Dissapointed with my VGA Box

[RemyC]

I recently snagged up a VGA box for my Dreamcast, after witnessing all the praise that it gets around here. I hooked it up to my 15" LCD monitor, and popped in Soul Calibur (which is said to look utterly beautiful with it). I must say that I was TERRIBLY dissappointed. The texts look all jagged, all the flaws in the pre-battle animations jump off the screen, and the arenas looked very bland...really the only thing that i was impressed with were the health bars. The same applies for Virtua Fighter.
I figured id try a 2d game to see if there would be any improvement so i threw in (gently placed) Guilty Gear....but for whatever reason i couldnt even get any video...only the audio would work. This as well happened with my copy of Ikaruga. Is it something to do with the compatibility of japanese imports?

Am I doing something wrong?
Why am I not witnessing the Dreamcast in all of its glory?

[Niode]

It's because you're using a TFT monitor, it's native res is 1024 x 768. the VGA box is running at 800x600. Your TFT is basically 'filling in the gaps' and thats why you are seeing the jagged edges.

Get a CRT monitor or a VGA box is completely useless.

I figured id try a 2d game to see if there would be any improvement so i threw in (gently placed) Guilty Gear....but for whatever reason i couldnt even get any video...only the audio would work. This as well happened with my copy of Ikaruga. Is it something to do with the compatibility of japanese imports?

Not every game is compatible with the VGA box.

[metaleggman]

What model of a LCD monitor do you have? It honestly sounds like your monitor has a crappy scaling chip. Remember that Dreamcast is sending it at VGA resolution (640x480 i believe), meaning your monitor will be making some mean upscaling, and if it really wasn't meant to upscale, it'll look like shite. Iirc, Dell monitors usually have a nice scaling chip. But post the model and make of your monitor, as it sounds like that's the problem.

[NotBlaine]

Yeah.

Honestly, the whole plasma vs lcd vs dlp discussion? None of them are as versatile as a crt. You can get a near 1080p crt if you get a Sony PVM for $50,000. But otherwise we've moved on to a world where all that matters is a tv you can hang on a wall.

Hopefully oled will offer better pictures at non-native res, but so long as screens have navtive resolution (which means resolutions where the picture isn't as good) you'll have that problem.

With a VGA box and a CRT monitor, you'll get arcade quality graphics. Even better than a component cable. Check out Guilty Gear then, you'll be able to cut your finger on the pixels the picture is so sharp.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Yeah.

Honestly, the whole plasma vs lcd vs dlp discussion? None of them are as versatile as a crt. You can get a near 1080p crt if you get a Sony PVM for $50,000. But otherwise we've moved on to a world where all that matters is a tv you can hang on a wall.

Hopefully oled will offer better pictures at non-native res, but so long as screens have navtive resolution (which means resolutions where the picture isn't as good) you'll have that problem.

With a VGA box and a CRT monitor, you'll get arcade quality graphics. Even better than a component cable. Check out Guilty Gear then, you'll be able to cut your finger on the pixels the picture is so sharp.

speaking of which how does a Dreamcast look on a LCD HDTV 1080i native with a VGA Box then a VGA to component converter?

[Niode]

Like shit


If you're gonna be putting low resolution input into a HDTV you need to get a Panasonic Viera, The upscaler on those TVs is fantastic. Plus you just can't get the colour depth that you get with a plasma like the Viera from an LCD HDTV.

[racketboy]

Get a CRT monitor or a VGA box is completely useless.

Not true. I run mine on a Dell LCD and it looks stunning.

[D.D.D.]

Like shit


If you're gonna be putting low resolution input into a HDTV you need to get a Panasonic Viera, The upscaler on those TVs is fantastic. Plus you just can't get the colour depth that you get with a plasma like the Viera from an LCD HDTV.

Have you ever played anything 480i on your Viera? How is it? Lag?

[NotBlaine]

Yeah.

Honestly, the whole plasma vs lcd vs dlp discussion? None of them are as versatile as a crt. You can get a near 1080p crt if you get a Sony PVM for $50,000. But otherwise we've moved on to a world where all that matters is a tv you can hang on a wall.

Hopefully oled will offer better pictures at non-native res, but so long as screens have navtive resolution (which means resolutions where the picture isn't as good) you'll have that problem.

With a VGA box and a CRT monitor, you'll get arcade quality graphics. Even better than a component cable. Check out Guilty Gear then, you'll be able to cut your finger on the pixels the picture is so sharp.

speaking of which how does a Dreamcast look on a LCD HDTV 1080i native with a VGA Box then a VGA to component converter?

Better than S Video. Not as good if you were able to convert it to dvi. VGA is just R,G,B and a Sync signal. It's pretty much the purest form of a video signal. DVI and HDMI are digital versions of the same signals plus a little more, but doesn't add a lot more than a digital signal (unless you count DRM tokens for HDMI), that said it's still R,G,B and Sync.

As a general rule, no matter how you slice it and where it comes from, your video signals will rank like this:

1) VGA, RGB-Scart, DVI, HDMI, RGB-Analog
2) Component
3) S Video
4) Composite (Yellow video cable with red and white audio jacks)
5) RF (the screw on cable thing)

So, VGA converted to Component is a step down but still better than S Video. You can step down, but not up, this is why S video to VGA boxes are trash. If you get a REALLY high quality set up, you can go from component to vga with only minor quality loss (I have a VGA cable for the Wii that I know is actually splitting the signal into r,g,b,s from component, but it's not that bad).

