Swap my BVM-20E1E for a BVM-D24E1WE?

[andykara2003]

Hi all - I've been offered a chance to swap my BVM-20E1E for a BVM-D24E1WE. What do people think? Negating the fact that the D24 is widescreen, will it be a significant upgrade from the 20E1E?

[andy251203]

It depends on what you are primarily using your monitor for.

4:3 aspect ratio games, 240p/480i, looks better on the 20

16:9 aspect ratio games, 720p, 1080i: looks better on the D24.

Do you want the ability to go multiformat? Then swap. If you only play 240p retro, stick with what you got.

[mikejmoffitt]

It will give you a smaller 4:3 viewing area and be heavier. Unless you want to play 720 and up widescreen games, you gain nothing.

[nmalinoski]

It will give you a smaller 4:3 viewing area...

Would it? I thought the D-series BVMs were 4:3 tubes with a removable bezel for 16:9 content; couldn't he just take the bezel off?

[mikejmoffitt]

It will give you a smaller 4:3 viewing area...

Would it? I thought the D-series BVMs were 4:3 tubes with a removable bezel for 16:9 content; couldn't he just take the bezel off?

The 24" one has a proper native wide tube - similar if not identical to the one used in the FW900 PC monitor.

However, I did the math wrong - a pillarboxed 4:3 image on a 24" 16:10 monitor is still comparable in size to the native 20" 4:3 image.

[Ikaruga11]

4:3 aspect ratio games, 240p/480i, looks better on the 20

That's subjective. The lack of pillarboxing is nice sure, but then you have to deal with the inconsistent 240p resolutions on retro consoles that may be overscanned on a 4:3 set, whereas a 16:9 set will show every retro system in it's entirety with no overscan.

16:9 aspect ratio games, 720p, 1080i: looks better on the D24.

Don't forget 480p.

Do you want the ability to go multiformat? Then swap. If you only play 240p retro, stick with what you got.

Honestly, I have to agree. If you're only going to play 240p/480i retro games (which are all 4:3), then switching to a widescreen multi-format monitor would be pointless to you aside from the overscan advantage. Not only that, but the BVM-20E1E is a 1000TVL monitor just like the BVM-D24E1E. And since the BVM-E1E is one of only two 1000TVL 4:3 CRTs ever made (the other one being the Ikegami HTM-2070R), it's the sharpest 4:3 CRT ever made. So I would definitely keep it.

It will give you a smaller 4:3 viewing area and be heavier. Unless you want to play 720 and up widescreen games, you gain nothing.

The difference in 4:3 screen size is negligible at best. It's not just for widescreen 720p and 1080i content either, but also 4:3 480p and 16:9 480p.

Would it? I thought the D-series BVMs were 4:3 tubes with a removable bezel for 16:9 content; couldn't he just take the bezel off?

The D-series BVMs are not limited to 4:3 tube displays. Some models use native 4:3 tubes like the D20F1U and others use a native 16:9 tube like the D24E1WU.

The 24" one has a proper native wide tube - similar if not identical to the one used in the FW900 PC monitor.

However, I did the math wrong - a pillarboxed 4:3 image on a 24" 16:10 monitor is still comparable in size to the native 20" 4:3 image.

The FW900 and D24 do not share the same tube. One uses a 16:10 tube and the other uses a 16:9 tube. That is not the same. It's crazy that people keep saying this. Also, the size of a 4:3 image on a 24" 16:10 monitor isn't going to be the same as a 4:3 image on a 24" 16:9 monitor.

[Lawfer]

4:3 aspect ratio games, 240p/480i, looks better on the 20

That's subjective. The lack of pillarboxing is nice sure, but then you have to deal with the inconsistent 240p resolutions on retro consoles that may be overscanned on a 4:3 set, whereas a 16:9 set will show every retro system in it's entirety with no overscan.

Honestly, I have to agree. If you're only going to play 240p/480i retro games (which are all 4:3), then switching to a widescreen multi-format monitor would be pointless to you aside from the overscan advantage.

