XRGB-mini Framemeister

[Fudoh]

The video appeared to be a sort of 3x scale as far as I could see. Will there be 4x and 5x overscanned options?

no, just 3x on the vertical and just with a special output timing, so it won't work on every TV. On the horizontal you get to choose the (integer) scaling factor. No 1080p output or 4x/5x vertically - that's due to the buffer (and lag-free) design.

Can it handle width correction with some sort of interpolation so the pixels stay uniform?

no.

What system was that game coming from, and would any RGB sourced system be that sharp?

Saturn. Yes, as long as the source signal is as good.

The basic idea is a little different to the Framemeister. I just wanted you to see the video, so you know what a new XRGB could achieve if they just ditched the Marvell and created a scaling engine on their own within the FPGA stage.

[Thomago]

Haaaahhhhh... I would readily throw another 400 bucks at a scaler that's like the Framemeister but without all its annoying shortcomings. Or even without only part of them.

[AndehX]

Haaaahhhhh... I would readily throw another 400 bucks at a scaler that's like the Framemeister but without all its annoying shortcomings. Or even without only part of them.

Yeah, although if they could sort out that subtle interference on solid colors and reduce the handshake time, I would be happy with that.

[Thomago]

Yeah, although if they could sort out that subtle interference on solid colors and reduce the handshake time, I would be happy with that.

Yeah, these are the major ones. Also I'd really like to see an option to control / turn off the LPF. Micomsoft could probably implement that right now, if they just wanted to.

[RGB32E]

Also I'd really like to see an option to control / turn off the LPF.

The setting exists already and is called IMAGE_MODE.

[Thomago]

The setting exists already and is called IMAGE_MODE.

Sorry, but the list is just wrong. MOVIE MODE has low frequency filtering going on, it's just not as blatantly obvious as for example in STANDARD MODE.

Looking at the list, there are other errors. You really shouldn't trust that one.

[FBX]

Yeah, although if they could sort out that subtle interference on solid colors and reduce the handshake time, I would be happy with that.

Yeah, these are the major ones. Also I'd really like to see an option to control / turn off the LPF. Micomsoft could probably implement that right now, if they just wanted to.

I went into a little more detail on which modes have LPF:

http://www.firebrandx.com/generalframemeisternotes.html

Basically "Picture" is clean of any filters and is best for 240p, while "Natural" is best for interlaced modes, although seems to mess with the color space (I spotted noise in the darker hues when switching to it). "Movie" mode would be just as clean as "Picture" for interlaced gaming, but it adds in a very faint film grain effect. I didn't even notice it was there until I got my eyes right up on my screen to spot it.

[RGB32E]

Sorry, but the list is just wrong. MOVIE MODE has low frequency filtering going on, it's just not as blatantly obvious as for example in STANDARD MODE.

Looking at the list, there are other errors. You really shouldn't trust that one.

What kind of garbage reply is that?! Looks like you quoted the wrong post. As most XRGB-mini users know, the various LPF settings are associated with Image Modes. If you have a problem with the wiki you can always update it, but that's a different topic!

[Thomago]

@FBX: For 240p and 288p, I don't see any LPF going on as well. But for 480i and 576i sources, I definitively see low frequency filtering going on: Everything's that's below a certain contrast threshold is a blurry mess.

@RGB32E: WTF

[FBX]

@FBX: For 240p and 288p, I don't see any LPF going on as well. But for 480i and 576i sources, I definitively see low frequency filtering going on: Everything's that's below a certain contrast threshold is a blurry mess.

You mean on "Picture" mode? Never tried interlaced sources on that mode because it seemed pointless due to the nasty combing artifacts that show up on moving images.

[Smashbro29]

Haaaahhhhh... I would readily throw another 400 bucks at a scaler that's like the Framemeister but without all its annoying shortcomings. Or even without only part of them.

I'd sell my framemeister once they set a release date and go without for a few months.

[Thomago]

You mean on "Picture" mode? Never tried interlaced sources on that mode because it seemed pointless due to the nasty combing artifacts that show up on moving images.

Yes, even in PICTURE MODE. As you said, PICTURE MODE and MOVIE MODE are equally clean, with the same amount of low pass filtering.
Actually, I took a closer look at some PS2 240p games and well... I can see low pass filtering there as well (it's quite obvious in darker areas). Of course, in SNES games and the like you won't see any of that, since, because of the games' low color depths, pixels with different color values are more or less certain to be above the LPF threshold.

[FBX]

You mean on "Picture" mode? Never tried interlaced sources on that mode because it seemed pointless due to the nasty combing artifacts that show up on moving images.

