, but in general for how you enjoy games. Will it fit in your living space? Will the capacitor whine bother you or your housemates? Do minor geometry issues bother you, or are you willing to shell out for a higher end CRT? etc.

[headlesshobbs]

Most folks who are deep into retro will tell you they prefer a low line count crt as it's the most true and authentic way of enjoying your games. PVM's and BVM's have been all the rage up till they caught on and started going for these ridiculous prices you'll see on some of them. If you want the best in 240p/480i though, you'll never get detail any better. The alternative with an OSSC is to pair it with a good (non-black crush) hdmit to vga adapter and a computer crt. I like these so much because putting 240p to 480p with scanlines isn't going to be hardly any different from the PVM/BVM, but at the same time those 480p games can be given a whole new life now that component and other sources are outright displayable at their sharpest quality!

That said, I've been a bit obsessed with how to make an LED do it's best to keep all the details without adding filtering or any additional processes that hamper my enjoyment. Lots of people like running 240p at 720p with scanlines for that more crt look, but sometimes you get those games that were line doubled no matter what and 960p does such a wonder sometimes. Actually it's kinda like "the sweet spot" for a lot of models as there shouldn't have to be anything applied and those 480p only titles look almost better then the crt can output (SoulCalibur 1-3 x2)

480i has always been such a mixed bag. You won't run without problems as others said, but sometimes you get lucky enough to find yourself a model and brand (LG LN5200) and the onboard de-interlacer actually eats that signal like a champ. The number of trouble games I had have been processed almost perfectly and have a very distinct progressive look to them that you couldn't tell unless you got some of those literally high flicker areas (Tekken Tag's lightning during intro). There hasn't been a database of displays with good de-interlacing, but I would strongly suggest anyone with an OSSC test and report their findings if they have the setup to do so. Going back on crt's any SD based will have no problem with the 240p/480i output, but computer crt's have to run the higher khz spec so even 480i doesn't work via passthru. You can do the two bob-interlace progressive modes if you can deal with it, but oddly x3 on interlaced content will most likely work and you'll get a good quality picture from the crt as well. Later model pc crt's from the 2000's aren't hardly audible or anywhere near as bad as those Apple IIe tubes I used three decades ago.

[Bassa-Bassa]

if my main use of it would be the 6th gen 480i+ consoles

For those systems, not to mention if you add the DC, the best answer is a 31khz CRT - a good PC monitor if you're after picture quality, or an arcade cab monitor if your after size (though the former can go up to 22 inches and the latter will need some sort of case). There're "prosumer" options which will cost you much more, if you're lucky to find them.

That alone won't cover all the cases, though. 240p/480i-only games will require a 15khz CRT or a scan converter solution. And for the PS2 in particular, you'll likely need a sync-on-green-compatible (31khz) monitor (or again, a converter). The GC/Wii may be a bit problematic to get RGB out of them (either, 31khz or 15khz), check it out because that could vary depending on the region you are.

[matt]

Also, the last time I had a CRT, I found the high pitched whine it made when powered on a bit annoying.

This may not be as much of a problem as you think. It's likely that your hearing has gotten worse with age, and the 50/60hz wine is no longer as audible as it once was. This certainly has been the case for me.

27" isn't a bad size. It's light enough that you can move it yourself, but still big enough to be enjoyable. Some people might scoff at paying $50, but if it's convenient for you it's definitely worth the money.

The main benefit to a CRT vs OSSC is for 480i - I have yet to find a setup that doesn't look like crap and/or lags too much on a flat panel. CRTs are beautiful in 480i and if you want to play PS2 games it's a much better option - there are plenty that still can't be forced to 480p. Also, the PS2/PS1 have some awesome light gun games and a CRT is a must for those.

Dreamcast/Xbox/Wii look absolutely brilliant through the OSSC if you dial in the setting right. The only downside with flat panels is motion blur, and it's up to you to decide whether or not the lower resolution and interlace flicker is worth it. I go back and forth, but usually I leave the Wii hooked up to the OSSC for convenience because it's in the living room and I can play it with my kids.

[cjug]

Good question. Lately, irrespective of screen size, I like traditional CRT for 480i and lower resolution, PC CRT for 480p and flat panel display for anything higher.

[fernan1234]

I feel like 480p is kind of an irrelevant case because, unlike 480i (or 480i line deinterlaced and doubled to 480p), real 480p content scales very nicely to higher resolutions, and with minimal lag on competent displays.

