Original Video Quality vs. Best Video Quality

[Skippy B. Coyote]

There seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to video output for playing classic consoles today, and I thought it could be interesting to run a poll to see which side of the fence the majority of AtariAge members lean towards.

 

On one hand there are people such as myself who like playing their classic consoles with the original built-in video output methods from their region, which for most systems prior to the HD era (basically everything that came out before the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii U) means either coaxial or composite video if you live in North America. That's how I grew up playing these systems and to me the graphics just don't look right when enhanced with more modern video output options, so I stick with the original coaxial or composite output to a CRT TV like most people living in North America would have used back when the systems were current.

 

On the other hand, it does seem like a pretty substantial number of people want to get the best video quality possible out of their classic systems and often don't mind spending some rather large sums of money to do it. Whether that involves modifying the consoles to output more modern video formats like HDMI, RGB, or component, running the video through a Framemeister to upscale and clean up the image quality, or some combination of the two there are a lot of people out there who want the picture quality on their classic consoles to look as sharp as possible.

 

 

So, which camp do you fall into? Are you happy playing your systems with the standard video output methods from back when they were first released, or do you prefer to upgrade your systems' video output in some way to enhance the visual quality?

Edited January 5, 2017 by Jin

[BillLoguidice]

It's not 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, so no reason to use legacy display technology if you don't have to. As long as the original aspect ratio is preserved, I'm just fine with (relatively) crystal clear video and audio. And it's not like I don't have options to play in the original manner if I so chose. I can and do. It's just not something I NEED to do. After all, in the end, it's all about using and enjoying this stuff, not trying to replicate the complete legacy experience, which includes fuzzy displays, poor sound, bad ergonomics, etc. Again, we're in 2017, not 1977, even if I happen to be using a system first introduced in that particular year.

[keepdreamin]

I don't get wanting to use poor quality signals when there's higher quality available.

 

Or those who use various CRT filters in emulators. To me that's like going in for LASIK, but asking them to engineer a smudge because you're nostalgic for the look of eye glasses

Edited January 5, 2017 by keepdreamin

[KeeperofLindblum]

Short Version - I regret the cost of "best video quality" but tend to get over it because money is spent and futureproof (more or less).

 

 

 

I kinda jumped the gun and went straight for Best Video Quality.

 

Got a framemeister, cables, mods, and all that sort.

 

I love the overall clear picture, but I do sometimes question my overall decision.

 

I will say at the end of the day I'm happy with what I've chosen to do, but I do sometimes wonder how things could have been had I invested in a nice CRT TV instead.

 

 

Worst case? I figure the "best video quality" option at least helps me futureproof because even with great care happening, eventually the old TVs will die and getting them fixed will get harder and more expensive as fewer people have the skillset to repair them.

 

I kinda see this issue with the company I work with and their obsession with neon. Neon's cool and all, but there are a lot less people who work on it and they pay out the butt to get the neon fixed and put in place.

Edited January 5, 2017 by KeeperofLindblum

[godslabrat]

There were a lot of things I didn't like about vintage TV tech even back when it was new, I'm glad to be rid of it. This does mean I've lost some of what made it "unique", but I like to think I've gained more in seeing the picture clearly.

 

Also, as analog connections fade away and CRTs take up landfill space, it's going to get harder and harder to chase the "authentic" look and feel. I'd rather just make the most of today's tech

[Skippy B. Coyote]

I don't get wanting to use poor quality signals when there's higher quality available.

I can't speak for everyone who uses original video output, but for me personally it isn't just nostalgia for the way the games looked when I was growing up; it's largely a cost issue. A Framemeister is $400+, upgrading all 7 of my consoles to output higher quality video formats would be another $400 minimum, and then buying a modern HD TV to replace my Sony WEGA Trinitron CRT gaming TV would be another $250+. So at the end of the day I'd be looking at over $1,000 to upgrade my gaming center for better picture quality, which is a ton of money when your gaming budget is limited to $50 to $100 a month and you've never minded the default video quality of your systems. Going for the best video quality is just too expensive of an affair for my liking.

[spacecadet]

It's not 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, so no reason to use legacy display technology if you don't have to.

