Jump to content
IGNORED

Advice Needed: Return RetroTINK & Go Emulation?


WishItWas1984

Recommended Posts

I have an S-Video modded 2600 with a Harmony cart and some rgular carts. I'm thinking my time might be done in using it.

 

Hooked it all up and my new Samsung Q8 TV refuses the signal with a "Mode Not Supported".

 

I am almost positive it's my TV being finicky. I know the TV plays native 480p, the TINK is outputting 480p, bit the TV is not liking the TINK's signal for some reason.

 

The HDMI cable is an AmazonBasics that works fine with everything else. The S-Video/Composite cable works fine. The TINK was getting 5V/3A VAC...

 

I just think I'm screwed. I have no room for an older LCD or CRT. I don't want to return the TINK or sell the Harmony for a Retron 77 (Never selling the 2600 itself!), but I think I have no choice.

 

Or am I? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the VCS is designed to work with a CRT. It's inherent. It's intertwined. Using mods and converters to make it work with an LCD always seems to result in a less than ideal experience.

 

I'm a big proponent of emulation. Way past the point of obsession some would say. And I feel that with today's tech and refinement, emulation is a viable replacement for most classic consoles. While not exactly 100% to the purists, all the extra niceties and conveniences emulation brings to the table is huge plus. Not to mention reliability which is outstanding.

 

You can always pack away the VCS for the future and wait till a proper mod that works in the digital domain is created.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an S-Video modded 2600 with a Harmony cart and some rgular carts. I'm thinking my time might be done in using it.

 

Hooked it all up and my new Samsung Q8 TV refuses the signal with a "Mode Not Supported".

 

I am almost positive it's my TV being finicky. I know the TV plays native 480p, the TINK is outputting 480p, bit the TV is not liking the TINK's signal for some reason.

 

The HDMI cable is an AmazonBasics that works fine with everything else. The S-Video/Composite cable works fine. The TINK was getting 5V/3A VAC...

 

I just think I'm screwed. I have no room for an older LCD or CRT. I don't want to return the TINK or sell the Harmony for a Retron 77 (Never selling the 2600 itself!), but I think I have no choice.

 

Or am I? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

did you try connecting the 2600 to the TV without the Tink? The tv may have a better scaler that the Tink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the VCS is designed to work with a CRT. It's inherent. It's intertwined. Using mods and converters to make it work with an LCD always seems to result in a less than ideal experience.

 

I'm a big proponent of emulation....

I love emulation as well. I'm not the type that can tell the nuances of it vs original equipment. I just always wanted a 2600 and the physical aspect of setting it up and plugging in cartridges. The old school feel of it.

 

True, the VCS was not meant for modern tech, but how could it? However, the mods and playing in the proper aspect ratio on new tech is just fine by me.

 

I agree that I will likely just pack it up, but I doubt there will be a solution for my situation. The RetroTINK is the solution to be honest. Unless years and years from now the current tech of the time will work with my next TV LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't. The whole problem is the new TV not having anything but HDMI ports and not accepting signals under 480p.

wow. That's pretty limiting. I know a lot of TVs have dropped S-Video support, but I hadn't heard of any that also dropped composite, component and RF as well.

 

I'd return the TV and get a different one with more input variety before I'd sell retro gear that isn't made anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the VCS is designed to work with a CRT. It's inherent. It's intertwined. Using mods and converters to make it work with an LCD always seems to result in a less than ideal experience.

 

^^ I second this emotion. Trying to jam Atari 2600's analog RF into a digital signal is not some kind of retro device original hardware purity, it's Missing The Point. Old VCS on old CRT TV or GTFO. See "Racing the Beam" and other writings about how they work together. They're a matched set, and there's no special retro nerd award for rocking it like it's 1982, no matter what anyone on here tells you. ;-)

 

Until there's an FPGA Atari VCS, emulation makes a bunch more sense. The Flashback 9 is a cheap and cheerful way to do it. Retron77 if you want to fool yourself by handling cartridges to load into the emulator. Stella on a computer if you want maximum control and flexibility.

 

The TINK looks neat and might be better suited to other systems, but since it's not a mainstream product (NOT that there's anything wrong with that), it's subject to limitations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree, at least partially.

 

There are still plenty of new model LCD sets, even UHD 4k sets that include RF inputs, requiring absolutely no mods or converters to allow a 2600 to function just fine.

 

Sure, there are some shitty 2600 games which utilize a ton of flicker for various objects due to poor programming or intentional flicker usage to cram a ton more objects on screen that the system wasn't designed for - and some of them don't look so great on a modern LCD display. But there are also companies like Activision who made great games within the system's limits that look absolutely spectacular on a modern display using original hardware.

