Subjectively I found the 640x480 VGA signal from a 90s PC to be handled better (or rather, less horribly) by an old 15" 1024x768 LCD compared to my current 23" 1920x1080 with pillarboxing. I also do prefer 720p PS3 games on the H4500 plasma as opposed to the 1080p PC monitor.Fudoh wrote:I don't doubt it, but USUALLY 1080p panels are better at upscaling (e.g. 480p or 720p) content than 768p panels
XRGB-mini Framemeister
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
subjectively last year's Samsung XGA plasma panels did a great job with Wii and Cube as well, but objectively (e.g. if you want to upscale even patterns like scanlines), more pixels don't hurt.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Right, but upscaling scanlines removes the TV/monitor's scaler from the equation as the source would be a Framemeister anyway (I recall FBX has created underscanned 1080p profiles which made the old 720p output obsolete for 1080p panels?).
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
On the topic of 1080p only displays - does anybody have updated opinions on large (above 30") 1080p or 4K PC monitors for consoles?
A scaler-free 1080p PC monitor would be great if only I was happy with 24" for console gaming, but I'm not.
I looked at available 1080p only PC monitors above 30" on Newegg, and there's only a few models. One is Panasonic, others unknown brands, and most are far too expensive to even consider (thousands of dollars), meant for digital signage and the like. There's no reviews of any of them.
Unfortunately, from looking at Rtings it appears you can't assume that 4K panels will upscale 1080p properly, even though one would expect simple pixel doubling should be easy. Not to mention that this adds a scaler and the possibility of lag.
On top of all that, I know from earlier this year that there weren't excellent gaming monitors above 30" and I doubt this has changed.
On a final related note, Rtings' current "low lag" tv picks are confusing me. Most of them have some serious flaws with viewing angle or slow pixel transitions.
A scaler-free 1080p PC monitor would be great if only I was happy with 24" for console gaming, but I'm not.
I looked at available 1080p only PC monitors above 30" on Newegg, and there's only a few models. One is Panasonic, others unknown brands, and most are far too expensive to even consider (thousands of dollars), meant for digital signage and the like. There's no reviews of any of them.
Unfortunately, from looking at Rtings it appears you can't assume that 4K panels will upscale 1080p properly, even though one would expect simple pixel doubling should be easy. Not to mention that this adds a scaler and the possibility of lag.
On top of all that, I know from earlier this year that there weren't excellent gaming monitors above 30" and I doubt this has changed.
On a final related note, Rtings' current "low lag" tv picks are confusing me. Most of them have some serious flaws with viewing angle or slow pixel transitions.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
What would be the advantage of that? Just slightly lower lag compared to the 1080p Sonys?
I think what you are looking for doesn't really make sense to most people... manufacturers would expect people using PC monitors to mostly sit right in front of them, and 30"+ and 1080p is really on the pixelated side there.
Besides, this isn't talked about much anywhere, but I feel like TVs might have better scaling performance than PC monitors, which would make sense as they are more expected to run non-native res content... Prad claims some monitors to have excellent interpolation performance (like mine) when the test pattern they show just looks like a blurry mess honestly. This is again mostly relevant for 480-720p content as for classic 240p signals I'd try to avoid non-integer scaling altogether.
I think what you are looking for doesn't really make sense to most people... manufacturers would expect people using PC monitors to mostly sit right in front of them, and 30"+ and 1080p is really on the pixelated side there.
Besides, this isn't talked about much anywhere, but I feel like TVs might have better scaling performance than PC monitors, which would make sense as they are more expected to run non-native res content... Prad claims some monitors to have excellent interpolation performance (like mine) when the test pattern they show just looks like a blurry mess honestly. This is again mostly relevant for 480-720p content as for classic 240p signals I'd try to avoid non-integer scaling altogether.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Well, I did include 4K; I'm not implacably opposed to a higher resolution panel. To be clear, I'm talking solely about running 1080p content.