Neither do you have to play on 30 year old game consoles or computers, but that's (presumably) what most of us are here for

 

Most of the same arguments people are making in favor of updated display tech could be made in favor of just playing PS4 games instead of Atari games. "I don't get wanting to use poor quality signals when there's higher quality available." - well, some people don't get playing games with poor quality graphics when there are higher quality graphics available. (For example.)

 

I generally do like to match up tech of the same era, probably not for any real philosophical reason but just because I think it matches best. Everything was designed with the tech of the day in mind. Even something like the Lynx screen, which is just an awful screen, I don't feel like is necessarily improved in every way by one of the modern replacements. The modern screens are much clearer, but they accentuate the blockiness of the graphics.

 

I don't like having CRT's in my house so I mainly use LCD screens for my older consoles, but I don't do anything special beyond that to make them look better - no active separate upscalers or HDMI mods or anything like that.

 

Basically, to me "clearer" != "better". Just as modern game developers use things like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering to smooth out blocky graphics on modern displays, I'm sure developers of the day would have used tricks of various kinds to smooth out their graphics in the old days if they had to. But they didn't, because they knew display tech of the era would do it for them. So I'm pretty convinced that viewing games using things like HDMI mods or replacement LCD screens is *not* seeing them how they're supposed to look.

 

I realize that what developers *would have* wanted if they had the choice is a debatable point, but what's not debatable is what they actually had and how they did choose to make use of it. So given the choice, I don't try to "improve" things beyond that.

[Flojomojo]

I hit "best video quality" though I don't feel like I'm exactly what you're looking for. You said "for your classic consoles" ... I'm more about the games than the hardware, so emulation is mostly what I do nowadays. I don't have an upscaler or a modified original console. Forgive me if that's cheating the poll, but I feel that enhanced HD video quality is better than original analog RF video every time.

[+save2600]

Depends on the system I guess but generally speaking and between all the modding, tinkering and untold hours trying different component values, etc., I've had the absolute best luck using real 75ohm shielded cables out of RF on MOST vintage systems that were born with RF outputs as the only choice. Want a cheap alternative, yet superior A/V out on systems that don't have it already? Get a switchbox, ONE of these and be done with it:

 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xsony+tu+tune.TRS0&_nkw=sony+tu+tuner&_sacat=0

 

 

...easily the simplest, accurate and most economical solution I've tried yet. Provides better picture and sound than a simple 1 transistor/2 resistor modded 7800 even.

 

Talking about vintage gaming on CRT's of course. Not interested or impressed with vintage gaming on LCD/LED's, no matter how much money one tries to spend justifying it all.

 

Emulation on modern displays is a different animal with a different set of expectations, input options, etc. which add up to a completely different gaming experience. I've tried it, even recently with the Ultimate products and it's *still* not my thing. Which reminds me, looking to sell both my Intv and CV Ultimate's if anyone's interested... (PM me, don't pollute Jin's thread please)

[Skippy B. Coyote]

I hit "best video quality" though I don't feel like I'm exactly what you're looking for. You said "for your classic consoles" ... I'm more about the games than the hardware, so emulation is mostly what I do nowadays. I don't have an upscaler or a modified original console. Forgive me if that's cheating the poll, but I feel that enhanced HD video quality is better than original analog RF video every time.

 

Nah, you're just fine. Emulation is a totally legit way to play games with the best visual quality if you're not hung up on using original hardware and physical media. It's a heck of a lot more financially practical and less labor intensive than jumping through hoops to upgrade original hardware too.

[vw57drvr]

Maybe I have forgotten what CRT's look like, but I dont see a problem using analog inputs on my LCD screen. As long as I keep the aspect ratio, the only real difference is the fact that a 52 inch tv will obviously blow up the image and will get slightly more blocky. My 7 year old samsung LCD has tons of inputs and I have my atari connected through the coax input, and other systems through composite. Maybe I need to see a modified system to really understand.

[roland p]

Best video quality.

I was always happy to upgrade from rf to composit to rgbs to vga.

But, with hdmi, just sizing up pixels (dots?) will make them big squares, and I can imagine not everyone likes big squares.

[+GoldenWheels]

Little bit of A for me, little bit of B. Depends on the situation I guess.

