/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4711415
Framemeister is far better for 480i content. OSSC uses a weird deinterlacing that adds noticeable artifacts. As for delay, both might not fix the delay (your tv probably has 1-1.5 frames of delay in 1080p game mode)

>>4711415
>So I just bought an OSSC
lmao

>>4711430
>Framemeister is far better for 480i content. OSSC uses a weird deinterlacing that adds noticeable artifacts.
[citation needed]

ossc input lag is the equivilant of your tv drawing 1.5 scanlines. in case you're retarded its incomprhensible. no one is going to know the lag your tv's scaler is adding.

>>4711620
Due to the Framemeister's frame buffer (basicly what causes the small amount of input lag), it can deinterlace and process the image properly before it sending it to your monitor. The OSSC however is deinterlacing on the fly, sending the image to the monitor almost instantly with little to no actual image processing to clean up the picture.

From the official OSSC docs:

https://www.videogameperfection.com/support-files/ossc-quickstart.pdf

>To display interlace video on modern displays, it must be deinterlaced first. As with progressive sources, the OSSC can deinterlace content like this with no input lag. However, the image that is produced tends to exhibit some flickering and combing artefacts.

>>4711415
>he doesn't just play on a CRT
FUCKING
K E K
E
K

>>4711854
then wtf is the point of it, if it adds video-flaws!?

>>4712827
It uses bob-deinterlacing which certainly isn't the best way to do it but i can't imagine there's any way to implement something better without a framebuffer.
I still find it kind of neat in it's own way since it looks a bit like interlaced content on a real CRT with the flickering. Here's how it looks
https://youtu.be/K9jSUFaCmVg?t=1m7s

>>4712827
because most retro systems are 240p you dumb faggot.

>>4713396
that's like wrong

>ps2
Not retro
>>>/v/

>>4714134
PS2 can play PS1 games smartass.

>>4711415
>bought an OSSC to play my PS2

>get a framemeister
>use the pixel autists profiles
>have to settle between huge black bars on the top and bottom or tons of overscan to have scrolling not look like shit

Is the OSSC actually good? I see people raving about it. I'm moving and don't want to lug around my huge CRT anymore

>>4713998
no it isnt you fucking mouth breathing faggot. dont be a faggot and come back with some hurr durr muh 224p bullshit. you know what i was implying.

>>4712438
This

>>4717570
you're still wrong

>>4717379
If you're hooking it up to a pc monitor that can accept weird resolutions than yeah from what I've heard

>>4719417
If you're talking LCDs that has to go down as one of if not the most retarded things I've ever seen posted in one of these threads.

>>4712438
OLED is better than CRT in every way though.

>>4719418
Monitors, even LCDs, tend to be a little more lenient in the video modes they'll accept. Look at the display compatibility list for the OSSC.

>>4719432
Indeed but what the fuck is the point of striving for the best possible upscaling (line multiplication to be pedantic) if you're then going to have the monitor rescale it to whatever standard resolution its fixed pixel panel will display.

Shit don't make no sense sunshine.

>>4719570
Monitors will upscale a digital 480p resolution a lot better than an analog 240p resolution generally (assuming they can even take it)

>>4719572
Nah.

Gonna look like shit.

>>4719570
The internal scalers in LCD displays are not optimized for pixel art. The higher resolution you can feed it, the less work it has to do, and the better the resulting picture will look.

Pic related: left is what a typical LCD scaler will do to a raw 240p input signal scaled up to 1080p (assuming it actually understands 240p in the first place). Right is what it would look like when first upscaled 4x to 960p by an OSSC/Framemeister, then rescaled to 1080p by the display's scaler. In both cases, the input resolution is lower than the display's native resolution, but the difference in resulting quality is dramatic.

>>4719570
The internal scalers in LCD displays are not optimized for pixel art. The higher resolution you can feed it, the less work it has to do, and the better the resulting picture will look.

Pic related: left is what a typical LCD scaler will do to a raw 240p input signal scaled up to 1080p (assuming it actually understands 240p in the first place). Right is what it would look like when first upscaled 4x to 960p by an OSSC/Framemeister, then rescaled to 1080p by the display's scaler. In both cases, the input resolution is lower than the display's native resolution, but the difference in resulting quality is dramatic.

>>4719585
Ignorance is bliss. But in your case you are just missing out and making yourself look a fool.

>>4719630
They both look awful tbqh.

>>4719640
It's not ignorance, it's experience.

Been there, done that, moved onto better things and now I just want to stop other anons wasting money and time on a fool's errand.

>>4719665
Then what do you suggest, mame filters?

>>4711415
Just an FYI, an intermediary hardware between your console and your TV aside, a lot of modern televisions have multiple frames of lag built-in.

>>4719426
Wrong

>>4719738
Either use a display capable of natively displaying the content i.e an SD CRT or generate said content at the correct resolution for your fixed pixel display i.e emulate.

>>4718582
>argument is about retro consoles out putting a progressive video signal
>argues about varying resolutions that arent exactly 240p

>>4719795
You realize emulators aren't doing anything different from an upscaler, right? Unless you're talking about meme filters.

>>4719826
Depends on the emulator.

Still a better solution in 90+% of cases.

>>4719830
>Depends on the emulator.
No, not really. Not for 2D games.
>Still a better solution in 90+% of cases.
It's the same solution. Usually worse until you do some tinkering, since they usually give you uneven pixel sizes by default, which causes shimmering.

>>4719784
Yes, I understand that but I really feel a difference between games that have a 480p option and those that don't. I'm assuming that my TVs delay for 480i and others was worse than 480p. That's why I figure if I can upscale content to a progressive digital signal, I'll feel less lag than the TVs internal scaler.

>>4719850
So all you want to do is upscale? Just fucking use GSM you idiot

>>4722338
I want the lowest possible input lag on my HDTV.

>>4722338
>Just fucking use GSM
GSM is shit and you know it.

>>4719630
>The higher resolution you can feed it, the less work it has to do, and the better the resulting picture will look.

No. while it'll produce output pixels per input every normal filter does "more work" the larger the input size for upscaling because it has to calculate the output pixels for each grouping. Unless it's some fucked up poorly designed recursive filter.

Running a same size input through a filter for the same size output technically has to process it. Albeit LCD displays would then just skip scaling step in that case. If you're scaling 640x480 vs 1280x960, you have to do twice as many calculations on the larger one.T

This is very noticeable on low powered devices where running a higher resolution source through a filter can cause framerate drop but running native resolutions through the same filter can run without a hitch where the only factor is the resolution size.

It's likely possible to make a filter that does less per input size, but it's generally not done.

>>4722378
Yeah which you said can be done by scaling up to 480p, which GSM does.

>>4722715
>Downloaded and setup GSM to output to 480p
>Black screen

>>4724125
Works on my machine™

>>4711415
>OSSC
>480i

It'll make the screen look much worse.

>>4722715
GSM fucks up on like half of the PS2 library when you try to use it.

>>4724356
Not if you pass through to your TV's deinterlacing method. I recall reading that's a feature of the OSSC

Is there a complete compatibility list for GSM?

>>4724519
>Not if you pass through to your TV's deinterlacing method. I recall reading that's a feature of the OSSC

If you use it as passthrough then it will look the same and have the same lag, as if you had hooked it up to your TV directly. So why the fuck even use the OSSC then.

>>4725683
nothing wrong with having a $200 Analog-Digital-Converter, LOL