4K Blues

[SGGG2]

I recently purchased a 4K 55" LG 55EF9500 OLED and had originally planned to replace my 1080p 51" Samsung Plasma PN51D8000.

First, the good stuff. Black levels are insane, since the pixels aren't being lit they literally disappear in a dark room. Passive 3D gaming on Windows is frankly unreal -- the resolution is so high horizontal image loss is negligible, and the interlace lines are almost invisible. It works great with Tridef and Nvidia 3D Vision via an EDID override.

However, the quality of 480p and 720p games (Dreamcast, 360, Wii U), whether fed directly into the set or into either of my scalers (Optoma HD3000, Gefen Scaler Plus) leaves much to be desired. Black levels aside, overall picture quality's several steps down from Plasma, or even LCD. I think it's mostly due to scaling, since everything looks smeared. 2015 LG OLEDs also have issues resolving near blacks, so there's detail loss. To be fair, it looks decent enough at a distance, but not nearly as nice as plasma.

Sold my XRGB-3, so I can't test 240p content, but until we get good scaling, either via TV firmware or external devices, I can't recommend 4k displays for legacy gaming.

I've contacted LG support about adding integer scaling in a future firmware update, I urge other 4k owners to do the same.

[bobrocks95]

Really sad to hear that even 720p quality is poor. People on here talk a lot about how 4K will be great for scaling because artifacts will be less apparent, but it doesn't mean anything until manufacturers put in at least halfway decent scaling engines. I'd expect a lot better from a $2,000+ TV.

[ZellSF]

Really sad to hear that even 720p quality is poor. People on here talk a lot about how 4K will be great for scaling because artifacts will be less apparent, but it doesn't mean anything until manufacturers put in at least halfway decent scaling engines. I'd expect a lot better from a $2,000+ TV.

4K will be great for scaling because of less artifacts, and more scaling options once standalone scalers become available.

That is if they're using equal quality scalers (don't have to be better) to 1080p TVs, which apparently some 4K TVs do not.

The very few reports so far that 4K scalers look bad aren't really enough to convince me they've messed up the scalers on even a majority of 4K TVs though. Could still be just a few isolated cases.

However, the quality of 480p and 720p games (Dreamcast, 360, Wii U), whether fed directly into the set or into either of my scalers (Optoma HD3000, Gefen Scaler Plus) leaves much to be desired.

Do remember that the 360 and Wii U have internal scalers that should be avoided when possible if you want optimal results. If you're playing a 720p Wii U game, you should set the Wii U to output 720p. Likewise if you're playing a 720p (and I recommend you check that it's EXACTLY 720p) 360 game you should set the 360 to output 720p.

[orange808]

The iscan micro is getting very cheap and it scales to 4k. You might give it a try.

[Xyga]

Really sad to hear that even 720p quality is poor. People on here talk a lot about how 4K will be great for scaling because artifacts will be less apparent, but it doesn't mean anything until manufacturers put in at least halfway decent scaling engines. I'd expect a lot better from a $2,000+ TV.

4K will be great for scaling because of less artifacts, and more scaling options once standalone scalers become available.

When they do 8K will be about to go mainstream.

That is if they're using equal quality scalers (don't have to be better) to 1080p TVs, which apparently some 4K TVs do not.

Once again trying to do good fractional scaling to 4K is pointless, scalers manufacturers know it, so they just stretch and slap any smeary shit over it, and it's integrated into the sets anyway, not worth making standalone home cinema ones that will do the exact same job for considerably more $.

The very few reports so far that 4K scalers look bad aren't really enough to convince me they've messed up the scalers on even a majority of 4K TVs though. Could still be just a few isolated cases.

People don't know what to look for, reviews only give BS opinions about still photos that don't tell shit, it's no surprise that it's retrogamers finding what's wrong with today's scaling implementation on most 4K sets, and it really do sucks on many, save for the Sony as far as we've seen.

Do remember that the 360 and Wii U have internal scalers that should be avoided when possible if you want optimal results. If you're playing a 720p Wii U game, you should set the Wii U to output 720p. Likewise if you're playing a 720p (and I recommend you check that it's EXACTLY 720p) 360 game you should set the 360 to output 720p.

TVs can do a worse job at scaling 720p to 1080p than the 360 does, I've seen it enough times to know it's real.
Then seeing how many 4K sets do less damage scaling 1080p rather than 720p that 'rule' is probably even more hazardous here.