We can expand a bit more on why we don't see more 1080p panels now: In HDTVs, the 4K push is just about strategic positioning, but that's enough to remove some 1080p-only contenders for the list. In new panel production, 30" was forecast for expanded production last year, as other (mainly smaller) sizes had saturated the market, but of this new production it's hard to see many panel makers being enthusiastic about betting their capacity on 1080p when they could capture more markets with a higher resolution panel, in the PC or TV market. I agree that overwhelmingly, the story has been that the market isn't there for such things; where they do exist, they seem to exist at a price premium because most people would demand more features - which ultimately lead to a lower end price as engineering and materials costs are dealt with by economies of scale.
It's become apparent there are some problems associated with using a scaler (or perhaps the more complex signal processing of HDTVs compared with fast monitors; I don't think latency when scaling lower resolutions on PC monitors is very well understood, but it seems low to me). Display Lag .com's lag list hasn't changed its major characteristic: The low-lag section fills up with monitors, but there's a sizable gap between the fastest HDTVs and the next-slowest monitors - currently, moving to a HDTV (or, taken another way, moving beyond 28") immediately means accepting 17ms of lag, instead of somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-13ms. That's a quarter frame of lag compared to the next slowest monitor (at 13ms) - not bad in of itself, but we want that figure as close to 0ms as possible. Not only is there lag, but there's also no guarantee of perfect scaling. Even on 4K sets, Rtings has complained about scaling quality from 1080p, which one would think is simple.
If I had to choose, I'd take slightly imperfect scaling and sharpness over accepting latency. And I'd take better general picture quality (especially blur trails and non-reflective panel coatings) over a bit of latency, as for mass-market HDTVs the offer seems to be that you get a full-featured OSD (even if you don't want it), now called a Smart TV, at the cost of some latency.
So, why the query? Well, it's simply "look for good stuff everywhere." So far what I've found hasn't been surprising: Few choices, high prices, probably old technology, no community knowledge. But it just remains possible that some newer panels in 30" or above will appear to fill the 1080p gap between new HDTVs and computer monitors. At the moment, it looks like the march of better-than-FHD will beat the march of technology in leading to affordable panels in the interim size. For many people, that's going to be great news - myself included, as far as getting a general-purpose computer monitor is concerned. And you're right - scaling and the lack of a 1080p native resolution aren't sufficient reasons to ignore particular panel types, even for 1080p console support (which, ironically enough, would ideally be 720p for many current console games - one has to draw the line somewhere).
We can expand a bit more on why we don't see more 1080p panels now: In HDTVs, the 4K push is just about strategic positioning, but that's enough to remove some 1080p-only contenders for the list. In new panel production, 30" was forecast for expanded production last year, as other (mainly smaller) sizes had saturated the market, but of this new production it's hard to see many panel makers being enthusiastic about betting their capacity on 1080p when they could capture more markets with a higher resolution panel, in the PC or TV market. I agree that overwhelmingly, the story has been that the market isn't there for such things; where they do exist, they seem to exist at a price premium because most people would demand more features - which ultimately lead to a lower end price as engineering and materials costs are dealt with by economies of scale.
It's become apparent there are some problems associated with using a scaler (or perhaps the more complex signal processing of HDTVs compared with fast monitors; I don't think latency when scaling lower resolutions on PC monitors is very well understood, but it seems low to me). Display Lag .com's lag list hasn't changed its major characteristic: The low-lag section fills up with monitors, but there's a sizable gap between the fastest HDTVs and the next-slowest monitors - currently, moving to a HDTV (or, taken another way, moving beyond 28") immediately means accepting 17ms of lag, instead of somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-13ms. That's a quarter frame of lag compared to the next slowest monitor (at 13ms) - not bad in of itself, but we want that figure as close to 0ms as possible. Not only is there lag, but there's also no guarantee of perfect scaling. Even on 4K sets, Rtings has complained about scaling quality from 1080p, which one would think is simple.
If I had to choose, I'd take slightly imperfect scaling and sharpness over accepting latency. And I'd take better general picture quality (especially blur trails and non-reflective panel coatings) over a bit of latency, as for mass-market HDTVs the offer seems to be that you get a full-featured OSD (even if you don't want it), now called a Smart TV, at the cost of some latency.