Yes, even in PICTURE MODE. As you said, PICTURE MODE and MOVIE MODE are equally clean, with the same amount of low pass filtering.
Actually, I took a closer look at some PS2 240p games and well... I can see low pass filtering there as well (it's quite obvious in darker areas). Of course, in SNES games and the like you won't see any of that, since, because of the games' low color depths, pixels with different color values are more or less certain to be above the LPF threshold.

Ah see what you mean. It would be nice to have a test pattern we could use to measure how bad it is on say the PS1 for example. I just tested with a SNES color gradient, and the cleanest were Picture and Movie (though movie has the film grain effect applied).

[Thomago]

Hehe... it's not really practicable, but in low, source-like resolutions, MOVIE MODE's film grain helps to hide the LPF's effects. Like the grain filter some here may know from the old DivX video codecs

[Smashbro29]

Hey FBX, I'm using the 320 Genesis profile on Sonic 1.

I know that people generally have to change the horizontal placement for their setup but I noticed something odd.

Here's a screen with the ZOOM_H_POS at 50 (the default):

Spoiler

Oh that looks like it needs to be shifted, here's 49:

Spoiler

Seems fixed, right? But not really because I can go all the way to 47:

Spoiler

Here it is at 46 just to be safe:

Spoiler

Any advice? I'm kinda splitting hairs but that's what we do.

Way too lazy for the pictures but I tried Radical Rex in the 256 mode.

47 showed the whole left, 49 the whole right.

[FBX]

In your case, 47 shows everything but about 75% of the right-most pixel. The Framemeister wouldn't let me custom-define the masking down to the perfect pixel, so that was the best compromise (believe me I tried). If you want to experiment with how much masking is applied on the horizontal axis, what you'll need to do is go into the Visual_Set options and adjust H_Width. This will reveal more or less of the horizontal overscan depending on which direction you adjust the value to. Just remember that changing the H-Width in Visual_Set means you then have to adjust the Zoom_H_Width to re-correct the aspect ratio. Also adjusting Visual_Set H_Width will throw the H_Position off, so you'll have to correct for that as well.

Edit:

I broke back out my Genesis and checked this, and no, you don't want to mess with the current mask setting. Even going one digit lower on the Visual_Set H_Width throws everything out of wack, and it reveals overscan anyway. The current value of 34 is as good as it gets. However, on my set, it's perfectly balanced with the Zoom_H_Position at default of 50. I'd suggest you try a value of 48 to see if it's any more balanced than 47. If it isn't, then I'd recommend sticking with 47.

Also for the record, this appears to be the 5x profiles you're using.

Edit 2:

Also make sure for 256 mode games, you use the 256 profiles. I assume that you are, but I wasn't sure about the Radical Rex comment.

Edit 3:

I took a picture of the game live on my LCD screen to show how the default 50 Zoom_H_Position looks on the 5x 320 profile:

Spoiler

You can see both edges just barely cut into the active pixels. That as close as it will get I'm afraid.

[Rongolian]

FBX, do you see flickering on your display when you use your PS2 RGB interlaced preset, then add scanlines? The flickering isn't sync-related, it's a rapid, consistent flashing.

I'm unsure if this is a problem with all interlaced sources and scanlines, or if there is some setting that fixes this.

I've also read that replacing the power supply can help with some flickering, but I think that was in relation to some colors being displayed. Just boot up a 480i game (I am using a PS2 slim) and add scanlines. Does anyone else get this flickering?

[Smashbro29]

In your case, 47 shows everything but about 75% of the right-most pixel. The Framemeister wouldn't let me custom-define the masking down to the perfect pixel, so that was the best compromise (believe me I tried). If you want to experiment with how much masking is applied on the horizontal axis, what you'll need to do is go into the Visual_Set options and adjust H_Width. This will reveal more or less of the horizontal overscan depending on which direction you adjust the value to. Just remember that changing the H-Width in Visual_Set means you then have to adjust the Zoom_H_Width to re-correct the aspect ratio. Also adjusting Visual_Set H_Width will throw the H_Position off, so you'll have to correct for that as well.

Edit:

I broke back out my Genesis and checked this, and no, you don't want to mess with the current mask setting. Even going one digit lower on the Visual_Set H_Width throws everything out of wack, and it reveals overscan anyway. The current value of 34 is as good as it gets. However, on my set, it's perfectly balanced with the Zoom_H_Position at default of 50. I'd suggest you try a value of 48 to see if it's any more balanced than 47. If it isn't, then I'd recommend sticking with 47.

Also for the record, this appears to be the 5x profiles you're using.

Edit 2:

Also make sure for 256 mode games, you use the 256 profiles. I assume that you are, but I wasn't sure about the Radical Rex comment.

