RetroTink 4K All But Officially Announced ....

[Fudoh]

This is an example of non-integer scaled 240p. Looks fine at first glance, but then you notice the "waves" of uneven scanlines

that's simply broken scaling.

You get nothing like that on the Retrotink. With any kind of CRT filter you'll have VERY hard time to actually see the difference between an integer scale and a non-integer one.

Without any CRT filter it gets more obvious, but even then the higher the scaling factor gets, the less noticable the difference will be. Still visible at 4.5 vs 5, but on a 9 vs 10 level it's getting really negligible.

[tongshadow]

Negligible, the difference between 1080p and 1440p can barely be noticed on this upclose shot, now Imagine sitting >6ft away from a 55" TV.
https://i.imgur.com/zsF95fr.jpeg

Only CRT filters could possibly benefit 2d sprite games to the 4k bump.

Hold on a second! Here is something you should think about.

A 1080p resolution monitor has a pixel density of 1920×1080, while a 1440p resolution monitor has a pixel density of 2560×1440. The higher pixel density of 1440p monitors means that images and graphics will appear sharper and more detailed on a 1440p display compared to a 1080p one. However, the image you linked doesn't make sense as a comparison because both resolutions are being upscaled to 4K by the LG TV's internal processing.

Therefore, all it tells us is that LG's processing of 1080p and 1440p looks very similar. The same may not be true if the same test were done with another display, such as Vizio or TCL, which typically have much worse scaling engines. In that case, the resolution difference could actually make a big difference, depending on the display and its internal scaling capabilities. Another important note is that not all consumer TVs properly support 1440p. Some can be forced to display a 1440p signal through editing the EDID info, but many won't even show the signal.

We need both direct capture, and off-screen capture of the Tink 4K in action verse various other processing solutions.

Higher resolution makes a diference when rendering at native resolutions, but it stops being effective when upscaling low resolution 240p sources. Such sources are not very detailed by nature, so when you go past 4x or 5x integer scaling you're way beyond the point of diminishing returns. Moreover, because TVs are larger than ever, you're automatically forced to sit very far away and any minor differences or flaws due to the TVs scaler are impossible to notice due to our limited visual acuity.

Even though most 4K TVs cant scale 1080p properly, in my experience with the LG C2 and OSSC using 480p 2x and 480i 4x Bob, they do a better job scaling higher resolutions than 720p and lower.

If you need off-screen capture of the Retro4K, checkout's MLIG's recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8OSyfTGFw

[Josh128]

that's simply broken scaling.

You get nothing like that on the Retrotink. With any kind of CRT filter you'll have VERY hard time to actually see the difference between an integer scale and a non-integer one.

Au contraire mon frere. THAT IS from a Retrotink (5X) using 100% integer scanlines, attempting to scale 240p into a full 540p raster. Its the best you can get on that particular set without integer scaling to 2x, then stretching the raster to fill the screen. https://i.imgur.com/SolvSMW.jpg

Heres another with a full white screen w/ scanlines. https://i.imgur.com/Jeq4LY4.jpg

Even on my 1080p plasma with the 5X, anomalies and motion artifacts are discernable when filling the screen with a non-integer scale.

Without any CRT filter it gets more obvious, but even then the higher the scaling factor gets, the less noticable the difference will be. Still visible at 4.5 vs 5, but on a 9 vs 10 level it's getting really negligible.

At 240p, Im sure your right. At 480p, you are right back to 4.5 scaling. Id be willing to bet you I would be able to tell the difference between integer and non-integer scaling if scanlines were used.

[orange808]

Everyone knows you can't effectively upscale 240p to 540p without overscan or underscan. What's your point? If you're saying upscaling to 540p is the same thing as upscaling to 4k, you're bonkers.

[Josh128]

Everyone knows you can't effectively upscale 240p to 540p without overscan or underscan. What's your point? If you're saying upscaling to 540p is the same thing as upscaling to 4k, you're bonkers.

?? My point is exactly what I said, and I didnt say upscaling to 540p is the same as upscaling to 2160p. I said integer scaling is superior to non-integer scaling. At any resolution. Because it is, and theres no debating that.

[fernan1234]

?? My point is exactly what I said, and I didnt say upscaling to 540p is the same as upscaling to 2160p. I said integer scaling is superior to non-integer scaling. At any resolution. Because it is, and theres no debating that.

It's not superior if one of your priorities is avoiding both underscan and overscan as much as possible. It looks like with polyphase scaling we've moved on from the days of needing integer scaling, even when using detailed filters. Mike just posted on discord about how LCD pixel effects won't be needing integer scale anymore.

Is it possible that these filters will still look slightly better with integer scale when seen up close? Sure, but again it comes down to balancing priorities, and the difference may indeed be negligible after all.

[orange808]

Everyone knows you can't effectively upscale 240p to 540p without overscan or underscan. What's your point? If you're saying upscaling to 540p is the same thing as upscaling to 4k, you're bonkers.