 

When buying a system like the PC engine Duo, I wanted a recapped one. Since the upgrade to S-vid above that work was a paltry 20 bucks or so, I went ahead and had that done too. Why not.

 

But with my 7800 (which needs no preventative work like a Duo does, and which I think has good RF) I haven't bothered to go S vid or composite. And I play a lot of 7800. The RF is quite good enough for me to smash ostrich riders.

 

And when it comes to serious dollars, like converting a NES to HDMI or grabbing a framemeister....I'd rather spend that kind of money on more games. Or a new system.

[Austin]

There seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to video output for playing classic consoles today, and I thought it could be interesting to run a poll to see which side of the fence the majority of AtariAge members lean towards.

 

On one hand there are people such as myself who like playing their classic consoles with the original built-in video output methods from their region, which for most systems prior to the HD era (basically everything that came out before the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii U) means either coaxial or composite video if you live in North America. That's how I grew up playing these systems and to me the graphics just don't look right when enhanced with more modern video output options, so I stick with the original coaxial or composite output to a CRT TV like most people living in North America would have used back when the systems were current.

 

On the other hand, it does seem like a pretty substantial number of people want to get the best video quality possible out of their classic systems and often don't mind spending some rather large sums of money to do it. Whether that involves modifying the consoles to output more modern video formats like HDMI, RGB, or component, running the video through a Framemeister to upscale and clean up the image quality, or some combination of the two there are a lot of people out there who want the picture quality on their classic consoles to look as sharp as possible.

 

 

So, which camp do you fall into? Are you happy playing your systems with the standard video output methods from back when they were first released, or do you prefer to upgrade your systems' video output in some way to enhance the visual quality?

 

You're lumping the options or preferences into two camps when in reality there are more.

 

Camp 1: You enjoy your classic consoles via composite on a CRT? Great. They still look fine if you play them that way, especially if you have a good CRT.

Camp 2: Want to play via the same connection on a modern HD display? Well, I hope you enjoy an obscenely blurred, muddy and ugly image--not exactly how it looks on your CRT.

Camp 3: Where those that want optimal quality on their HD displays reside. That's what upscalers are built for. Optimal quality on a display these signals weren't meant for, as well as future-proofing.

 

On a side note, I think if people had the choice to get that traditional CRT quality on a modern display without an upscaler, they would be OK with that. But, that's not how it works, and so upscalers exist and are of use to more than just a niche, hardcore and enthusiast market.

 

My preference has more to do with comfort than anything. I find myself gaming with my upscaler more than on my old CRT, but that's because it's in the living room where my couch resides. That, and the upscaled image is nearly twice the size of my 25" CRT in the game room. Do the math!

 

That said, I still enjoy playing on my CRT as well. Composite and S-Video can still look good/natural on it. If I didn't do constant video capture for Twitch and YouTube, I probably wouldn't have an expensive upscaler right now. But because I do, I am glad I took the plunge. In terms of playing on a modern HD display, there's no going back. On a stock CRT though, I can still do that. It's fine.

[omegadot]

Unless there's significant issues I don't really care. I have a CRT because it was free and supports light gun games. I toss all my older consoles on it as well because it has lots of inputs for them. I'm not willing to do all the work / spending for a framemeister-like setup. I'll make things look as good as they can as long as it's fairly easy and inexpensive. I don't have any all-encompassing theory on how it should work that I feel the need to defend. Just how I feel day to day. I just want to play the games and be able to appreciate the visuals. If they are a little fuzzy / blocky, eh, that's how it was. If they are nice and sharp, cool, that looks good.

[Eltigro]

What about the opposite???

 

 

But I voted for keeping the outputs original. It is a cost issue, but also I'm okay with them. Maybe I'm just used to them looking that way. Yeah, my 360 and XBox One are hooked up via HDMI, but I'm okay with my NES being rf. I dunno... to each his own.

 

Great topic, though, Jin. When I voted the votes were even.

[KeeperofLindblum]

Unless there's significant issues I don't really care. I have a CRT because it was free and supports light gun games.

 

This is probably the only thing I miss with my Framemeister/Best Quality setup.