So, why the query? Well, it's simply "look for good stuff everywhere." So far what I've found hasn't been surprising: Few choices, high prices, probably old technology, no community knowledge. But it just remains possible that some newer panels in 30" or above will appear to fill the 1080p gap between new HDTVs and computer monitors. At the moment, it looks like the march of better-than-FHD will beat the march of technology in leading to affordable panels in the interim size. For many people, that's going to be great news - myself included, as far as getting a general-purpose computer monitor is concerned. And you're right - scaling and the lack of a 1080p native resolution aren't sufficient reasons to ignore particular panel types, even for 1080p console support (which, ironically enough, would ideally be 720p for many current console games - one has to draw the line somewhere).
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
The 1080p on 4K story is indeed a mystery, but if anything it shows that the processes going on in these monitors might be a lot more complex than what we think; after all, on consumer monitors we are also still mostly dealing with 18-bit color depth after all these years (with visible temporal dithering when going closer) so it's probably still not economically feasible to widely implement real 8-bit on some of these panel types; the same thing can probably said for other technical details like that.
As far as blur trails are concerned, personally I've re-discovered the overdrive setting on my 1080p IPS monitor; with the implementation apparently being mild enough the overshoot artifacts aren't very noticeable to me at all in most situations, while it undoubtedly helps a good deal against the blur in fast FPS games and such, which was definitely causing a bit of nausea for me at times. Overdrive is said to cause input lag of course, but personally I'm not really able to reproduce a clear difference when switching it on/off; perhaps the monitor is already decently fast enough, and for PC gaming at least there is the other issue of pre-rendered frames which you could set to 0 in older Nvidia drivers, but now it seems to be at a minimum of 1.
I too think AG coatings don't help image quality on LCDs, unless your monitor is really positioned against a window and/or you only use it in bright rooms; I remember the colors on some glossy screens to really "pop" much more than on my current light matte screen, particularily on some old Sony Vaio models, even if those might have been TN. I think it's common for FW900 owners to get rid of the coating as well.
As far as blur trails are concerned, personally I've re-discovered the overdrive setting on my 1080p IPS monitor; with the implementation apparently being mild enough the overshoot artifacts aren't very noticeable to me at all in most situations, while it undoubtedly helps a good deal against the blur in fast FPS games and such, which was definitely causing a bit of nausea for me at times. Overdrive is said to cause input lag of course, but personally I'm not really able to reproduce a clear difference when switching it on/off; perhaps the monitor is already decently fast enough, and for PC gaming at least there is the other issue of pre-rendered frames which you could set to 0 in older Nvidia drivers, but now it seems to be at a minimum of 1.
I too think AG coatings don't help image quality on LCDs, unless your monitor is really positioned against a window and/or you only use it in bright rooms; I remember the colors on some glossy screens to really "pop" much more than on my current light matte screen, particularily on some old Sony Vaio models, even if those might have been TN. I think it's common for FW900 owners to get rid of the coating as well.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I didn't read about overdrive causing input lag. What I understood is that it simply spikes each pixel address with more voltage than given for a "normal" transition, which doesn't seem to harm panel longevity but does cause crystals to twist faster than usual. There the downside is that overshoot causes the twists to be more severe than normal on some transitions, leading to prominent off-color places as the pixels recover from a transition (the typical result is that some moving logo type tests show dark patches behind a bright moving object). Of course, by my definition this can contribute to a form of input lag, where new pixel transitions don't come online fast enough due to overshoot, but there's no full-panel delay of pixels or setting up transitions in the first place.
I agree about AG coatings, though actually the one I'm using right now is a case where I'd take a slight hit in sharpness (from AG diffusion) over the glare I get right now. A good AG coating shouldn't hurt colors, but it will cause pixels to become blurry (this is by design; that's the only way to scatter glare-causing reflections).
I agree about AG coatings, though actually the one I'm using right now is a case where I'd take a slight hit in sharpness (from AG diffusion) over the glare I get right now. A good AG coating shouldn't hurt colors, but it will cause pixels to become blurry (this is by design; that's the only way to scatter glare-causing reflections).