There is no "overscan advantage" the underscan seen in most non-HD consoles (with the exception of some Original Xbox games) is native to the output and can be removed easily with the settings on a 20" BVM-D. So you can get a full-screen picture on a 4:3 BVM-D with no black bars at all, whereas with a 24" or 32" you will be stuck with black bars on the left and right side no matter what (unless you play widescreen games on it). The only reason why I would get a 24" or 32" BVM would be to play the few widescreen-only Wii Games in native resolution and PSP games (you will need to use the settings to remove all the underscan since the PSP output PSP games in 272 non-scaled inside a 480 output). For widescreen consoles such as PS3, 360 and Wii U I would stick with HDMI, none of which the BVM-A/D can do.

The 24" one has a proper native wide tube - similar if not identical to the one used in the FW900 PC monitor.

However, I did the math wrong - a pillarboxed 4:3 image on a 24" 16:10 monitor is still comparable in size to the native 20" 4:3 image.

The size of a 4:3 picture on a 24" BVM-D will be the same as a picture on a 20" BVM-D. If you want a 4:3 upgrade you need the 32".

Getting a 24" would make him gain a few things:

Pros:

- Support for both 4:3 and 16:9 480p
- Native aspect ratio and resolution for 720p games (most PS3 games are 1280x720p, only a few games can do 1080p).
- Flat screen (the BVM 20" are not flat screens)

Cons:

- Non-native aspect ratio support for 4:3 games (black bars on the left and right sides)
- Quite heavier than a 20" BVM

[Dochartaigh]

You would be crazy if you didn't trade him if they're in similar condition to each other (I would trade my low-hour multiformat D20, or even my lower hour 20F1U in a heartbeat). The BVM-20F/E1U goes for under a grand all the time (if not like $600-700 for the 'F' 900TVL one - this is Craigslist prices in the NYC area BTW, not the jacked up eBay prices). The BVM-D24 routinely goes for around $2400+ (saw one go for around $1200 at auction lately + massive shipping charge, sight-unseen with no hour count or working screenshots...but that was rare).

4:3 size is just a tad larger on the 20". D24 has better adjustments in the service menu, although not as many as the D32. It's a no brainer especially if you want to ever play anything in 480p, 720p, or 1080i (which a LOT of retro systems like PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, GameCube, etc. have games in 480p+) which the D24 is perfect for.

[Dochartaigh]

The size of a 4:3 picture on a 24" BVM-D will be the same as a picture on a 20" BVM-D. If you want a 4:3 upgrade you need the 32".

According to a 4:3 and 16:9 size calculator I found online, using Sony's diagonal-screen size specs (which are down to the mm so pretty exact), the D20 has a slightly larger 4:3 picture than the D24 )if you guys were arguing about the viewable size of the image).



I find it curious the widescreen size isn't as far off as I thought it would be.

[Lawfer]

The size of a 4:3 picture on a 24" BVM-D will be the same as a picture on a 20" BVM-D. If you want a 4:3 upgrade you need the 32".

According to a 4:3 and 16:9 size calculator I found online, using Sony's diagonal-screen size specs (which are down to the mm so pretty exact), the D20 has a slightly larger 4:3 picture than the D24 )if you guys were arguing about the viewable size of the image).



I find it curious the widescreen size isn't as far off as I thought it would be.

19"/20" difference, it's pretty much the same thing unless you do a side by side comparison, I don't really consider a 1" +/- to be neither a pro nor a con. It's a 1" difference for a flat screen basically, this is why the Ikegami HTM-19xx and JVC DT-V19xx are 19" rather than 20", because they have a flat screen, while the BVM 20" don't.

[andykara2003]

The only reason why I would get a 24" or 32" BVM would be to play the few widescreen-only Wii Games in native resolution and PSP games

Thanks all - appreciate the input. It's all subjective of course but I think Lawfer's quote rings true for my case. I'll keep the 4:3 BVM - for me there are too few 6th gen games that output in progressive 16:9 that I would regularly play and when I think about it, I prefer to play without black bars for 240p, especially if there's no difference in image quality. The Wii is the only console I would use on it - I love the Galaxy games and a few others but to me, 24" is too small for that console.