 

With my consoles setup as is, the light gun won't work on anything. Best I can do is PS3 with Move controllers. (Several light gun style games available for Move but not quite the same.)

 

Thankfully I'm not a huge nut about playing light gun games, but I do miss having the option all together... Damn you modern technology!

[BillLoguidice]

With my consoles setup as is, the light gun won't work on anything. Best I can do is PS3 with Move controllers. (Several light gun style games available for Move but not quite the same.)

 

Thankfully I'm not a huge nut about playing light gun games, but I do miss having the option all together... Damn you modern technology!

 

Side note, but the PSVR "gun" games are pretty darn awesome. I don't miss a light gun at all when playing those games with the headset on.

[alex_79]

I didn't vote because none of the options seem to reflect my opinion.

To the question "Original Video Quality vs. Best Video Quality?" my answer is "best video quality" hands down. But I don't consider digital signals and displays to be "best quality" for retro consoles. Not even close, altough they surely are for modern devices.

I don't care too much for originality: I keep old consoles because I like playing them, not as collector items to be put on a shelf, so I A/V mod them.

 

The fact is that "best video quality" is a matter of personal preference. When dealing with old consoles (I mostly refer to pre-crash hardware and the Atari 2600 in particular) I want to match the video technology that is, analog signal and CRT display, and at the same time I want to improve the quality the best I can, sending the signal to the display with the minimum of video conversion needed, and of course using a good quality display in the first place.

 

I don't like rf interference, dot crawl and/or color bleed, or geometry and/or focus problems. On the other hand, the glow and persistance of the phosphors, the scanlines and the shadow mask/ aperture grille are not (to me) "defects" or "limitations due to the technology", but a fundamental part of these old video games. (It's like the grain on movies shot on film, or the texture of the canvas in paintings: it's part of the medium). Removing them (as it happens when using digital connections and displays) decreases the video quality compared to an optimal analog setup.

 

This is a quite common opinion and is the reason why emulators developers spend time and efforts to include CRT filters, or why retrogaming dedicated upscalers include at least simple scanline effects. Many people wants those because they believe they enhance the picture.

 

There are also emulator filters that can simulate rf interference, color bleed and dot crawl and some people like them because they want to recreate the experiece they had back in the day as close as possible. Again, that's a matter of personal preference and it's nice to have that option too.

 

I aim to the best crystal clear picture, which to me means quality CRT display and RGB connection. An old game displayed on a HD digital TV, with perfectly square pixels just looks flat and dull. And that's assuming you spent a lot of money for highest quality video mods and upscalers; else the results are even worse. Honestly, I find the video from a CRT with some rf interference to be better quality than an emulator-like (with no crt filters) output, just like I think that an old movie with dirt and scratches looks better than one digitally restored with a too aggressive filter that removes not only dirt/scratches but also the film grain.

 

 

No one "needs" to use 40 years old video game consoles in 2017.
And in that case, no one "needs" to use an analog TV.

 

But there are many good reasons to do so, not only video quality.

 

This is my list of methods to play old games ranked from best to worst video quality:

• real console with RGB mod + CRT
• real console with S-Video mod + CRT
• emulator with CRT filters (to simulate the above two setups) + HD digital monitor/TV
• real console with composite mod + CRT
• real console with rf + CRT
• emulator with simple scanline filter + CRT computer monitor
• emulator with simple scanline filter + digital TV/monitor
• emulator without filters + CRT monitor
• emulator without filters + digital TV/monitor

Real hardware with digital display doesn't even qualify, in my opinion.

It takes a lot of efforts to just minimize the issues and the results are always inferior even to emulation.

Edited January 6, 2017 by alex_79

[keepdreamin]

Real hardware with digital display doesn't even qualify, in my opinion.

It takes a lot of efforts to just minimize the issues and the results are always inferior even to emulation.

 

 

You so sure about that? I'm betting the RGB+Framemeister or OSSC while looking fairly close to emulator visuals has less input lag than a lot of emulator setups.

 

I can think of a few consoles where Real Hardware +upscaler is going to be the preferable method. The sega saturn for example. Notoriously difficult to emulate, even the most accurate emulator (SSF) is still buggy and isn't the most responsive input lag wise, having nothing to do with chosen computer to run it.

