Dissapointed with my VGA Box

[Droid party]

I run my vga box that I got from Racketboy on my HD LCD, and it looks stunning. The only time it looked average is when I used a dodgey cable. Changed to a better cable and have never had any problems since.

Hate to say, but maybe you need to shell the cash for another monitor.

[NotBlaine]

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.

It'll be interesting to see when the arrive. I'm not reccomending a PVM. Merely stating that a highres crt is expensive as hell.

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.

That's why my list is a general rule to keep in mind. It's easier for people to remember a ranking of commonly used cables with the commonly used signal rather than trying to remember the colorspace. If we want to debate whether or not dsub VGA should be with Component, dterminal (a.k.a. Component) and all of the other blue-difference models - which I do disagree with, that's one discussion, what it isn't is a 'rule-of-thumb'.

Again, the NES is a fun example except for the fact that cracking open any console and wedging new hardware into it, sorta goes against the "general" nature of the list. Otherwise it'd make as much sense for me to point out that, while you're frankensteining your NES, go ahead a slap a Playchoice 10 PPU into it and then you'll have analog RGB out.

Now if we could only unlock the power of the PC-FX...

The use of poor DACs and ADCs is the main problem with these devices and video transfers afaik.

It's also a compression problem, converting RGBS into blue difference works for a better than SVIDEO signal because human visual acuity is low on the blue spectrum, so blue can be modified/compressed/altered at a greater magnitude than red and green. This is where I disagree with Ybr being equal to VGA because while the interference is low while looking at it through blue difference output, it's still interference. I can not put a pure RGB signal (VGA) on par with near RGB (blue difference). The hardware being used is a factor but... unless we're writing a master thesis in electronics engineering, we gotta at least assume the set up is of sufficient quality to perform these theorhetical processes. Otherwise we'll have to specify that SVIDEO is a better picture than RGB-Scart if you're showing SVIDEO on a LaserTV and the RGB is on a black and white russian phillips knock off with the vhold busted.

[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.

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

Assuming that the input is SCART RGB it's pretty good. Not perfect though. It needs a progressive input to be really sharp. EG say if I used the SCART cable on my DC it will upscale to 1080p, but with that there's a little bleed on red and green colours, but other than that it's really sharp(i.e. black and white is sharp, it's just there's bleed over on health bars for example). There's no lag, because it's a plasma, you don't get ghosting at all. Unless you mean the audio is lagging behind the picture? In that case I have a Yamaha receiver and have not noticed any difference. The only time i've heard difference is on Singstar PS3 but I think that's a problem with the game not my TV. (timing is off on it for some reason, i have to sing before the beat for the game to realise i'm singing from the beginning of the line).

The difference between 480i and 480p is incredible though. You'd be hard pushed to see the difference between that and a HD signal. I haven't got around to getting a VGA box yet but my PS2 and Wii are using component and although the Wii is better (purely because everything supports 480p pretty much) and the PS2 only supports progressive scan on a few titles eg SC2. SC2 looks freaking amazing on my TV.

[RemyC]

So im running my dreamcast through a VGA box into my 15" Dell LCD montior model# E171FP, and i hate the way most of my games look, that most of you say look beautiful with a similar set-up. So whats the deal?

[metaleggman]

It'll be interesting to see when the arrive. I'm not reccomending a PVM. Merely stating that a highres crt is expensive as hell.

Ah, I thought you might have meant something like that. Nice to have that cleared up.

Again, the NES is a fun example except for the fact that cracking open any console and wedging new hardware into it, sorta goes against the "general" nature of the list. Otherwise it'd make as much sense for me to point out that, while you're frankensteining your NES, go ahead a slap a Playchoice 10 PPU into it and then you'll have analog RGB out.

Bah, but including the Playchoice 10 PPU uses a different color palette iirc (though, that may just have been the Vs series), and the RGB output isn't all that good on the PPU for the Playchoice 10 to begin with, noted by the only marginal increase in quality considering the finicky reds from what I've seen.
I'd like to get someone to make a NES clone with HDMI out. Shant be NES on a chip, considering you'd want to use a custom PPU.

My main criticism of your list is that it gives the impression that a connector makes the connection, which is not always true. Also, I feel like it could greatly confuse someone trying to connect something like an xbox 360, where you have the options for component, VGA, and HDMI (depending on model) where HDMI always comes out on top and component and VGA look the same, and depending on the model of the TV, VGA will actually look drastically worse. Plus, with regional differences, saying that YUV is somehow inferior to RGB will only confuse people further.

So im running my dreamcast through a VGA box into my 15" Dell LCD montior model# E171FP, and i hate the way most of my games look, that most of you say look beautiful with a similar set-up. So whats the deal?