 

Also composite and s-Video mods on a 2600 aren't any kind of mutilation of the system. Those composite and chroma/luma signals already exist natively in a 2600's original hardware design output. They aren't a foreign concept to that hardware.

Edited by John Stamos Mullet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow. That's pretty limiting. I know a lot of TVs have dropped S-Video support, but I hadn't heard of any that also dropped composite, component and RF as well.

 

I'd return the TV and get a different one with more input variety before I'd sell retro gear that isn't made anymore.

 

LMAO...I hear ya but returning a new boxing up and shipping back a 4K TV because it doesn't have S-Video for my 2600 is definitely not a practical solution.

 

The TV does have an RF/Coax In, but my modded Atari no longer has that output, and honestly, I want to improve the quality rather than have it look like it did back in the day. Love the games and nostalgia, but I don't need that kind of authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are some shitty 2600 games which utilize a ton of flicker for various objects due to poor programming or intentional flicker usage to cram a ton more objects on screen that the system wasn't designed for - and some of them don't look so great on a modern LCD display. But there are also companies like Activision who made great games within the system's limits that look absolutely spectacular on a modern display using original hardware.

 

 

Lol...I love this modern narrative, it's so ridiculous :D Sure, those ancient devs, what a bunch of noobs. The crazy notion to use programming tricks in order to squeeze as much as possible out of their limited gaming hardware and other tricks to look best on the-then standard aka CRT TV. They definitely should have the foresight to ditch all that and instead cater to some doods using fancy flat panels 3+ decades later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I second this emotion. Trying to jam Atari 2600's analog RF into a digital signal is not some kind of retro device original hardware purity, it's Missing The Point. Old VCS on old CRT TV or GTFO. See "Racing the Beam" and other writings about how they work together. They're a matched set, and there's no special retro nerd award for rocking it like it's 1982, no matter what anyone on here tells you. ;-)

 

Until there's an FPGA Atari VCS, emulation makes a bunch more sense. The Flashback 9 is a cheap and cheerful way to do it. Retron77 if you want to fool yourself by handling cartridges to load into the emulator. Stella on a computer if you want maximum control and flexibility.

 

The TINK looks neat and might be better suited to other systems, but since it's not a mainstream product (NOT that there's anything wrong with that), it's subject to limitations.

 

Yes, it's plainly obvious that the VCS is meant to work on a CRT. However, if anyone thinks trying to get the 2600 to play on digital hardware is wrong or inherently problematic is just wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion, it's just an incorrect statement.

 

The VCS on my old LCD was AWESOME. MUCH better than any CRT for clarity. I don't fault people enjoying the true old school feel with all old school tech, but the games looked fantastic and played great on a new TV with a modded system.

 

The TINK has had it's praises sung by anyone that's used it. It has no limitations. It does what it's advertised to do and does it amazingly well for the price.

 

What I didn't realize was how finicky the latest and greatest tech would be. Unfortunately there was no way to know this would be an issue before purchasing the TV.

 

No biggie though. I'll just roll with emulation with a Flashback or Retron 77. Need to do more research. The main thing is the gameplay and original controllers for me. The nostalgia and physical interaction was a bonus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lol...I love this modern narrative, it's so ridiculous :D Sure, those ancient devs, what a bunch of noobs. The crazy notion to use programming tricks in order to squeeze as much as possible out of their limited gaming hardware and other tricks to look best on the-then standard aka CRT TV. They definitely should have the foresight to ditch all that and instead cater to some doods using fancy flat panels 3+ decades later.

Games that used copious flicker to add more objects on screen look like ass. They looked like ass on a CRT. They still look like ass on modern TVs.

 

Sure, a small handful of games used flicker as an actual feature of a game or a legitimately planned graphical effect. But those were few and far between. Most games that used flicker did so because of some combination of rushed release deadline, sloppy programming, or both.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice would be that in the future buy a TV based on what you want to display on it instead of buying a TV and then trying to figure out how to display what you want on it. Unless it is so cheap that is worth the gamble. For example, I'm interested in trying out this cheap RCA projector from Walmart that is less than $100. I'm interested because its resolution is only 480p so I assume the results of blowing up the image to 100" with a lens instead of scaling it up to HD would look more authentic and maybe reduce lag, since it is projected light it may have more of an anolog look without being able to see pixels with the image less sharp, and on one of the YouTube videos I watched on it the guy zoomed in real close and there was an effect from projecting 480p that huge that looked like scanlines. So, I'm willing to take the gamble just to have a little toy to play with that may look close to a gigantic CRT like image while feeling like I'm gaming in a theater.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the greatest asset of the RetroTINK and the OSSC (lag free unprocessed video) also can cause problem with weird signals modern TVs aren't built to handle, based on the TV of course.