I've tried and failed to find a 16:9 solution for the Wii that looks good. A D32 BVM would probably be my best bet but I doubt I'll ever find one. I tried the 32" Loewe Acondas with VGA card but these TVs tend to be well used and have gone soft & dull & we had very few other prog. scan 16:9 consumer CRTs in the UK. It looks fantastic on my NEC XV29+ but that's 4:3.

I'm used to playing the Wii on a big TV and that defines the console's look for me - but nowadays I hate the way the console's anamorphic widescreen looks on a larger flat panel. The HDMI mod won't help (although I'll get it for the component quality hike for my NEC), so I came to the conclusion that the Wii is the only console I'll ever emulate, which is unusual as for eveything else I'm only into real hardware. It looks gorgeous in 1080p/4K on a big panel & I've toyed with the idea of having a dedicated small form factor PC with a GTX1060 for Dolphin which is the route I'll probably end up going.

[Sefirosu789]

The only reason why I would get a 24" or 32" BVM would be to play the few widescreen-only Wii Games in native resolution and PSP games (you will need to use the settings to remove all the underscan since the PSP output PSP games in 272 non-scaled inside a 480 output). For widescreen consoles such as PS3, 360 and Wii U I would stick with HDMI, none of which the BVM-A/D can do.
Getting a 24" would make him gain a few things:

Pros:

- Support for both 4:3 and 16:9 480p
- Native aspect ratio and resolution for 720p games (most PS3 games are 1280x720p, only a few games can do 1080p).
- Flat screen (the BVM 20" are not flat screens)

Cons:

- Non-native aspect ratio support for 4:3 games (black bars on the left and right sides)
- Quite heavier than a 20" BVM

I thought most of the Wii's library supported widescreen 480p, no? I'm guessing you haven't compared Wii 480p widescreen on a D24/D32 to Wii 480p 4:3 on a 4:3 multi-format monitor. The D24/32 Wii 480p 16:9 is incredible.

I'm pretty sure that for gaming with the PS3 & 360, component output is equal to HDMI in quality too.

I also believe that the D series (in particular D24/32) are the only models with extra features to allow for "near-perfect" geometry.

[MKL]

19"/20" difference, it's pretty much the same thing unless you do a side by side comparison, I don't really consider a 1" +/- to be neither a pro nor a con. It's a 1" difference for a flat screen basically, this is why the Ikegami HTM-19xx and JVC DT-V19xx are 19" rather than 20", because they have a flat screen, while the BVM 20" don't.

The Ikegami and JVC have a M46 tube, i.e. a 19" tube with 18" (46 cm) viewable screen. It makes no difference whether they're flat or not as M46 tubes can be either flat or curved but they have 46 cm screens anyway (the diagonal size is always a projection, i.e. a straight line). The BVM has a M49 tube, i.e. a 20" tube with 19" screen (49 cm). The actual difference is more than 1".

[Lawfer]

I thought most of the Wii's library supported widescreen 480p, no?

Those are all 4:3 games, they aren't native widescreen games, only a few select Wii titles are natively widescreen. Most Wii games are better in their native aspect ratio (4:3).

See list here:

viewtopic.php?t=59126

I'm pretty sure that for gaming with the PS3 & 360, component output is equal to HDMI in quality too.

It's not, HDMI is better.

19"/20" difference, it's pretty much the same thing unless you do a side by side comparison, I don't really consider a 1" +/- to be neither a pro nor a con. It's a 1" difference for a flat screen basically, this is why the Ikegami HTM-19xx and JVC DT-V19xx are 19" rather than 20", because they have a flat screen, while the BVM 20" don't.

The Ikegami and JVC have a M46 tube, i.e. a 19" tube with 18" (46 cm) viewable screen. It makes no difference whether they're flat or not as M46 tubes can be either flat or curved but they have 46 cm screens anyway (the diagonal size is always a projection, i.e. a straight line). The BVM has a M49 tube, i.e. a 20" tube with 19" screen (49 cm). The actual difference is more than 1".