[ZellSF]

People don't know what to look for, reviews only give BS opinions about still photos that don't tell shit, it's no surprise that it's retrogamers finding what's wrong with today's scaling implementation on most 4K sets, and it really do sucks on many, save for the Sony as far as we've seen.

Where are we getting "many" from? Also, I've seen a LG 4K OLED and it looked decent. Not excellent of course, but not worse than 1080p displays either.

TVs can do a worse job at scaling 720p to 1080p than the 360 does, I've seen it enough times to know it's real.

Uh that's meaningless in the context of 4K scaling. If you let the 360 scale to 1080p you're introducing one more lossy scaler.

720p>1080p>4K looks worse than 720p>4K.

[SGGG2]

Do remember that the 360 and Wii U have internal scalers that should be avoided when possible if you want optimal results. If you're playing a 720p Wii U game, you should set the Wii U to output 720p. Likewise if you're playing a 720p (and I recommend you check that it's EXACTLY 720p) 360 game you should set the 360 to output 720p.

Of course they're set to 720p, lol.

[Xyga]

@Zell; I was about to write another long post but no, no need to argue over this we already know we have completely opposite opinions on the matter. It'll go nowhere.

[orange808]

When the arguing is over, you have to find what makes you happy. In this case, it's time to look into some 4k scalers and feed that television a native 4k input.

Has anyone here spent any time with 4k scalers?

[Xyga]

Has anyone here spent any time with 4k scalers?

There are none worth being called that, because they're useless to make, and people are satisfied with blurred imperfect multiples.

[pegboy]

In my limited experience 4k absolutely sucks for classic gaming. In theory it should be awesome but in practice its horrendous.

[Woozle]

Hi Def NES looked amazing on my Dad's cheap 4K Vizio. All edges were very sharp. 720p from the framemeister looked great as well.

[nissling]

If you increase the RGB-levels equally on 5IRE you can bring out more shadow details and prevent black crush. Make sure first that you've set the black level properly.

Personally I think the current and even last year's OLEDs completely run over even the best Plasmas (the Pioneer Kuro doesn't stand a chance, though ZT60 is probably in the same ballpark). The OLEDs have much better contrast, anti-glare filter and completely lack dithering/PWM as well as RBE. Compared to LCDs they offer better motion for 60p sources (excellent for gaming) and gives a much more revealing image, plus contrast again. I'd say LCDs have the pro of giving better shadow detail and thanks to the transmissive display suits a bright environment better. However I don't see much reason sticking to plasmas rather than OLEDs, but I've never been a fan of them either.

My main bug with OLEDs are some uniformity issues which are mainly visible on test patterns but they're still there. For most of the time you don't think about it. With 2016 years models it seems like most of these issues are more or less gone, and we've seen it on both LCDs and Plasmas for years anyway.

[FinalBaton]

I really like plasmas for gaming (not going to give scientific reasons here, or state that they are better than this tech or that tech; just stating my preference).

Great blacks and great shadow detail, and fast motion handling.
I also like plasmas for watching sports and movies as well. Great all around performer.



I have yet to see an OLED though and I'm really curious to see retro games on it

[Fudoh]

Regarding 4K scalers: I doubt that anybody here is interested in a video scaler for 8 grand like the Radiance Pro.

Affordable 4K scalers include the iScan Micro (rubbish), the iScan Mini (quite nice, but very limited compared to other DVDOs, so it's more like an add-on) and the 4K Linker by HD Fury (around 200 EUR, 1080p to 4K Scaling, so again more like an add-on).

[nissling]

I have yet to see an OLED though and I'm really curious to see retro games on it

The XRGB-Mini performs fantastic on my OLED (910V). It made me put away my CRTs for good. Playing Chrono Trigger on a 1chip SFC/Snes or Radiant Silvergun on an OLED along with a good scaler is kind of what retro gaming is all about for me at least.

Did recently got to calibrate a Pioneer PDP-LX5090H and while it's certainly great for a 2008 year's display, it cannot hold a candle against an OLED. Not overly impressed by it actually.