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I've read about it in this article, though most of it is really aimed at VA types. It's easy to forget that IPS wasn't mainstream in early 2009. Skimming through this article again there doesn't even seem to be a hard conclusion as they are just testing different monitors against each other; it seems like this wasn't even a user-adjustable feature back in the days.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Yes, the 4x profiles are actually quite decent-looking with the current Framemeister firmware's scanlines (I used 80/100 on the scanline settings for those). However, 5x profiles don't look good with scanlines because they appear too thin. The next 'cool' feature the Framemeister firmware needs is a user-applied thickness setting for the scanlines (1,2, or 3 pixels thick).Xan wrote:(I recall FBX has created underscanned 1080p profiles which made the old 720p output obsolete for 1080p panels?).
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Thank you! I thought I read that, but then couldn't find the post or remember who said it.darcagn wrote:iirc, Fudoh said a few months ago in this thread that he built a way more simple sync combining circuit than the one in the graphic I made, without a problem. Hopefully he'll chime in and let us know exactly what he used.hellbelly wrote:To cut a long question short, is it safe using the 2 diodes like I have experimented with, or should I incorporate the more detailed circuit into my VGA box/build a custom box instead?
I chose to make the more complex circuit because I wanted to do it in the safest and most proper way I knew how.
I think I read this too, but can't find it now - do you have to change the Sync Level if using the circuit from your diagram?
Next I need to look at the profiles by FBX, I too prefer to have my framemeister set for 1080p and it looks like FBX has done all the hard work!
Pete
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I haven't had any issues requiring changing the sync level, I just leave it wherever it was previously when I plug in my DC and it just works.hellbelly wrote: I think I read this too, but can't find it now - do you have to change the Sync Level if using the circuit from your diagram?
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Can anyone explain why this is?Thomago wrote:This will give you:Milspex wrote:An original xbox 720p component signal to d-terminal then output to hdmi 720p with added scanlines. No scaling, no lag, no issues?
- added lag
- horizontal unsharpness
- color flickering
Don't do this.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
You get added lag because the Mini has a fixed processing path. Doesn't matter if you input 240p, 480i, 480p or 720p - RGB or component - always get the same amount of lag. Only exception is the HDMI passthrough mode, but that wasn't your question.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
ah ok I see. Might as well use a good component to hdmi converter instead for the og xbox then
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I'm sure this has been discussed before but the more I tinker with the scanlines the more I notice that there are no "Perfect" scanline settings and is all based on personal preference. You see I think it's all based on how far you sit from the display and how big your display is.FBX wrote:Yes, the 4x profiles are actually quite decent-looking with the current Framemeister firmware's scanlines (I used 80/100 on the scanline settings for those). However, 5x profiles don't look good with scanlines because they appear too thin. The next 'cool' feature the Framemeister firmware needs is a user-applied thickness setting for the scanlines (1,2, or 3 pixels thick).Xan wrote:(I recall FBX has created underscanned 1080p profiles which made the old 720p output obsolete for 1080p panels?).
If you sit far away then I think thinner scanlines look better as our eyes make them appear thicker and more even from a distance. If you sit close to your display then you will want thicker scanlines.
Anyone else have this theory?
Framemeister 240p scanline settings: http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... start=9600
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
On top of the lag, you'll get horizontal unsharpness because you're overlaying scanlines on a 720p image without upscaling it. By doing that you're literally removing detail from the picture and replacing it with a black line.Milspex wrote:Can anyone explain why this is?Thomago wrote:This will give you:Milspex wrote:An original xbox 720p component signal to d-terminal then output to hdmi 720p with added scanlines. No scaling, no lag, no issues?
- added lag
- horizontal unsharpness
- color flickering
Don't do this.
Scanlines work on upscaled 240p or 480i/p images because the image's pixels have already been multiplied horizontally, thus applying lines across them isn't going to lose you any detail.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I was actually referring to the Mini's problems with handling non-SD sources; these result in horizontal unsharpness. But of course, overlaying scanlines on a native 720p image makes pretty much no sense.darcagn wrote:On top of the lag, you'll get horizontal unsharpness because you're overlaying scanlines on a 720p image without upscaling it.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
We have a rocky adventure of a topic for this here: http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50186. Hop in!
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Ah, I didn't realize that. Either way, though, overlaying scanlines on a native image will result in a net loss of resolution and thus "lose sharpness" too.Thomago wrote:I was actually referring to the Mini's problems with handling non-SD sources; these result in horizontal unsharpness. But of course, overlaying scanlines on a native 720p image makes pretty much no sense.