Typically 4:3 flat screen on broadcast monitors are 19", not 20". I haven't found any broadcast monitors models that had both a 20" and flat screen.

[andykara2003]

The D24/32 Wii 480p 16:9 is incredible.

Having seen it on the 32" Aconda and knowing the BVMs I would imagine it looks fantastic. Using a CRT at 32" and under, the pixel density is high enough and the CRT display characteristics are forgiving enough that even the Wii's anamorphic image looks good. 24" is just too small for me though, especially accounting for the fact that you need to be a certain distance away for the Wiimote to work. I'd love to get a D32 but they never come up in the UK.

[Sefirosu789]

Those are all 4:3 games, they aren't native widescreen games, only a few select Wii titles are natively widescreen. Most Wii games are better in their native aspect ratio (4:3).

I see. I didn't realise that. However, I think most Wii games look far better in 480p widescreen compared to 480p 4:3.

It's not, HDMI is better.

Can you explain why?

[Fudoh]

I think most Wii games look far better in 480p widescreen compared to 480p 4:3

you get the same resolution for 4:3 and 16:9 output, so you end up with a noticably better pixel/inch ratio if you're going with 4:3.

[Ikaruga11]

I thought most of the Wii's library supported widescreen 480p, no? I'm guessing you haven't compared Wii 480p widescreen on a D24/D32 to Wii 480p 4:3 on a 4:3 multi-format monitor. The D24/32 Wii 480p 16:9 is incredible.

It does. And I agree, although incredible is an understatement.

I'm pretty sure that for gaming with the PS3 & 360, component output is equal to HDMI in quality too.

No, HDMI is a higher quality signal than YPbPr on the PS3 and 360.

you get the same resolution for 4:3 and 16:9 output, so you end up with a noticably better pixel/inch ratio if you're going with 4:3.

While this is true for anamorphic widescreen, it's not noticeable unless you're playing on a large display. The Wii's 16:9 widescreen output gives you more FOV (Field of View) with Wii games, so you can see more graphical content in the "game world". That alone makes 16:9 on the Wii more than worth it, along with filling the entire screen on a 16:9 display. There's also the issue of 16:9-only games on the Wii such as Skyward Sword, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby's Return to Dream Land, Sin & Punishment: Star Successor, Pandora's Tower, Resident Evil 4, Xenoblade Chronicles, etc. Having a 16:9-only game outputting in 4:3 gives you letterboxing AND pillarboxing on a 16:9 display, which looks pretty bad in my opinion. Having the Wii always set to 16:9 widescreen means you're always taking full advantage of 16:9 enhanced games and 16:9 exclusive games. It's really convenient.

[Dochartaigh]

While this is true for anamorphic widescreen, it's not noticeable unless you're playing on a large display.

Noticed this myself on an Xbox - looks absolutely stunning in 480p on my BVM CRT in widescreen. On my 60" flatscreen 4:3 looks good (think I was running it through the OSSC), but 16:9 widescreen definitely looks more dirty. Granted the size difference between those two displays is absolutely huge, so not really a fair comparison, but it still shows that the 16:9, in theory, is still the less high quality image (just not that visible on smaller monitors).

[Ikaruga11]

While this is true for anamorphic widescreen, it's not noticeable unless you're playing on a large display.

Noticed this myself on an Xbox - looks absolutely stunning in 480p on my BVM CRT in widescreen. On my 60" flatscreen 4:3 looks good (think I was running it through the OSSC), but 16:9 widescreen definitely looks more dirty. Granted the size difference between those two displays is absolutely huge, so not really a fair comparison, but it still shows that the 16:9, in theory, is still the less high quality image (just not that visible on smaller monitors).

Are you using YPbPr or RGB on your Xbox? The Xbox has subpar RGB output so that dirty signal becomes more apparent on a larger display.