Edit 3:

I took a picture of the game live on my LCD screen to show how the default 50 Zoom_H_Position looks on the 5x 320 profile:

Spoiler

You can see both edges just barely cut into the active pixels. That as close as it will get I'm afraid.

Oh of course, all I'll ever mess with in your profiles is the H_POS

I was using the 256 mode, it's why I even played Radical Rex.

Ok it is something you noticed too. Glad I'm not alone on it. Also, I got the H_POS thing down pat now don't I? Pretty cool.

[FBX]

Oh of course, all I'll ever mess with in your profiles is the H_POS

I was using the 256 mode, it's why I even played Radical Rex.

Ok it is something you noticed too. Glad I'm not alone on it. Also, I got the H_POS thing down pat now don't I? Pretty cool.

You mean Zoom_H_Pos, right? Visual_Set H_Pos is something you don't want to mess with unless you're willing to spend a few hours obsessively tweaking it combined withe Visual_Set_H_Width.

At any rate, can you post a pic of your issue with Radical Rex? I loaded the 5x 256 profile and tested it out. It's perfectly centered and masked on my end, but I need to see what's going on with yours.

[Smashbro29]

Oh of course, all I'll ever mess with in your profiles is the H_POS

I was using the 256 mode, it's why I even played Radical Rex.

Ok it is something you noticed too. Glad I'm not alone on it. Also, I got the H_POS thing down pat now don't I? Pretty cool.

You mean Zoom_H_Pos, right? Visual_Set H_Pos is something you don't want to mess with unless you're willing to spend a few hours obsessively tweaking it combined withe Visual_Set_H_Width.

At any rate, can you post a pic of your issue with Radical Rex? I loaded the 5x 256 profile and tested it out. It's perfectly centered and masked on my end, but I need to see what's going on with yours.

http://imgur.com/a/T9lBc

50 is default.

[FBX]

http://imgur.com/a/T9lBc

50 is default.

Oh I see now. When you said "whole left" and "whole right", I thought you were talking about the masking not covering up one side or the other of the overscan area. In this case, you're just talking about the single pixel shift in the image. 48 is your perfect center there as well, since it just begins to show the last pixel on either side. Again this is intended since the masking will expose way too much of the overscan area even going one value lower than 34.

So it's either live with the last pixel being somewhat obscured by the mask, or live with ugly overscan borders. 99.9% of people would prefer the former over the latter, but if you want, I can make a new profile that lowers the value to 33 and adjusts everything else to compensate. You'll end up with a couple lines of overscan boarder on either side though, so games like Sonic and Golden Axe will have those blue lines on the sides (depending on the stage).

[Smashbro29]

http://imgur.com/a/T9lBc

50 is default.

Oh I see now. When you said "whole left" and "whole right", I thought you were talking about the masking not covering up one side or the other of the overscan area. In this case, you're just talking about the single pixel shift in the image. 48 is your perfect center there as well, since it just begins to show the last pixel on either side. Again this is intended since the masking will expose way too much of the overscan area even going one value lower than 34.

So it's either live with the last pixel being somewhat obscured by the mask, or live with ugly overscan borders. 99.9% of people would prefer the former over the latter, but if you want, I can make a new profile that lowers the value to 33 and adjusts everything else to compensate. You'll end up with a couple lines of overscan boarder on either side though, so games like Sonic and Golden Axe will have those blue lines on the sides (depending on the stage).

Oh no, it's fine to lose half a pixel from either side I just wasn't sure if you noticed.

[FBX]

Oh no, it's fine to lose half a pixel from either side I just wasn't sure if you noticed.

Oh I definitely noticed. Spent an entire evening trying to get around it, but there just wasn't any better setting. In the end I decided I'd rather lose the half-pixel than see those ugly colored borders.

[austin532]

FBX, do you see flickering on your display when you use your PS2 RGB interlaced preset, then add scanlines? The flickering isn't sync-related, it's a rapid, consistent flashing.

I'm unsure if this is a problem with all interlaced sources and scanlines, or if there is some setting that fixes this.

I've also read that replacing the power supply can help with some flickering, but I think that was in relation to some colors being displayed. Just boot up a 480i game (I am using a PS2 slim) and add scanlines. Does anyone else get this flickering?

It happens with any 480i game. It tends to get vary depending on how dark the scanlines are.

[desram]

FBX, do you see flickering on your display when you use your PS2 RGB interlaced preset, then add scanlines? The flickering isn't sync-related, it's a rapid, consistent flashing.

I'm unsure if this is a problem with all interlaced sources and scanlines, or if there is some setting that fixes this.

I've also read that replacing the power supply can help with some flickering, but I think that was in relation to some colors being displayed. Just boot up a 480i game (I am using a PS2 slim) and add scanlines. Does anyone else get this flickering?