Interesting, as I've heard most Dells looks pretty good. Could you possibly post a picture? You might be mistaking clarity of the picture with jaggedness. Remember that the VGA does make it look better if you can appreciate a nice pure signal like the DC can offer. Remember that FSAA (full scene Anti-Aliasing, or something like that) hasn't been really utilized to a point where it mattered on consoles until the 360 and PS3 came out. When you play the games at the arcade, you'll see all the jaggies if the monitor is high quality. You may simply be one of the non-videophile-esque people who prefer the softer/noisier quality of S-video. As to the arenas looking bland, I'd have to say that this would most likely be attributed to a poorly calibrated monitor. Try fiddling in the color settings menu to see if you can make the picture to your liking. Remember to jot down the original settings that way you can easily go back just in case they aren't the default settings.

[NotBlaine]

component and VGA look the same, and depending on the model of the TV, VGA will actually look drastically worse...

And this is where we need to agree to disagree (on the first part), because I couldn't disagree more. If you're running VGA at 640x480 (which, after all is vga) and 480p through component, a native RGB signal should give you better results than blue difference, even if it's not earth shattering. Having my 360 run component and dsub I gotta say that my dsub with higher resolution (my monitor stops just short of 1080i) stomped the component. Particularly when playing Dead Rising, the tiny font issue really shows how much clearer the signal really is.

Now if you have a TV that just offers bad support for the VGA family of signals, then yeah, it might look better. Who knows what the tv is doing with the signals when it gets it in! But at no point in time - on a level playing field - should a compressed (and therefore containing interference) signal be superior to raw RGB signals. The inteference for blue difference might be low and hard to notice but it's still there. It shouldn't be better. Close? Sure for DVD's particularly which only store difference data to begin with. Same? No. Better? Absolutely and in no way. Digital RGB over Analog, if you want to put DVI and HDMI over nVGA, sure, but Analog RGB over everything else.

[metaleggman]

Now if you have a TV that just offers bad support for the VGA family of signals, then yeah, it might look better. Who knows what the tv is doing with the signals when it gets it in! But at no point in time - on a level playing field - should a compressed (and therefore containing interference) signal be superior to raw RGB signals. The inteference for blue difference might be low and hard to notice but it's still there. It shouldn't be better. Close? Sure for DVD's particularly which only store difference data to begin with. Same? No. Better? Absolutely and in no way. Digital RGB over Analog, if you want to put DVI and HDMI over nVGA, sure, but Analog RGB over everything else.

The bolded phrases are really what my point was for the phrases you quoted.

But, I just find it interesting that you keep talking about blue difference, when you said your list is the general rule of thumb, and for the average person, they won't see the difference caused by this occurrence. It's like arguing that on a 20" monitor, a 40000x30000 video signal (assuming that creating such a display would be possible) is better than a 4000x3000 video signal, or some other. There is an extent to which humans can perceive any differences and there is an extent to which people will look for the difference. It's quite possible that you only see the difference because you want to see a difference. The difference between the two standards shouldn't be taken into account for a rule of thumb list, considering most will not see the difference and most don't have TVs where it will make a difference. Now, for a videophile list, sure, that makes sense, but I still think my list is better for a rule of thumb, considering no normal person will look for the difference between component or pure RGB.

but sure, we can agree to disagree.

[Droid party]

As informative as this thread has been, has it answered the initial question?

[NotBlaine]

Now if you have a TV that just offers bad support for the VGA family of signals, then yeah, it might look better. Who knows what the tv is doing with the signals when it gets it in! But at no point in time - on a level playing field - should a compressed (and therefore containing interference) signal be superior to raw RGB signals. The inteference for blue difference might be low and hard to notice but it's still there. It shouldn't be better. Close? Sure for DVD's particularly which only store difference data to begin with. Same? No. Better? Absolutely and in no way. Digital RGB over Analog, if you want to put DVI and HDMI over nVGA, sure, but Analog RGB over everything else.

The bolded phrases are really what my point was for the phrases you quoted.

But, I just find it interesting that you keep talking about blue difference, when you said your list is the general rule of thumb, and for the average person, they won't see the difference caused by this occurrence. It's like arguing that on a 20" monitor, a 40000x30000 video signal (assuming that creating such a display would be possible) is better than a 4000x3000 video signal, or some other. There is an extent to which humans can perceive any differences and there is an extent to which people will look for the difference. It's quite possible that you only see the difference because you want to see a difference. The difference between the two standards shouldn't be taken into account for a rule of thumb list, considering most will not see the difference and most don't have TVs where it will make a difference. Now, for a videophile list, sure, that makes sense, but I still think my list is better for a rule of thumb, considering no normal person will look for the difference between component or pure RGB.

but sure, we can agree to disagree.

Yep. Noticing a difference is a per user basis. I have friends who still use composite for everything because it looks the same to them. Signal vs Connections - my general rule for people is this, and maybe I should have been clearer...

RGB, be it analog or digital, is always a safer bet than not. If one doesn't notice a difference, then that's all that matters.

As informative as this thread has been, has it answered the initial question?