Citrus3000psi's WiiDual project will not only make the Wii much cleaner and sharper in 4:3, but also in 16:9 as well thanks to the vastly improved YPbPr, RGB output and lossless digital HDMI signal. The thing is, you have to realize that 6th Gen consoles and the Wii were designed in a time when screens were much smaller than they are today. It's not even about display technology such as CRTs, LCDs, Plasmas or OLEDs. Playing those old 6th Gen and Wii games on any giant screen highlights the low resolution, low polygon counts and other aspects. They were designed to be played on small to above average screen sizes.

[Dochartaigh]

Are you using YPbPr or RGB on your Xbox? The Xbox has subpar RGB output so that dirty signal becomes more apparent on a larger display.

Xbox only outputs 480p over YPbPr. You can mod it to output RGsB but that's about it (besides using transcoders of some sort built into cables).

[Ikaruga11]

Are you using YPbPr or RGB on your Xbox? The Xbox has subpar RGB output so that dirty signal becomes more apparent on a larger display.

Xbox only outputs 480p over YPbPr. You can mod it to output RGsB but that's about it (besides using transcoders of some sort built into cables).

Ah yes. That's right. What brand of YPbPr cables are you using?

There is no "overscan advantage" the underscan seen in most non-HD consoles (with the exception of some Original Xbox games) is native to the output and can be removed easily with the settings on a 20" BVM-D. So you can get a full-screen picture on a 4:3 BVM-D with no black bars at all, whereas with a 24" or 32" you will be stuck with black bars on the left and right side no matter what (unless you play widescreen games on it). The only reason why I would get a 24" or 32" BVM would be to play the few widescreen-only Wii Games in native resolution and PSP games (you will need to use the settings to remove all the underscan since the PSP output PSP games in 272 non-scaled inside a 480 output). For widescreen consoles such as PS3, 360 and Wii U I would stick with HDMI, none of which the BVM-A/D can do.

I forgot to address this. Here in this video explained by phonedork:

https://youtu.be/ffiR4E1id-8?t=1m23s

[andykara2003]

you get the same resolution for 4:3 and 16:9 output, so you end up with a noticably better pixel/inch ratio if you're going with 4:3.

While this is true for anamorphic widescreen, it's not noticeable unless you're playing on a large display. The Wii's 16:9 widescreen output gives you more FOV (Field of View) with Wii games, so you can see more graphical content in the "game world". That alone makes 16:9 on the Wii more than worth it, along with filling the entire screen on a 16:9 display.

You're talking to Fudoh - he already knows all this :)

That being said, I'd be interested if there are people here who don't mind playing Wii in 4:3?

With the Wii, I think using a CRT makes a real difference. I have a GCvideo unit but the image for GC and Wii is *much* better on my NEC XV29+, partly due to the shadow mask. The shadow mask has the ability to clean up, smooth out and rectify the Wii's rough output and Nintendo's sometimes questionable graphical filtering techniques that just don't translate well to a flat panel. Ask Fudoh - it's the console that seems to evade even the most capable scalers.

I think if a future scaler can successfully emulate a shadow mask or aperture grill in really fine detail then we might see a much cleaner, more pleasant look for the Wii/GC on a larger flat panel.

For the moment, without emulation the only solution I would want to go with is a 32-36" CRT.

[nmalinoski]

It's not, HDMI is better.

Can you explain why?

If you're using a digital display, like an LCD, HDMI is always better. By using component, you're converting from digital to analogue, and then back to digital, which can introduce artifacts and noise (be it from the conversion process on either end, or cable interference).

Not to mention HDMI is and will be the de facto consumer AV port for the foreseeable future. Component only makes sense now if you're connecting your console to a CRT that's still hanging around, or another device that otherwise doesn't support HDMI.

[Dochartaigh]

Are you using YPbPr or RGB on your Xbox? The Xbox has subpar RGB output so that dirty signal becomes more apparent on a larger display.

Xbox only outputs 480p over YPbPr. You can mod it to output RGsB but that's about it (besides using transcoders of some sort built into cables).

Ah yes. That's right. What brand of YPbPr cables are you using?