-
noko_bombette
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:25 am
- Location: Spain
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I'm trying to connect a modded NESRGB NES to the framemeister. If I connect it to a RGB CRT TV via SCART it works well.
But when connecting it to the Framemeister, I can only hear the sound, the Framemeister shows "No input". I tried playing with the SYNC options but with no effect. Latest firmware to date.
I have other consoles (Super NES, N64, Megadrive, all PAL) working fine with the Framemeister.
I have the SCART adapter for the Mini, the one with CSYNC via Scart. So I'm wondering if I need a cable without CSYNC to be able to connect the NES.
Thanks.
But when connecting it to the Framemeister, I can only hear the sound, the Framemeister shows "No input". I tried playing with the SYNC options but with no effect. Latest firmware to date.
I have other consoles (Super NES, N64, Megadrive, all PAL) working fine with the Framemeister.
I have the SCART adapter for the Mini, the one with CSYNC via Scart. So I'm wondering if I need a cable without CSYNC to be able to connect the NES.
Thanks.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
^^THISFBX wrote: The next 'cool' feature the Framemeister firmware needs is a user-applied thickness setting for the scanlines (1,2, or 3 pixels thick).
I think somebody should contact Micomsoft about it. the current behaviour of how scanlines are processed is just ridiculous.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
New profiles update:
So the big news is 4x Genesis gaming is now tolerable with the bottom being masked to hide the random distracting pixel garbage. The trick to pulling this off was simple: I changed V_POS in VISUAL_SET from 32 down to a value of 30. This shifted the Genesis image downward 2 pixels, which caused the the bottom edge to be slid underneath the ZOOM_OVERSCAN: 86 border. Scanlines still work great!
I also want to point out I discovered the rare 256 h-res mode the Genesis has is actually shifted to the left a couple of pixels compared to the standard Genny h-res of 320. What this means is on the 5x profile, the few times you'll encounter 256 mode, the left edge of the image will be cut off by a couple pixels. If you find a game where it stays predominantly in 256 mode, you can adjust the horizontal positioning using ZOOM_H_POS, which currently sits at a value of 62 for 5x mode.
Code: Select all
Updates/changes: Genesis 4x profile redesigned to mask bottom graphical garbage (yay!). Both Genesis 4x and 5x also have adjusted color settings as well as a more squared pixel aspect. I chose to make the aspect change after concluding that the majority of the Genesis library did not take into account TV aspect ratio. If you prefer TV aspect instead of square pixels for the Genesis, simply change the ZOOM_WIDTH value from 27 to the default 50. That will approximate 4:3 TV aspect.
I also want to point out I discovered the rare 256 h-res mode the Genesis has is actually shifted to the left a couple of pixels compared to the standard Genny h-res of 320. What this means is on the 5x profile, the few times you'll encounter 256 mode, the left edge of the image will be cut off by a couple pixels. If you find a game where it stays predominantly in 256 mode, you can adjust the horizontal positioning using ZOOM_H_POS, which currently sits at a value of 62 for 5x mode.
-
lilralphie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:32 pm
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Hi - new to the forums (first post)! Longtime lurker.
I've tried searching through the threads here and wanted a bit of help hooking up my PS2 to the Framemeister. I've tried official ps2 component cables to d-link input with FBX's optimized settings (thanks so much, BTW!) and it's still noticeably worse than my tv's component input alone with that cable.
What is the best way to get the ps2 to output an RGB signal for 480p that the Framemeister will accept well via a SCART connector? I'd love to just have it hooked up via RGB for all signals (240p, 480i, 480p). Eventually I want to send it through superg's 8-1 SCART switch, so I'm trying to end in a SCART connector as opposed to a mini-DIN (I saw a few posts on ways to do that I think). If I understand correctly, the PS2 sends 480p in RGsB like the Dreamcast and extra processing is required (I actually have a Toro for my Dreamcast). But I'm not sure how to get from my PS2 to a SCART input that the Framemeister can accept.
Thanks!