[FinalBaton]

I have yet to see an OLED though and I'm really curious to see retro games on it

The XRGB-Mini performs fantastic on my OLED (910V). It made me put away my CRTs for good. Playing Chrono Trigger on a 1chip SFC/Snes or Radiant Silvergun on an OLED along with a good scaler is kind of what retro gaming is all about for me at least.

Did recently got to calibrate a Pioneer PDP-LX5090H and while it's certainly great for a 2008 year's display, it cannot hold a candle against an OLED. Not overly impressed by it actually.

I am going to go straight from plasma to OLED.

My Panasonic ST50 looks glorious and has low lag. And I'm not interested in LCDs.
I'm staying with the ST50 until I get an OLED in 2 years or so from now.

[orange808]

Regarding 4K scalers: I doubt that anybody here is interested in a video scaler for 8 grand like the Radiance Pro.

Affordable 4K scalers include the iScan Micro (rubbish), the iScan Mini (quite nice, but very limited compared to other DVDOs, so it's more like an add-on) and the 4K Linker by HD Fury (around 200 EUR, 1080p to 4K Scaling, so again more like an add-on).

Yes, the Radiance Pro is too much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Linker seems to be getting the most use and development as a downscaler...

Do you think a DVDO processor that outputs 1080p would help with bad 4k scalers? In theory, converting 1080p to 4k should be (relatively) trivial. Of course, I'm betting the television will not apply some kind of unnecessary filter to all upscaled video--regardless of the situation--so I might (just) be naive...

edit: I am naive. I see he already tried an Optima HD3000. So, the 1080p to 4k is just broken.

That sucks.

[BONKERS]

This is what happens with scaling at such high ratios with low res 2D Sprite based or low res 3D rendered games.

The higher the ratio, the worse the upscaling looks.

1080p alone is 2x2 and that looks bad on most 4k TV sets with 1080p console games. (Play a PC game on a 1080p set with a custom 960x540 resolution without AA or with just FXAA and you'll get a similar idea of how it looks)
(Hence PS4P, they are trying to get slightly better upscaling with higher res rendering, and then using CBR to interpolate and fill in the gaps. But then that comes with it's own artifacts. )

[ZellSF]

This is what happens with scaling at such high ratios with low res 2D Sprite based or low res 3D rendered games.

The higher the ratio, the worse the upscaling looks.

That's not how it works.

You have to redraw a image, the bigger the surface you get to redraw it to, the more accurate you can make the redrawing.

That a 4K scaler looks worse than a 1080p scaler is not "what happens", it's a serious defect in the scaler.

1080p alone is 2x2 and that looks bad on most 4k TV sets with 1080p console games. (Play a PC game on a 1080p set with a custom 960x540 resolution without AA or with just FXAA and you'll get a similar idea of how it looks)

No you will not. A 960x540 image scaled to 1920x1080 looks nowhere similar to a 1920x1080 image scaled to 3840x2160.

There's a 4X difference in both the quality of the source image and the size of the surface you redraw it to. Both very important factors for scaling quality.

Do you think a DVDO processor that outputs 1080p would help with bad 4k scalers? In theory, converting 1080p to 4k should be (relatively) trivial. Of course, I'm betting the television will not apply some kind of unnecessary filter to all upscaled video--regardless of the situation--so I might (just) be naive...

TVs probably upscale using their upscaling algorithm no matter the circumstances, they won't intelligently pick a integer scale factor (and one isn't always desirable) no.

You'll just end up introducing one more lossy (and laggy) scaling step. The end result can still potentially look better, but I wouldn't say it's a good idea.

Now a XRGB-mini or OSSC that can do integer scaling that's better for 2D scaling might end up with a better end result, since they don't actually distort the image as part of their scaling process. I don't think it looks good for 3D content though, but might be preferable to your TV's scaling.

[Xyga]

Yah, either a kind of OSSC supporting clean multiples relevant to a 4K real estate, or an improved iScan Mini as an 'addon' to the OSSC.

There's no need for me to state again how I couldn't care less about actual fractional scaling + processing over 4K, but that ^ I definitely expect to see one day.

[Elrinth]

I have a 4K sony... I can recommend it for gaming (and retro gaming) ofcourse, all my consoles are running thru a framemeister

[FinalBaton]

There seems to be 2 schools of thought here

Some who think that 4K being a higher resolution allows for a better drawn upscaled image

And some who think that 4k, since it represents an even bigger gap with 240p/480i, is by default gonna end up less accurate then 1080p for upscaled SD content. Basically stating that upscaling of 240p games is not gonna be better on 4k than it is on 1080p.



