Framemeister Transition Screen change.

[EmperorZelos]

It shouldn't be such a huge hazzle one would think going 240p to 480i, why does it cause lags and such? I still don't know what to get, I already got the framemeister adding miniscule lag but it is barable, I am afraid to add something else that adds lag.

[Xyga]

why does it cause lags and such?

Math. Lag is all about bad formulas.

[EmperorZelos]

why does it cause lags and such?

Math. Lag is all about bad formulas.

Yeah but you'd think adding another set of lines into the signal and a blank screen perhaps or something shouldn't need that much

[EmperorZelos]

Are there any good line doublers that could perhaps do teh same job? get 240p or 480i signal and output 480p or 480i with minimal lag?

[Xyga]

Linedoublers better than the XRGB series ? No.
I suppose you've read Fudoh's website already, well have you seen any machine there outperforming those ?

[Ed Oscuro]

The confusion here is related to what a simple framedoubler does vs. what the Framemeister does.

Most any framedoubler should be faster and "outperform" any XRGB series machine (going all the way back to the original and the DISPL) in terms of input latency.

But those machines don't upscale to arbitrary resolutions or HDMI, both of which the Framemeister does, so the output won't be useful for your modern television. Simple linedoublers, as far as I can see, are basically obsolete for use with modern systems. They are useful in specific circumstances only. Actually, you could say the same thing about the Framemeister - the difference is just that it's serving different display technology, which happens to be newer.

[Xyga]

Well XRGBs are simple framedoublers, at least up to the 3 in B1 mode.

The Comm-Tec ans Vigatec units do framedoubling as well, and they're slower at performing transitions.
We already know the DVDO machines, whether they treat 240p as is or 480i, are slower too.

I'll put more machines to test in the coming weeks but I'm pretty sure the results won't surprise me.
Only a combo (like XRGB+DVDO) supposedly can get rid of the transition problem, although not perfectly depending on the scenario. That's something I'll explore as well but to summarize, there aren't any devices, as far as we know, faster than XRGBs... which sadly aren't fast enough.

I don't know if adding and Extron interface in the chain would help, I don't have one unfortunately.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hmm, I thought the XRGB-2 series did more than simple linedoubling, as it has many options and outputs a 640x240 image. But probably that's right.

Certainly the Framemeister (and the XPC-4) is much more complicated than any of those previous designs, and has to do a lot more work.

Edit: OK, you're certainly right. From Fudoh's Micomsoft Special page:

The XRGB-2 is basically lag-free. It measures at around 1ms. The XRGB-3 in linedoubling mode is equally fast with a measured input delay of about 2ms . That's as good as it gets. Hardly any other processor can live up to those standards. Faroudja-based processors (which are the next best thing in 240p processing quality) always have a 2-frame delay (about 30 to 32ms). In upscaling mode the XRGB-3 increases it's delay to 22ms. That's very close to the Framemeister, which clocks in at 24ms. The XPC-4 is a little bit faster than those two. It's processing time measures at about one frame (16ms ). To make use the XRGB-2 and 3's ultra low processing delay you require an analogue VGA input on your monitor or TV.

Those fast output times seem to be the result of a linedoubling approach. I wonder how the various other linedoubler designs and similar perform.

[Xyga]

I think the differences between doublers lie in whether it's field or frame doubling, if the output's forced or not to 640x480/720x480 with cut lines or borders, and if there's some degree of framerate conversion or stabilization/buffering.

There are a number of other features depending on the machine but that's still linedoubling.
Quality of the parts/chips and engineer's skills determine the overall peformance, but of course if no special attention was paid to resolution switching in the design it's no suprise we're having a hard time finding even one doubler or scaler that's good at the job.

It's just as you say: those are obsolete, we can't blame the guys who made most of those machines for not thinking about the future of console gaming on flat panels.
Still, Micomsoft might be the only company in the world actually caring a little bit about this stuff because aging geeky gamers are part of their customer base, but I'm a bit disappointed with the Frame Meister.
Even though it's got astounding picture quality it doesn't really feel like it was designed much with gaming in mind, not as much as the previous hardwares at least.
Hopefully we'll see an XRGB-4 that will correct all the 'flaws'. Someday...