 

You also have higher res interlaced games which I find eye watering to look at on CRTs. Framemeister has about 1 frame of lag for anything you toss it, and does a pretty damn impressive job at turning 480i content into something that looks pretty close to 480P.

Edited January 6, 2017 by keepdreamin

[alex_79]

You so sure about that? I'm betting the RGB+Framemeister or OSSC while looking fairly close to emulator visuals has less input lag than a lot of emulator setups.

 

I can think of a few consoles where Real Hardware +upscaler is going to be the preferable method. The sega saturn for example. Notoriously difficult to emulate, even the most accurate emulator (SSF) is still buggy and isn't the most responsive input lag wise, having nothing to do with chosen computer to run it.

I see your point. In my post I was referring to older pre-crash consoles, particularly the 2600, with non-interlaced output (often referred to as 240p/288p) . I can totally see that with less ancient hardware emulation can be worse, and the CRT filters might not make such a big difference to the visuals as in early games with low resolution and sparse graphics. On those, as I said, a simple "scanline" effect isn't good enough for my tastes. And while in the future some of the phosphors glow and persistance might be emulated (albeit with some approximation), I doubt you can implement those on an external scaler without introducing lag.

 

You also have higher res interlaced games which I find eye watering to look at on CRTs.

Interlaced video on CRTs does flicker a bit, which can cause eye-strain and is more evident on computer generated images than on photographic ones (like TV shows). Digital displays are progressive so they eliminate the flicker. But the video needs to be deinterlaced first and this can generate artifacts in object that moves quickly horizontally. CRTs displays interlaced material natively with no artifacts as the 2 fields are not shown at the same time, but sequentially. Also the digital TV (or the upscaler) needs to wait both fields in order to process the image, which takes the equivalent of 2 frames of the progressive output used in old consoles.

 

Framemeister has about 1 frame of lag for anything you toss it, and does a pretty damn impressive job at turning 480i content into something that looks pretty close to 480P.

Yes, but the TV might do extra processing even when you feed a signal at its native resolution via hdmi, which might add lag. Some have a "game mode", some others require you to manually turn off every filter. It takes some efforts to setup everything for best performance. CRTs are "plug and play".

Edited January 6, 2017 by alex_79

[keepdreamin]

I'm not sure you're correct on interlaced fields taking 2 frames. Both fields get their update within the same frame. That's how 240P can get away with a progressive image at 60 fps. Instead of going odd/even within that 17ms window, it can stay on one set of lines .

 

You're dependent on the display, true. But I'm just talking source alone. Plenty of emulator rigs can have a few frames of latency before it even gets to the display.

 

I'd also disagree about the CRT being quicker to setup. At this point most folks are going to have a main entertainment area with a modern display. Relegating old consoles to a CRT means you're going to need and set up a second "kiddy table" entertainment center. An upsclaser lets you route the old stuff through the same display, soundbar as everything else.

[+FujiSkunk]

I'm kind of in between. At least for my little history project, I'm interested in getting the best video a system has to offer with the original hardware. For 8-bit and 16-bit systems, that usually means S-video, though a couple only offer composite at best, while a few others actually support RGB. Anything greater than that requires swapping out some innards, and I'm not as interested in pursuing that. I will admit to buying a component-enabled NES, because I thought that would be fun to have for playing on the big screen.

[BassGuitari]

I just use the original outputs. I've got a lot of systems and modding even a fraction of them is a dizzying prospect. I've got a nice 27" CRT in my game room that I keep around specifically for old game systems, (and console-wise, I never venture beyond the Dreamcast or PS2, so it fits) which they all look better on anyway. As for a Framemeister, $400 to achieve the clarity and "vintageness" on an HDTV that I already have on my old CRT...the value just isn't there for me.

[david500]

I try to get the best picture possible without mods (so far) for my PVM. I have an N64 S-Video cable, Dreamcast VGA, HD Retrovision component Genesis cables, SCART for SNES, but just have composite for Famicom and am pretty happy with the setup. I would like to have an RGB option for Famicom/NES, but that can wait.

 

I definitely see the appeal of a Framemeister; hoping there are some similar, cheaper options down the road.