All high end stuff I got from a TV station that closed down – so probably a mix of Extron, Liberty, Kramer, etc. type cables – all through the official Xbox HD AV pack. Also tried it through my regular BlueRigger component cables at one point (which a bunch of the Reddit BVM/PVM guys like because they're inexpensive but made well).

[Ikaruga11]

You're talking to Fudoh - he already knows all this

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to specify that the Wii uses anamorphic widescreen for those who don't know and the higher pixel density in 4:3 is exclusive to anamorphic widescreen.

With the Wii, I think using a CRT makes a real difference. I have a GCvideo unit but the image for GC and Wii is *much* better on my NEC XV29+, partly due to the shadow mask. The shadow mask has the ability to clean up, smooth out and rectify the Wii's rough output and Nintendo's sometimes questionable graphical filtering techniques that just don't translate well to a flat panel. Ask Fudoh - it's the console that seems to evade even the most capable scalers.

I agree. It definitely does make a difference.

I think if a future scaler can successfully emulate a shadow mask or aperture grill in really fine detail then we might see a much cleaner, more pleasant look for the Wii/GC on a larger flat panel.

The OSSC upscales 480p cleanly and laglessly, unlike the Framemeister. Doesn't it also have CRT filters like Shadow Mask and Aperture Grille too?

For the moment, without emulation the only solution I would want to go with is a 32-36" CRT.

The GameCube and Wii are the consoles which benefit the most from emulation, in my opinion. Dolphin is probably the best emulator ever made. With it you can get extremely high quality models, textures and text with SSAA at lossless digital 4K resolutions in real widescreen, increase the framerate, use whatever controller you want for games that force you to use the Wii Remote, implement custom HD textures, and a massive community for the Wii/GC, Dolphin and modding scene.

If you're using a digital display, like an LCD, HDMI is always better. By using component, you're converting from digital to analogue, and then back to digital, which can introduce artifacts and noise (be it from the conversion process on either end, or cable interference).

Not to mention HDMI is and will be the de facto consumer AV port for the foreseeable future. Component only makes sense now if you're connecting your console to a CRT that's still hanging around, or another device that otherwise doesn't support HDMI.

This. Also, converting digital to analog can be a lagless and lossless procedure, but the same cannot be said for converting analog to digital.

All high end stuff I got from a TV station that closed down – so probably a mix of Extron, Liberty, Kramer, etc. type cables – all through the official Xbox HD AV pack. Also tried it through my regular BlueRigger component cables at one point (which a bunch of the Reddit BVM/PVM guys like because they're inexpensive but made well).

There's the issue. The official XBox AV pack introduces a bit of noise and signal degradation. Microsoft released official YPbPr cables -without- the box for the original XBox and those reportedly have better image quality.

[andykara2003]

Doesn't it also have CRT filters like Shadow Mask and Aperture Grille too?

There won't be a scaler that can really accurately emulate a 480p shadow mask for a while as the mask is very finely detailed. It would have to be in 4K at least.

The GameCube and Wii are the consoles which benefit the most from emulation, in my opinion. Dolphin is probably the best emulator ever made

So agree - it's amazing what they've done with Dolphin. On consideration, I think my poor long suffering wife would despair if I bought yet another CRT into the house (especially a massive 36"), so I've definitely decided to go with Dolphin for Wii games. I figure that using a dedicated small form factor PC with an SSD, you could sleep and wake it quickly enough to feel as snappy as the PS4's instant-on 'rest mode' - straight into the game where you left off in just a few seconds.

[Dochartaigh]

There's the issue. The official XBox AV pack introduces a bit of noise and signal degradation. Microsoft released official YPbPr cables -without- the box for the original XBox and those reportedly have better image quality.

I've never heard of any PQ problems on them, only some weak RCA connectors some people reported back in the day. All I know is my two HD AV Packs (on a couple different Xbox's) look nearly identical to my modded Xbox which can output RGsB, RGBHV, or RGBS in both 4:3 and 16:9. Haven't done a head-to-head back-to-back or anything that recently as my modder has had it for like ~4 months now...but it looked the same and slightly better in 4:3 on both.