It happens with any 480i game. It tends to get vary depending on how dark the scanlines are.

I've seen this as well. Haven't looked at it in a while but its tied very closely with your scanline setting and 720vs1080 output (which is probably just affecting the scanlines further). Really having trouble finding PS2 settings I'm happy with.

[Cirventhor]

I haven't been able to wrap my head around the differnce of normal2 vs standard screen settings.

On PS2 and Wii VC normal2 is slightly wider than standard. Standard on the other hand seems too narrow - maybe 1:1 pixels without adjusting for non-square pixels?

Which setting is the most accurate in terms of how the games were displayed on actual CRT's with non-square pixels?

[FBX]

Which setting is the most accurate in terms of how the games were displayed on actual CRT's with non-square pixels?

Turning ZOOM to "On" and using ZOOM_WIDTH to adjust for a perfect 4:3 image. How you do this is physically measure the vertical size of the image on your display, then multiply that by 1.3333 and that tells you how wide the image needs to be for 4:3. Then you adjust ZOOM_WIDTH until the image matches that number. Example:

1. You measure the vertical image on your large HDTV, and it comes out to 30 inches.

2. 30 inches x 1.3333 gives you 39.999, or basically 40 inches.

3. Adjust ZOOM_WIDTH until the horizontal width of the image equals 40 inches.

Presto. You now have a perfect 4:3 CRT aspect ratio.

[Cirventhor]

Thanks for the reply - that's a great idea.

However, wouldn't this cause issues with games/systems that use odd resolutions or underscan (e.g. Final Fantasy VII at 320x224 instead of 240)? The PS2 has horizontal underscan, so it's a bit hard to measure the exact dimensions of the frame to get a true 4:3 ratio unless you can just measure the active parts of the frame and adjust width. Another thing is games designed with letterboxing in mind.

[FBX]

Thanks for the reply - that's a great idea.

However, wouldn't this cause issues with games/systems that use odd resolutions or underscan (e.g. Final Fantasy VII at 320x224 instead of 240)? The PS2 has horizontal underscan, so it's a bit hard to measure the exact dimensions of the frame to get a true 4:3 ratio unless you can just measure the active parts of the frame and adjust width. Another thing is games designed with letterboxing in mind.

You get around this by using a game that doesn't use letterboxing. For example on the N64, it has a base 320x240 output image (setting aside 480i mode), and then simply blacks out unused portions for games that don't go the full resolution. Mario 64 is 224, so the top and bottom have a black border, while DK64 has a border on all sides of the image. I just made sure to set the ZOOM_Width based on an actual 320x240 game. That kept all other funky res games in line with it in terms of how they would have behaved on a 4:3 screen.

In the case of the SNES, I went with the pixel width measured from the console itself, which ended up being a 288x224 aspect ratio if you were to imagine the 256 pixels stretched out. The resolution converted to 1.2857, and so I used that as the multiplier of my vertical height to derive width from.

The PS2 does indeed have a rather wide variety of image positioning. I found games were either bottom-centered, mid-centered, and even top-centered. I recall abandoning any attempts to zero in on a 'perfect' setting and just left the screen padded on the top and bottom to account for the variance from game to game.

[Smashbro29]

Thanks for the reply - that's a great idea.

However, wouldn't this cause issues with games/systems that use odd resolutions or underscan (e.g. Final Fantasy VII at 320x224 instead of 240)? The PS2 has horizontal underscan, so it's a bit hard to measure the exact dimensions of the frame to get a true 4:3 ratio unless you can just measure the active parts of the frame and adjust width. Another thing is games designed with letterboxing in mind.

You get around this by using a game that doesn't use letterboxing. For example on the N64, it has a base 320x240 output image (setting aside 480i mode), and then simply blacks out unused portions for games that don't go the full resolution. Mario 64 is 224, so the top and bottom have a black border, while DK64 has a border on all sides of the image. I just made sure to set the ZOOM_Width based on an actual 320x240 game. That kept all other funky res games in line with it in terms of how they would have behaved on a 4:3 screen.

In the case of the SNES, I went with the pixel width measured from the console itself, which ended up being a 288x224 aspect ratio if you were to imagine the 256 pixels stretched out. The resolution converted to 1.2857, and so I used that as the multiplier of my vertical height to derive width from.

The PS2 does indeed have a rather wide variety of image positioning. I found games were either bottom-centered, mid-centered, and even top-centered. I recall abandoning any attempts to zero in on a 'perfect' setting and just left the screen padded on the top and bottom to account for the variance from game to game.

Do you feel anything special needs to be done for N64 games that support widescreen?