 

You might have better luck with a Framemeister, but that's very pricey just to play your Atari on your TV. The downside of the Framemeister is that it introduces very slight input lag as it processes the video prior to outputting it to the TV. On the other hand, this means it works with pretty much anything you might want to plug into it. I've got my composite modded 7800 plugged into a small CRT in my office, but I've tested it with the Framemeister and it works fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice would be that in the future buy a TV based on what you want to display on it instead of buying a TV and then trying to figure out how to display what you want on it. Unless it is so cheap that is worth the gamble...

Generally good advice for people who buy things. Make sure they do the thing you want to buy it for....I did that in my case. My TV is primarily for typical TV content. Shows, movies, and web. I got the best I could afford. However, I wasn't about to sacrifice quality in it's primarily purpose to accommodate an occasional hobby. If I had a time machine, I'd get the same amazing TV, but a Retron 77 instead of a RetroTINK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the greatest asset of the RetroTINK and the OSSC (lag free unprocessed video) also can cause problem with weird signals modern TVs aren't built to handle, based on the TV of course.

 

You might have better luck with a Framemeister, but that's very pricey just to play your Atari on your TV. The downside of the Framemeister is that it introduces very slight input lag as it processes the video prior to outputting it to the TV. On the other hand, this means it works with pretty much anything you might want to plug into it. I've got my composite modded 7800 plugged into a small CRT in my office, but I've tested it with the Framemeister and it works fine.

Yep, I came to the same conclusion in my initial research. Well... except for discovering the anomaly part. lol But the Framemeister was just too pricey as you said, especially aith other, cheaper solutions at hand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the VCS is designed to work with a CRT. It's inherent. It's intertwined. Using mods and converters to make it work with an LCD always seems to result in a less than ideal experience.

 

I'm a big proponent of emulation. Way past the point of obsession some would say. And I feel that with today's tech and refinement, emulation is a viable replacement for most classic consoles. While not exactly 100% to the purists, all the extra niceties and conveniences emulation brings to the table is huge plus. Not to mention reliability which is outstanding.

 

You can always pack away the VCS for the future and wait till a proper mod that works in the digital domain is created.

I didnt quote you, just to pull you out from the others here, but rather to hope that you follow up with your opinion on what I say here, as you seem to be well informed on the subject matter.

 

Why are we still here, in 2018, still having the same problems & headaches with properly converting video signals? Why do emulation images look so nice while original (modded) hardware does not? Emulation back in the mid 90s of analog 2600 video on digital vga computer monitors looked great. And emulation today of analog 2600 video on HDMI lcd tvs looks great. But when using original modded hardware and/or video converters, it either looks crappy or doesnt work at all. Why? Is it only because more of the tech nerds over the decades have been focused & working on emulation then on real hardware? In other words, are we still stuck here because we havent thrown enough time, money, or work into doing it right, or, is it truly because it just isnt possible to do?

 

Are input lag, scaling issues, & signal problems literally unsolvable? Or will they all eventually be figured out and resolved? Emulation basically fooled our computers by dumbing them down in order to run what we wanted. So why cant we fool a tv into thinking it is indeed receiving a true HDMI signal?

 

Im just at the point of frustration with all of this in the sense that I dont understand why its taken so long for someone, somewhere, to just figure it all out? Wouldnt the pay off in finally having a 100% fully working & 100% fully compatible video converter / scaler, which would sell like hot cakes, be motivation enough for the tech nerds?

 

(and mind you, Im not just talking 2600 at this point in regards to the perfect device, rather a device that can accept RF, AV, SVid, Component, analog RGB, etc. and convert it properly & perfectly to HDMI with no input lag, no pixelating, and no incompatibilities.)

 

And so the question is...Is it impossible, or, has it just not been done yet?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are input lag, scaling issues, & signal problems literally unsolvable? Or will they all eventually be figured out and resolved? Emulation basically fooled our computers by dumbing them down in order to run what we wanted. So why cant we fool a tv into thinking it is indeed receiving a true HDMI signal?

 

Im just at the point of frustration with all of this in the sense that I dont understand why its taken so long for someone, somewhere, to just figure it all out? Wouldnt the pay off in finally having a 100% fully working & 100% fully compatible video converter / scaler, which would sell like hot cakes, be motivation enough for the tech nerds?