[metaleggman]

Honestly, the whole plasma vs lcd vs dlp discussion? None of them are as versatile as a crt. You can get a near 1080p crt if you get a Sony PVM for $50,000. But otherwise we've moved on to a world where all that matters is a tv you can hang on a wall.

So pay near 50K bones for a 1080p CRT when you can get a Plasma that looks just as good for at most 8K? Pioneer Kuro Plasmas are amazing looking and their next generation look better than CRTs. Period. Plus, the with the a good A/V receiver (which, with an expensive TV, you should honestly have), you will get superb upscaling/deinterlacing. The same happens with the internal processors of the kuros as well, along with other high quality panels. They're pretty much the best TV out there on the commercial circuit. Plus, afaik, PVMs are usually of small size, when the biggest Kuro is around 60". Ridiculous difference in size for the same quality. You won't see an improvement for a picture with 1080p vs 720p or even a lower resolution until you make a big jump in video size. 720p 60 inch televisions can look kind of funky, but when you go to 1080p, they look simply beautiful.

Hopefully oled will offer better pictures at non-native res, but so long as screens have navtive resolution (which means resolutions where the picture isn't as good) you'll have that problem.

It honestly has more to do with the scaling engine. Now, differing aspect-ratios do present some problems, but native resolutions themselves do not when you have a grade A piece of hardware processing the picture. Also, FEDs are looking highly promising in the realm of recreating CRTs in a flat panel form. Too bad there are all the financial crap going on with them. Poor us.

With a VGA box and a CRT monitor, you'll get arcade quality graphics. Even better than a component cable. Check out Guilty Gear then, you'll be able to cut your finger on the pixels the picture is so sharp.

The problem with CRTs nowadays is that the new ones are trash and most of the old ones often have uneven phosphor layers. Plus, I've seen plenty of pictures on this forum of DC games running on LCDs that look absolutely stunning.

speaking of which how does a Dreamcast look on a LCD HDTV 1080i native with a VGA Box then a VGA to component converter?

Well, you're not going to find any 1080i native LCDs, considering most (if not all, LoD, correct me on any of this, you're the resident expert on this stuff) if not all LCDs are not made to show interlaced images. Plus, most LCDs have built-in VGA inputs. Using a component convert would simply make it look like utter shite unless you have a good converter box, which would cost about 300 bucks. XRGB all the way.

As a general rule, no matter how you slice it and where it comes from, your video signals will rank like this:

1) VGA, RGB-Scart, DVI, HDMI, RGB-Analog
2) Component
3) S Video
4) Composite (Yellow video cable with red and white audio jacks)
5) RF (the screw on cable thing)

The problem with your list is that Component says nothing about the video signal except that it's a signal split up through three different RCA connectors. You can have RGB transferred through a component cable. Hell, you can have S-video go through a component cable. The difference is in the actual signal patten and whether or not it is analog or digital.

1) HDMI / DVI-D
2) RGB / YUV :
i) Through a D-sub, SCART (using the R-G-B / Y-Pb-Pr), component cable, D-terminal
ii) Through an S-Video connector, SCART (using the S-video pins), or two RCA cables
iii) Through one RCA cable (composite), SCART (using the composite connection)
iv) Through any cable with a single connector where audio and video are combined in an analog fashion

Digital signals will always be the best (well, except if a hardware designer somehow screws it up) as there is no DACs or ADCs, meaning that the image is going directly from the GPU to the monitor. Also, the conveniences involved make it the ultimate solution for future televisions. But, making a list of what is better than another is somewhat foolhardy. You must remember that the problems of video connections stem from the video processor of a piece of technology. Jimmying up a S-video connector onto a NES will not sport any improvement in video quality as the damage is done once the image leaves the PPU. The general rule of thumb is in fact that the more separated the video signals are, the fewer chances of interference are possible, thus keeping the video signal as pure as possible. Of course, combing audio can cause even more interference, wrecking an image even further.

So, VGA converted to Component is a step down but still better than S Video. You can step down, but not up, this is why S video to VGA boxes are trash. If you get a REALLY high quality set up, you can go from component to vga with only minor quality loss (I have a VGA cable for the Wii that I know is actually splitting the signal into r,g,b,s from component, but it's not that bad).

The problem with converting VGA to Component has nothing to do with the component signal itself, simply that you are using a DAC in the DC, an ADC in the converter box, a DAC in the converter box, and an ADC in the monitor. Of course, ripping up the signal from RGB to make a YUV signal won't help either, but that honestly won't be the main cause of image quality drop, as you can procure some fine hardware to do this job excellently. The use of poor DACs and ADCs is the main problem with these devices and video transfers afaik.

It's because you're using a TFT monitor, it's native res is 1024 x 768. the VGA box is running at 800x600. Your TFT is basically 'filling in the gaps' and thats why you are seeing the jagged edges.

VGA is 640x480. You're thinking of SVGA. The only difference between the VGA output and the other outputs past how the image is being taken from DC to Monitor, is that it's progressive.