I wasnt talking about just the scanline generator (which at £45 or so is a rip off - its about £4 to make your own - http://www.mmmonkey.co.uk/console/other/vga-scanlines.htm). I was talking about this upscaler: http://www.mmmonkey.co.uk/console/other/rgb2vga.htm I have one of these and looks just as good as your pics (which is why I said you should do a comparison, as you have both in the flesh). By all reports, that upscaler is very good and no where near the price. Edit: That site actually has the scaler I am talking about too: "The overall picture is to be considered good. It's not 100% as sharp as the XRGB2's output when the output is set to 480p, but it's comparable to the XRGB3 when scaling is performed."
There you have it. Not as sharp :nod: Being great at scaling is fantastic but you also need the sharpness. Micomsoft's boxes offer adjustable settings for every possible image process you could ever want. This is what gives it the edge. Werther or not it justifies the big jump in price is a matter of opinion depending on how much you really want that extra bit of crispness. Yakumo
This is why Id like to know how big the difference is from someone with them side by side, because honestly - I couldn't imagine the picture getting any better than this thing is. Also, it has sharpness settings too. Also, you have the XRGB3 not the 2 quoted by that site. Reviews seem to favour to the 2 to the 2+ and 3 (as mentioned above by someone else)
I have one of those upscalers to run 15khz arcade hw on my hdtv. The quality I get out of it is shit. Sure it works and is cheap but the quality out of it is really bad (and i've toyed with the settings quite a bit). :banghead: Hell if I even give it a 31khz image, its output is worse then just going straight into my tv (I know this because 246b is not compatible with many monitors/tv yet the 246c & 256 are more compatible, so I did some back and forth playing till I found out that 256 would work straight on my tv & pc monitor).
I have the complete opposite - picture is fantastic, I run everything through it if I can. Looking at Yakumo's pictures, I can tell no difference to what I get (hence wanting someone to do a side by side). And as you can see on that review site - its comparable with the XRGB3 in some instances. Maybe you just have a bad unit?
You really don't get a very good idea of what a display actually looks like by looking at a picture of it. For one thing, you're limited by the quality of the screen you're viewing it on - so if the captured screen is of higher quality than the one you're viewing it on, you won't be able to tell. More importantly, taking a photo of a screen, almost any kind of screen, introduces all sorts of artifacts that you wouldn't see in real life - artifacts like moire, bars across the screen, darkness or fuzziness due to an incompatible shutter rate or a shakey camera, etc. CRTs and LCDs are designed to be viewed by a human eye. A camera works differently than the eye, so the results will be different. In other words, the only way to really know what a screen looks like is to see it yourself.
Or ANY 240p signal via RGB. I'd argue a 15khz monitor will produce a better image than a PVM - but it won't be very big. Not an issue for me though.
Having 2 pictures instead of 1 doesn't remove the problems I mentioned. What is valuable, I think, is the opinion of a person who has seen a screen. I've talked to many different people about this subject, and the overwhelming consensus is that the XRGB-3 is superior to virtually every other option in its price range. Also, I would not be surprised if someone has already done a side by side comparison. Most PVM's accept 15khz. Mine does anyway.
I am not asking for 2 pictures, I am asking him to compare them side by side. I am well aware how a picture of a picture works, please do not treat me as an idiot - its one thing that annoys me greatly. Especially over something I didn't ask for.
I'm aware of that, but I mean, a 15khz monitor will give you a 1:1 picture if configured properly whereas a PVM has more lines. Probably not much in it really, but in theory I think it would be noticeable.
I'm not sure what you mean. PVMs, like most CRTs, have a variable native resolution - so the fact that they have more lines than a standard CRT TV doesn't matter. They will still display a 240p signal in its native resolution. That's what I was led to believe, anyway. My bad. When you said "side by side," I assumed you meant 2 pictures.
Nope. PC CRTs have variable native resolutions too. Otherwise, you'd have to scale the image. Also, what do you mean by "15khz monitor"? If you mean a monitor that accepts a 15khz signal, then a PVM is a 15khz monitor.
I think my PVM can theoretically display up to 600 TV lines, but I assure you it displays both 240p and 480i natively. You can sit right next to it and see the individual pixels; there's no scaling being done.