 

 

 

To these two points in particular:

 

1. No, it's not unsolvable, the problem is not making a converter - the problem is that many TV manufacturers simple do not care to support legacy devices like this any more than they have to, as it costs more in the manufacturing process to add the extra hardware and conversion tech. There are plenty of TVs on the market that work just fine with the RetroTINK, and with native signals from these old consoles. This is why it pays to do research before buying your TV, and then making a decision based on your own needs.

 

2. "Would sell like hot cakes" - yeah, about that. NOPE. As enthusiastic as we might be, the retro gaming/original console user market is microscopic in the grand scheme of things, and often the cost of R&D and manufacture of these devices doesn't come anywhere close to justifying to the eventual sales it might garner. We are a micro-niche market. That's why things like the RetroTink are only available in batches, when the guy who makes them gets around to ordering another 20 or 30 at a time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the TINK is outputting 480p

Maybe it's not.

 

For most consoles the video chip is in charge of generating the display and outputs the correct number of scanlines every time, which is 262 for each frame to generate what we'd now call a 240p signal. The 2600 uses a scanline based video chip, the program itself is in charge of controlling how many scanlines are displayed on each frame. Many games do not output the correct number of scanlines, which was not a problem with old analog TVs. It's likely RetroTINK does not compensate for this and modern TVs are often less forgiving with out-of-spec signals.

 

As an experiment try Moon Patrol. The title screen only outputs 256 scanlines, which the RetroTINK might be converting to 468p.

post-3056-0-03991100-1546270880_thumb.png

 

Hit fire or GAME RESET to start the game and it'll start outputting the expected 262 scanlines.

post-3056-0-23261500-1546270876_thumb.png

 

If you can see Moon Patrol's game screen, but not the title screen, then the scanline count is the issue. You can use Stella to check the scanline counts of games - use Developer Key ALT-L (Linux, Windows) or COMMAND-L (Mac) to Toggle frame stats which will add scanline count as seen in the upper-left corner of the above screenshots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this sounds judgey, but if you drop $2000+ for a new TV, in my opinion it damn well better work with everything you throw at it. The funny part is, a lot of the more budget conscious newer TVs seem to be more forgiving at this than the ultra high end ones.

Sure, within reason. It's nice when they do, but I can easily understand a business deciding to not bother with supporting dead tech.

 

My main surprise is how difficult it's been to easily, and affordably, convert old tech to modern specs with after-market products

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it pays to do research before buying your TV, and then making a decision based on your own needs.

 

I have to say I agree with you in theory here, but it is definitely bot easy to do. It's easy to find someone say the device worked great, but on which TV models in what kind of setups...not so much. Plus, the research leads you to believe it'll just work.

 

It's only after that you find that a dew are having issues. Basically, even doing your due diligence in research can kead to a false positive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not.

 

For most consoles the video chip is in charge of generating the display and outputs the correct number of scanlines every time, which is 262 for each frame to generate what we'd now call a 240p signal. The 2600 uses a scanline based video chip, the program itself is in charge of controlling how many scanlines are displayed on each frame. Many games do not output the correct number of scanlines, which was not a problem with old analog TVs. It's likely RetroTINK does not compensate for this and modern TVs are often less forgiving with out-of-spec signals.

 

As an experiment try Moon Patrol. The title screen only outputs 256 scanlines, which the RetroTINK might be converting to 468p.

Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 2.48.49 PM.png

 

Hit fire or GAME RESET to start the game and it'll start outputting the expected 262 scanlines.

Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 2.48.42 PM.png

 

If you can see Moon Patrol's game screen, but not the title screen, then the scanline count is the issue. You can use Stella to check the scanline counts of games - use Developer Key ALT-L (Linux, Windows) or COMMAND-L (Mac) to Toggle frame stats which will add scanline count as seen in the upper-left corner of the above screenshots.

Excellent information!!!

 

Definitely something I wish I ran into beforehand, because I will bet money that's my particular issue in a nutshell.

 

The TINK is designed to get this old tech onto new TVs. That's the point of it, so I kinda wish the designer provided this caveat.

 

If anyone here runs a retrogaming YouTube channel, this could make for a nice video and warning to future ganers researching this topic in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supergun

It has not been done yet because there is no need. Not a big need anyways. Such an all-in-one -to- HDMI converter is absolutely possible.

 

The basic problem is the technology of digital dot-addressable displays is very different from a vintage television. Converting between them is not an exact science and the results will be flavored by budget restrictions and developer interest. Not to mention each developer's judgement of what is "working" or "acceptable".

 

Perhaps I will answer your questions one by one later, it's time to party now!

Edited by Keatah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...