I've tried searching through the threads here and wanted a bit of help hooking up my PS2 to the Framemeister. I've tried official ps2 component cables to d-link input with FBX's optimized settings (thanks so much, BTW!) and it's still noticeably worse than my tv's component input alone with that cable.
What is the best way to get the ps2 to output an RGB signal for 480p that the Framemeister will accept well via a SCART connector? I'd love to just have it hooked up via RGB for all signals (240p, 480i, 480p). Eventually I want to send it through superg's 8-1 SCART switch, so I'm trying to end in a SCART connector as opposed to a mini-DIN (I saw a few posts on ways to do that I think). If I understand correctly, the PS2 sends 480p in RGsB like the Dreamcast and extra processing is required (I actually have a Toro for my Dreamcast). But I'm not sure how to get from my PS2 to a SCART input that the Framemeister can accept.
Thanks!
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
I just hooked up my modded MVS Neo Geo to my XRGB Mini for the first time using RGB (it was previously S Video) and the result isn't good. Any scene with light or white color is super blown out. Some screens look fine (like the drug warning, or other darker color screens), but the minute bright colors are introduced, it looks terrible (see below).
Any ideas? I tried a couple of different RGB cables and got the same result. My other consoles (Saturn, DC, Genesis) look great thru the Framemeister.
I also messed around with the color settings on the XRGB, but that does not seem to be the issue at all.
Any ideas? I tried a couple of different RGB cables and got the same result. My other consoles (Saturn, DC, Genesis) look great thru the Framemeister.
I also messed around with the color settings on the XRGB, but that does not seem to be the issue at all.
Current collection:
http://www.arcade-museum.com/members/me ... _id=429701
http://www.arcade-museum.com/members/me ... _id=429701
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
you need higher resistors in the RGB lines (if you got any installed at all).I just hooked up my modded MVS Neo Geo to my XRGB Mini for the first time using RGB
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
you need a sync stripper and a sync processor to get RGBs on all instances. Dreamcast does output RGBHV in 480p mode, not RGsB.What is the best way to get the ps2 to output an RGB signal for 480p that the Framemeister will accept well via a SCART connector? I'd love to just have it hooked up via RGB for all signals (240p, 480i, 480p). Eventually I want to send it through superg's 8-1 SCART switch, so I'm trying to end in a SCART connector as opposed to a mini-DIN (I saw a few posts on ways to do that I think). If I understand correctly, the PS2 sends 480p in RGsB like the Dreamcast and extra processing is required (I actually have a Toro for my Dreamcast). But I'm not sure how to get from my PS2 to a SCART input that the Framemeister can accept.
-
lilralphie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:32 pm
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
Awesome. Thanks for the reply! Do you have recommendations for good ones to use in this particular instance? Really appreciate your help!Fudoh wrote:you need a sync stripper and a sync processor to get RGBs on all instances. Dreamcast does output RGBHV in 480p mode, not RGsB.What is the best way to get the ps2 to output an RGB signal for 480p that the Framemeister will accept well via a SCART connector? I'd love to just have it hooked up via RGB for all signals (240p, 480i, 480p). Eventually I want to send it through superg's 8-1 SCART switch, so I'm trying to end in a SCART connector as opposed to a mini-DIN (I saw a few posts on ways to do that I think). If I understand correctly, the PS2 sends 480p in RGsB like the Dreamcast and extra processing is required (I actually have a Toro for my Dreamcast). But I'm not sure how to get from my PS2 to a SCART input that the Framemeister can accept.
Re: XRGB-mini Framemeister (now available !)
lilralphie wrote:Hi - new to the forums (first post)! Longtime lurker.
I've tried searching through the threads here and wanted a bit of help hooking up my PS2 to the Framemeister. I've tried official ps2 component cables to d-link input with FBX's optimized settings (thanks so much, BTW!) and it's still noticeably worse than my tv's component input alone with that cable.
Could you describe how it looks worse? If you want super sharp pixels, I can make a profile for that. It's just that most people find the sharp edges look ugly on polygon-based games. And there's also the issue of 480p having false vertical edges on the Framemiester, though I could only confirm this on my PS2 and not my Gamecube for some reason. It's something I may go back and revisit to see if I can catch it happening on my Gamecube.