480i is definitely at home only on CRTs. Big fans of what deinterlacing at its best can do (Fudoh) will disagree though.

I really wish there was a monitor that could just do it all optimally. The closest I've seen are the widescreen multisync BVMs, which make everything look great, but 480p doesn't look as good as it can on PC CRTs or even flat panels with the right processing, and same goes for HD/full HD (@1080i). Other candidates are the older OLED PVMs and BVMs, which actually do a very nice job with 480i (but can't display 240p properly without external processing), and kinda blow out of the water any CRT for ED and HD (including 1080i).

Don't think we'll ever get anything in the consumer space that does it all.

[Bassa-Bassa]

Not everybody likes scaled-up graphics no matter how nicely it's done, though, and it's indeed something to avoid if you want graphic integrity (more is less in this case). The truth is, for the particular systems he's asking about, a 31khz CRT is the natural option, even if not-so-few games will require an extra (which he should contemplate if he's interested in older generations, anyway). But I agree that interlaced graphics have the 15khz (RGB) CRTs as the best approach, and then, he may even like it more than enough for 480p-compatible content, specially if he already has the required hardware or just want to take the inexpensive route.

[fernan1234]

Not everybody likes scaled-up graphics no matter how nicely it's done, though, and it's indeed something to avoid if you want graphic integrity (more is less in this case). The truth is, for the particular systems he's asking about, a 31khz CRT is the natural option, even if not-so-few games will require an extra (which he should contemplate if he's interested in older generations, anyway). But I agree that interlaced graphics have the 15khz (RGB) CRTs as the best approach, and then, he may even like it more than enough for 480p-compatible content, specially if he already has the required hardware or just want to take the inexpensive route.

I will say, and this may sound weird to many, that 480p "downscaled" to 480i for an SD/multisync CRT looks better than any upscaling solutions for it.

[orange808]

Not everybody likes scaled-up graphics no matter how nicely it's done, though, and it's indeed something to avoid if you want graphic integrity (more is less in this case). The truth is, for the particular systems he's asking about, a 31khz CRT is the natural option, even if not-so-few games will require an extra (which he should contemplate if he's interested in older generations, anyway). But I agree that interlaced graphics have the 15khz (RGB) CRTs as the best approach, and then, he may even like it more than enough for 480p-compatible content, specially if he already has the required hardware or just want to take the inexpensive route.

I will say, and this may sound weird to many, that 480p "downscaled" to 480i for an SD/multisync CRT looks better than any upscaling solutions for it.

With an Extron VSC, that's often true. (PS2 is a real pain in the arse, but that's been covered). The scan converter lets you take control of the entire interlacing process and customize the output to the source (and your preferences).

It's great to find your own personal comfort balance between sharpness and flicker.

[headlesshobbs]

I feel like 480p is kind of an irrelevant case because, unlike 480i (or 480i line deinterlaced and doubled to 480p), real 480p content scales very nicely to higher resolutions, and with minimal lag on competent displays.

Yeah when I put my Dreamcast on the LG at 960p it looks so crisp and detailed that I can't bring myself to go back to the other monitor, unless I get hypersensitive to motion blur for certain titles. Even better was the OSSC made all games thru component look just as good, but the one issue was if you even try native 480p pass-thru to crt, sometimes you might see something that looks akin to a scaling artifact and you'll want to either line-double that with scanlines + hybrid or run a FBX profile.

480i is definitely at home only on CRTs. Big fans of what deinterlacing at its best can do (Fudoh) will disagree though.

He's not wrong though. Like I said a set like mine has a real quality deinterlacer and it's the best thing in the world by comparison when your video looks to match vga without any of the issues present. This still makes it feel different because on the crt you get so used to the field rolling effect that for the most part you would be expecting to see that. However some crt's are a gamble because their interlace can have an effect that is just about as bad as bob-interlace, if not worse. I'm not sure what the set manufacturers advertised when it comes to the best in quality deinterlacing, but they always bring up comb filters.

[orange808]

However some crt's are a gamble because their interlace can have an effect that is just about as bad as bob-interlace, if not worse. I'm not sure what the set manufacturers advertised when it comes to the best in quality deinterlacing, but they always bring up comb filters.

For clarity, you're referencing the relationship between "line count" and flickering, correct?

A proper standard definition television will sort out the luma and chroma from composite, but it wouldn't perform any deinterlacing at all.

The size of the screen and sharpness of the display would affect what you see, but that's an interpretation of the source--and the source is ultimately responsible for what you see.