?? My point is exactly what I said, and I didnt say upscaling to 540p is the same as upscaling to 2160p. I said integer scaling is superior to non-integer scaling. At any resolution. Because it is, and theres no debating that.

Sure. If we discard integer scaling values, a superficial graph of upscaling artifacts only hits zero (perfection) when my theoretical video lines reach infinity.

However, as Fudoh pointed out, there is a point where the difference becomes too small to be significant for most users.

[Josh128]

New video from Bob/RetroRGB on the 4K. This thing is the Cadillac of scalers. Very impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ep6sw0c8Y

[ldeveraux]

New video from Bob/RetroRGB on the 4K. This thing is the Cadillac of scalers. Very impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ep6sw0c8Y

How many grains of salt are required when reading this one?

[Josh128]

Not exactly sure what you mean there, but it looks very straightforward to me-- and Bobs video is apparently in 1440p or 4K, it looked incredibly sharp on my 32" 1440p monitor.

[VEGETA]

in his video he compared the tink4k vs bvm... he said they are nearly the same look but what i saw is that tink4k picture was very terrible compared to the bvm. maybe crt masks are overhyped due to selectively posted so close pictures?

[Guspaz]

I think that was just Bob picking a CRT mask and settings that didn't look much like the BVM. The RT4K can get a much closer match than that. My guess is that he did the RT4K version from memory or a distance, and only saw the macro side-by-side in editing, at which point it was too late.

[ldeveraux]

Not exactly sure what you mean there, but it looks very straightforward to me-- and Bobs video is apparently in 1440p or 4K, it looked incredibly sharp on my 32" 1440p monitor.

If you were replying to me, I meant is this a Bob review where he slobbers over a product because it's actually good, or because he was a beta tester and feels special, or because he's in bed with the creator who can do no wrong? There are other options, I just forgot

[Josh128]

in his video he compared the tink4k vs bvm... he said they are nearly the same look but what i saw is that tink4k picture was very terrible compared to the bvm. maybe crt masks are overhyped due to selectively posted so close pictures?

All BS aside, the colors are way off on the photos of the 4K vs the BVM. I dont know if its his camera, the TV settings, or the Tink settings, but Im 100% certain it will look better than that in reality.

[VEGETA]

well he did this video and was tiring for him, no way he missed the most important feature which is crt mask.

I think the crt masks are good and nice but not as advertised. there is a difference between a close up picture vs actual play imo. we'll see when people test it more.

[tongshadow]

in his video he compared the tink4k vs bvm... he said they are nearly the same look but what i saw is that tink4k picture was very terrible compared to the bvm. maybe crt masks are overhyped due to selectively posted so close pictures?

All BS aside, the colors are way off on the photos of the 4K vs the BVM. I dont know if its his camera, the TV settings, or the Tink settings, but Im 100% certain it will look better than that in reality.

Camera, OLEDs look terrible in pictures.

[fernan1234]

The CRT masks do become much more convincing when seen from a normal viewing distance instead of in close ups. Even the 5X's (and OSSC's) filters when set up properly on a 1080p panel could looked pretty authentic. These will be even better with more detail, and 4K will also enable filters that were not possible before like LCD type ones.

For the close ups to look the same as the phosphor masks we will need 16K panels and scalers (maybe 8K could be enough for simulating aperture grille, but slot and dot masks will need 16K).

Even though these CRT filters are getting all the attention, that's actually not the most revolutionary feature of the Tink4K though.

[spmbx]

Even though these CRT filters are getting all the attention, that's actually not the most revolutionary feature of the Tink4K though.

You're leaving us with a bit of a cliffhanger there

[ZellSF]

I would think the most revolutionary feature (that isn't in the product name) would be the BFI, no?

New video from Bob/RetroRGB on the 4K. This thing is the Cadillac of scalers. Very impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ep6sw0c8Y

Nice to see I'm not the only one wanting antialiasing. Especially with HDMI input that will be a huge improvement (consoles that output higher resolutions over HDMI have less false positives for post-processing antialiasing). Hope it happens.

Also nice to see the MiSTer FPGA compatibility, though I was really hoping for a mention of 480i, which the MiSTer currently sucks at. Any beta testers have checked if 480i passthrough works for the PSX core with the RetroTink 4K? I'm hoping that already works or is a matter of time, but I couldn't get it working with the Retrotink5X.

[fernan1234]

You're leaving us with a bit of a cliffhanger there

I would think the most revolutionary feature (that isn't in the product name) would be the BFI, no?

Custom BFI solutions are indeed the most revolutionary feature. None other than BlurBusters has been working quite a bit with Mike on this front.

Also nice to see the MiSTer FPGA compatibility, though I was really hoping for a mention of 480i, which the MiSTer currently sucks at. Any beta testers have checked if 480i passthrough works for the PSX core with the RetroTink 4K? I'm hoping that already works or is a matter of time, but I couldn't get it working with the Retrotink5X.