I don't have a firm opinion yet (never seen upscaled retro game on a 4k panel), but my instinct leers me towards the second option I think.

Excellent 4k scalers for SD material are probably possible, but they'll be expensive. And I'm not sure if SD stuff is gonna look better on 4K than on 1080p.

[nissling]

One thing that would be great with 4K TVs is that 240p content can be scaled 10X, giving room for perfect scanlines and razor sharp sprites. With 1080p, you'll either have 4X scaling which doesn't fill the screen or 5X scaling which gives an uneven amount of scanlines. I'd buy an XRGB-4K anyday.

[ZellSF]

There seems to be 2 schools of thought here
Some who think that 4K being a higher resolution allows for a better drawn upscaled image

That's not a school of thought. That's basic math. How well display manufacturers are handling it is what people are divided on.

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I can guarantee that there are people already that think 4K is bad for image quality, when it's just the scaling algorithm used by the 4K screen they got that is the problem. It's a very important distinction. Attribute scaling problems to the manufacturer, not the resolution standard.

[FinalBaton]

There seems to be 2 schools of thought here
Some who think that 4K being a higher resolution allows for a better drawn upscaled image

That's not a school of thought. That's basic math. How well display manufacturers are handling it is what people are divided on.

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I can guarantee that there are people already that think 4K is bad for image quality, when it's just the scaling algorithm used by the 4K screen they got that is the problem. It's a very important distinction. Attribute scaling problems to the manufacturer, not the resolution standard.

What I mean is : a 1080p raster is fine enough to draw low-res sprites in full detail.
So the extra dpi of 4k don't matter in this application.

[nissling]

Even scanlines in 4K versus uneven scanlines in 1080p doesn't matter?

[FinalBaton]

Even scanlines in 4K versus uneven scanlines in 1080p doesn't matter?

wasn't aware that scanlines in 1080p were uneven!

[nissling]

For a 240p source you can either scale 4x or 5x to keep it integer. Thing is that with 5x scale you will either have two or three scanlines for each line with data which makes it uneven as each line is multiplied by five. With a 10x scale, you will have five black lines for each five lines of data making the scanlines perfected.

[Xyga]

Attribute scaling problems to the manufacturer, not the resolution standard.

And allow me to annoy you some more but just so we're clear; that's what I do too.
I just don't share your faith that they will ever take advantage of the higher resolution introducing newer algorithms that would really, and efficiently, fit our needs with retro game sources.
They have all that real estate but for us things didn't change in the way you hope for, it's the scenario of the Full-HD era all over again, sure Sony do better as always, and the high-end damn expensive Samsung and Panasonic for instance might have some more refined upscaling I haven't seen, dunno, I just haven't seen in person any of those big shots perform in a way that speaks... but the average 4K set today, I did, and it doesn't do immensely better than the average PC monitor, I wouldn't say it's as bad, but the degradation, the loss of details is still visible-enough, way too often for comfort, that I'm just baffled when I read websites like Rtings stating the difference between native 1080p and >4K upscaled 1080p is indistinguishable, or Cnet saying it even makes 1080p look more detailed. They're just as dumb as the people thinking it's the nature of the 4K standard to make everything lower res look bad.

On all of their 4K sets the manufacturers could at least offer the bare minimum of totally unprocessed multiples, x2 and x3, those would still be useful to us, but not one does afaik, not even Sony (a member mentioned a Panasonic option once but that's the only proof I've seen).
Would such settings break the bank or the telly ? Seriously I'm asking.
I can of course hear the voices complaining about the jaggies and pixelated looks, but it's about time we end that joke now, probably the average Joe will never get it and forever love the butterfest, but any retro games enthusiast who for some years has been caring at least a little bit about picture quality should have gotten by now that it's still better in the raw state - depending on the set very much so - than most friggin smeary shit looks that market has been forcing on everything we feed our displays.
Don't get me wrong I don't want to sound like an extremist who wants to see raw sharp pixels in absolutely every situation, my precise point is that if they don't care about offering a quality at least as good as Sony's, then why the hell not include those raw multiples options that shouldn't cost shit nor give the lamest engineer ever even a hint of a migraine ?