I think the consensus is, however you wanna slice it... It shouldn't look bad, it's most likely a monitor issue.

It's really difficult to demonstrate what it 'should' look like, but a blind diagnosis is:

When you eliminate interference from the signal, things should become sharper. If you're not used to a raw rgb signal it actually might look too sharp. It kinda should look 'pixelated'. Sometimes video interference does a pseudo-anti-aliasing for graphics. Literally a blurring of the lines between two elements. It's an analog(as in not digital) analog(as in analogous) to what a lot of higher end 3d games devote GPU and CPU cycles to - softening of the image.

I'm stealing this from gamesx...

These were taking from a camera pointed at a monitor so while you can see the increasing 'softness' of the image, it's not a guide for how it should look: the RGB should be very, very crisp and the rest declining down...
RGB signal
S-Video
Composite

Again, not using the screenshot for anything but a comparison to the other two screenshots, see how the colors and edges start to bleed together? This is interference.

Without getting too snobby, some people don't appreciate seeing clearly defined pixels and edges.

Now if it's the opposite, if it looks too soft, then it might be a display problem. So it's a false dichotomy here, if it looks good or bad. First you gotta define what ya think looks good and then go from there. Metaleggman and I probably think the same way, that razor sharp edges - even it it does look 'pixelated', looks good. Another person might think it doesn't.

Because I ganked the images, I'll link to two primers by Lawerence of gamesx fame:
Video primer
RGB primer[/url]

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Now if you have a TV that just offers bad support for the VGA family of signals, then yeah, it might look better. Who knows what the tv is doing with the signals when it gets it in! But at no point in time - on a level playing field - should a compressed (and therefore containing interference) signal be superior to raw RGB signals. The inteference for blue difference might be low and hard to notice but it's still there. It shouldn't be better. Close? Sure for DVD's particularly which only store difference data to begin with. Same? No. Better? Absolutely and in no way. Digital RGB over Analog, if you want to put DVI and HDMI over nVGA, sure, but Analog RGB over everything else.

The bolded phrases are really what my point was for the phrases you quoted.

But, I just find it interesting that you keep talking about blue difference, when you said your list is the general rule of thumb, and for the average person, they won't see the difference caused by this occurrence. It's like arguing that on a 20" monitor, a 40000x30000 video signal (assuming that creating such a display would be possible) is better than a 4000x3000 video signal, or some other. There is an extent to which humans can perceive any differences and there is an extent to which people will look for the difference. It's quite possible that you only see the difference because you want to see a difference. The difference between the two standards shouldn't be taken into account for a rule of thumb list, considering most will not see the difference and most don't have TVs where it will make a difference. Now, for a videophile list, sure, that makes sense, but I still think my list is better for a rule of thumb, considering no normal person will look for the difference between component or pure RGB.

but sure, we can agree to disagree.

Yep. Noticing a difference is a per user basis. I have friends who still use composite for everything because it looks the same to them. Signal vs Connections - my general rule for people is this, and maybe I should have been clearer...

RGB, be it analog or digital, is always a safer bet than not. If one doesn't notice a difference, then that's all that matters.

As informative as this thread has been, has it answered the initial question?

I think the consensus is, however you wanna slice it... It shouldn't look bad, it's most likely a monitor issue.

It's really difficult to demonstrate what it 'should' look like, but a blind diagnosis is:

When you eliminate interference from the signal, things should become sharper. If you're not used to a raw rgb signal it actually might look too sharp. It kinda should look 'pixelated'. Sometimes video interference does a pseudo-anti-aliasing for graphics. Literally a blurring of the lines between two elements. It's an analog(as in not digital) analog(as in analogous) to what a lot of higher end 3d games devote GPU and CPU cycles to - softening of the image.

I'm stealing this from gamesx...

These were taking from a camera pointed at a monitor so while you can see the increasing 'softness' of the image, it's not a guide for how it should look: the RGB should be very, very crisp and the rest declining down...
RGB signal
S-Video
Composite

Again, not using the screenshot for anything but a comparison to the other two screenshots, see how the colors and edges start to bleed together? This is interference.

Without getting too snobby, some people don't appreciate seeing clearly defined pixels and edges.

Now if it's the opposite, if it looks too soft, then it might be a display problem. So it's a false dichotomy here, if it looks good or bad. First you gotta define what ya think looks good and then go from there. Metaleggman and I probably think the same way, that razor sharp edges - even it it does look 'pixelated', looks good. Another person might think it doesn't.

Because I ganked the images, I'll link to two primers by Lawerence of gamesx fame:
Video primer
RGB primer[/url]

thanks for info, i was curious about this too, welp, now to go invest int that converter, i for one, like very contrasted, bright, sharp graphics, easier on my sensitive eyes (i have a weird eye thing where my eyes are very sensitive to that kindof things). Thats why I love my SP AGS-101 over the normal 100s, alot more contrast on the onscreen objects.