That sounds like a MiSTer problem. Obviously even the 5X is designed to take 480i inputs and scale them, so the 4K should be no different, other than maybe being more accepting of whatever weird output the MiSTer may be producing when passing through interlaced video. I do recall that sorg in particular was never big on MiSTer having interlaced output, but obviously cores for systems like PS1, and later Saturn and N64, make it necessary at least for the analog and direct video outputs.

By the way, how are you connecting your MiSTer to your 5X when trying to do this? Are you using HDMI direct video into a DAC, or are you using an analogue IO board? Are you able to display the passed-through 480i on a CRT?

[VEGETA]

what is custom about BFI?

what I understood of BFI is that it adds a black frame between each 2 frames effectively doubling frame rate. is this correct? won't this be darkening the image?

also, if smooth motion is desired why not just change the fps to 120 directly?

[SGGG2]

Nice to see I'm not the only one wanting antialiasing. Especially with HDMI input that will be a huge improvement (consoles that output higher resolutions over HDMI have less false positives for post-processing antialiasing). Hope it happens.

Antiailising on sub-1080p sources is not good, there simply isn’t enough information for a proper implementation. I’ve tried with both real consoles and emulation. You can see for yourself in any number of emulators set to native resolution. If the emulator itself doesn’t support AA, install ReShade. I believe emulators scale the image first before applying effects, but using ReShade for post processing will ensure it. CRT masks, scanlines and subtlety applied effects like gaussian blur, bilinear filtering and chromatic aberration - paired with sharpening effects, do a much better job of smoothing out rough areas while maintaining detail. For 720p sources and less, “antialiasing” is my least favorite form of antialiasing.

[tongshadow]

What you refer to as "anti aliasing" is just a filter that blurs the edges in an attempt to combat alised edge causes by interger scaling. The better solution would be using a pixel mask to simulate a native 720p/1080p display. This way you get an incredibly sharp upscaled picture without detail loss. It's the same principle of adding scanlines on upscaled 240p/480i (yes, I like bob deinterlacing+scanlines).

[SGGG2]

Yes, strictly speaking “antialiasing” is the technical term for these processes https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing ... i-aliasing.

Generally speaking, any effect that can approximate the desired result can be referred to as such. I specifically referenced CRT masks in my post!

[Bassa-Bassa]

If the emulator itself doesn’t support AA, install ReShade. I believe emulators scale the image first before applying effects, but using ReShade for post processing will ensure it.

What's the minimum added latency you can expect by using ReShade or any other shader?

[bobrocks95]

Going to ask Mike on twitter (Game Sack's video will probably cover it too) if LPCM 5.1 will be supported on the HDMI input, or if Wii U, Switch, and PS3 will need their audio routed separately...

[tongshadow]

Yes, strictly speaking “antialiasing” is the technical term for these processes https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing ... i-aliasing.

Generally speaking, any effect that can approximate the desired result can be referred to as such. I specifically referenced CRT masks in my post!

Well, I think it's better to refer to Anti-aliasing as the hardware-level implementation commonly seen on PC gaming. it gives better results with no drawbacks, barring performance.
Otherwise, even the Marseille cable (lol) or "whatever the fuck" the N64 does would be considered a form of AA.

[Konsolkongen]

Going to ask Mike on twitter (Game Sack's video will probably cover it too) if LPCM 5.1 will be supported on the HDMI input, or if Wii U, Switch, and PS3 will need their audio routed separately...

Please let us know

A shame Mike doesn’t visit this forum anymore :/

[ZellSF]

Nice to see I'm not the only one wanting antialiasing. Especially with HDMI input that will be a huge improvement (consoles that output higher resolutions over HDMI have less false positives for post-processing antialiasing). Hope it happens.

Antiailising on sub-1080p sources is not good, there simply isn’t enough information for a proper implementation.

I've played 720p titles that looked much better with SMAA. It's subjective where post-processing antialiasing gets too blurry and a bit content dependent how bad false positives are (small UI text for example). I've definitely seen people happy with 480p results with the mCable.

By the way, how are you connecting your MiSTer to your 5X when trying to do this? Are you using HDMI direct video into a DAC, or are you using an analogue IO board? Are you able to display the passed-through 480i on a CRT?

Well I'm not. 480i was the only thing I was hoping to get out of involving the Retrotink 5X. When I couldn't get it working I just went with direct HDMI to my display. I tried with both the analogue IO board and HDMI direct to a VGA adapter. I can't remember if I tried connecting directly to a display.

Anyway, since the the HDMI input makes the 4K feel like a more natural companion to the MiSTer, not requiring a separate board or DAC, I was hoping someone would have tested it. So I can feel worse about missing out on the first rounds of orders. I feel like this will sell out quickly, regardless of how expensive it is.

[Josh128]

Please let us know

A shame Mike doesn’t visit this forum anymore :/

Since when doesnt he visit anymore?