[Ed Oscuro]

I think the differences between doublers lie in whether it's field or frame doubling,

Yes, agreed. I was thinking of mentioning this in my post and couldn't remember details. I felt that even 1ms seemed actually a bit high - in terms of reaction time though, certainly pretty acceptable. I think that the theoretical minimum for a field doubler must be something like 2x 1/240th of a second + n, which is potentially well below 1ms. Frame doubling of course limits you to 16ms right off the bat. The XPC-4 is performing about as well as can be expected there. This crazy world we live in - there's probably arguments for having modern hardware operate on a field or frame basis (and the same is true for modern graphics rendering, though most approaches now are frame based) but there'd be arguments against both as well.

[Crafty+Mech]

I think that the theoretical minimum for a field doubler must be something like 2x 1/240th of a second + n, which is potentially well below 1ms.

~127us to be more precise, which is the horizontal scan frequency of 15.72k rgb (63.6us) X 2.

[Ed Oscuro]

Good stuff. What's the output time like on your current design, if that's been tested, just as a point of comparison with an earlier XRGB?

[Crafty+Mech]

Good stuff. What's the output time like on your current design, if that's been tested, just as a point of comparison with an earlier XRGB?

My design latency estimate currently comes from what I have observed while debugging using a logic analyzer, and that is ~ 1/4 the horizontal scan period. So around an additional 16us, for a total of ~ 145us (rounding up to the nearest 5).

So in terms of ms, that is .145 milliseconds.

It should be noted of course this is pure line doubling, so if 320x240 goes in, the only possible output is 640x480.

I imagine the XRGB series line doubler had similar specs (sub 1ms), but microseconds(us) is not a very commonly understood time interval, so they just rounded up to 1ms.

[Fudoh]

Micomsoft never stated official lags (except that lousy Framemeister to XRGB B0 comparison once), but when measured the XRGB1/2/2+s actually clock in at about 1ms and the XRGB-3 a little under 2ms. There're the conversion stages (A/D and D/A), the filtering and the image control stage and I guess there's a little delay in each of them (a few lines) and they just add up.

[EmperorZelos]

so XRGB2 is good then?

[Xyga]

Well of course it's good, it hasn't been one of the most sought-after by gamers for years for nothing.

But keep in mind all XRGBs have their pros and cons.

The 2's picture quality isn't as good as the 3's, it's not as sharp and 'clean', but it can handle more hardwares (most arcade pcbs for instance, when the 3 has limited compatibility).
If it's transition times you're looking at then you can check my measurements on the previous page.
2 does 240>480i faster than 3, but 3 is a little better at 480i>240p and produces a more steady performance in this field.
Still not fast enough but again this can be fixed to some extent by chaining with a DVDO machine.

Speaking about 480i alone you shouldn't expect a brilliant performance, aside from the Frame Meister no XRGB is able to produce a beautiful, stable picture by itself.
As explained by Fudoh they keep on doing field doubling by taking only half the resolution, so it's fast, but blockier and shaky (adding scanlines via an additional SLG fixes the problem though).

I could go on like this paraphrasing Fudoh but that won't help, there's no single device that's good at everything, you have to think about your needs and your budget first.

If you want a setup that's 'good enough' in every field then consider buying two machines: an old XRGB (2 or 3) plus a DVDO scaler like the VP30+ABT102, VP50pro or Edge.
Or you can look for a DVDO first and wait for Crafty's BitBlitz to become available (which you'll use in place of an old XRGB).
Basically the XRGB will handle 240p sources, routed to the DVDO for better stability, compatibility and connectivity while being able to correct slow transitions as well (although most scenarios have yet to be fully tested and measured). And if you wish to have a better picture quality to replay your PS2 titles like all the great RPGs for instance, you'll be able to wire the console directly to the DVDO and get a significantly more beautiful 480i compared to what an old XRGB can produce by itself.

That's an expensive solution. But if you're ready to put money into it there are other ways, like buying a competent display like the Sony W6 or W8 televisions both which already integrate a great scaler, and wire most of your consoles to it using transcoders and converters in place of external scalers. It's a bit tricky but I believe Fudoh will publish an article about this sometime this year.

Hey you know, there's also the solution of buying a good CRT or two. They're old, heavy, but if you spend enough time looking for some in great shape there's nothing that can beat those. And you'll save money.

[Ed Oscuro]

so XRGB2 is good then?

I just stopped using mine because if you're going to get a CRT, you might as well go the full distance and get a CRT that can take the RGB signals natively, and deal with boards that have unusual refresh rates (some boards I have won't show on the "Multisync" - NEC brand - PC VGA CRT monitor I use with the XRGB2). These boards seem to be rare, though; I got everything to play that I've tried with the exception of Raiden II.

However, it's a good box. If you have stuff with VGA inputs and don't have luck getting a PVM or similar monitor, then the XRGB 2 will do.