Comment by kraussvonespy

Comment by kraussvonespy 2 days ago

9 replies

View on Hacker News

Mid 1980s, I worked at an record store that was also heavy into stereos and other audio / visual equipment. We were fortunate enough to have not only a huge 40" Sony set (which weighed about 300lbs) but also a 36" Fisher console set that I think weighed close to 400lbs. So, so much heavy glass.

There were lots of reasons why you wouldn't want to buy one of these behemoths at the time (cost, weight, heat) but maybe the most significant was how bad NTSC video looked when you spread it across a 40" screen. I recently pulled out an old laserdisc player and connected it to a 65" OLED set and it looks absolutely terrible.

flyinghamster a day ago

When my dad's old Sony KV-25XBR bit the dust, he replaced it with a 32" Toshiba flat-screen CRT. That thing was a chunk indeed.

In my opinion, even though it was really quite a good set, you're absolutely right about NTSC looking horrible on big screens. From day one I noticed that the scan lines very much made it look like watching through very fine Venetian blinds.

Upscaling NTSC and putting it on a big flat panel isn't really so great either.

Reply View 0 replies
LargoLasskhyfv 2 days ago

One does not do it like that. There needs to be a hardware video signal upscaler in between. Of which many different versions at different capability and price points exist.

Short intro here https://www.retrorgb.com/upscalers.html , be prepared for endless ramblings of what is best why for what in countless other places.

Reply View 5 replies
  • detourdog a day ago

    I have a 90’s era Faroudja line doubler analog components and the size of a VCR.

    Looks like this https://www.ukaudiomart.com/details/649142996-faroudja-vp250...

    Reply View 2 replies
    • mhall a day ago

      My first job out of uni in the mid 2000s was working on line doubling and film mode detection for Imagination Technologies (makers of the graphics chip in the Dreamcast). Faroudja was our benchmark!

      Felt like a real baller with a giant HDTV on my desk, but less fun was watching test scenes from Titanic at 1FPS over and over.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • LargoLasskhyfv a day ago

      Wow :) I got a 18 inch office-display by Fujitsu-Siemens with S-PVA panel, long ago.

      Broke down after a long time. Repaired it by resoldering some simple capacitors.

      During the repair I had a look at the chips. One (or two?)had that Faroudja label on it.

      At the time I didn't know about that, and just wondered WTF is that? Searched the net and "got it". They meanwhile got bought up by someone, Wiki as of now says STMicroelectronics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroudja

      That display is still working but mostly gathering dust, some 8800 km away from me, atop a 4x kvm, managing some old stuff, also gathering dust :)

      Reply View 0 replies
  • mjg59 2 days ago

    Laserdisc will output 480i rather than 240p (it's just an encoding of the NTSC signal) and lag isn't really an issue, and the linked page doesn't really cover the other advantages. I can imagine that a TV's scaler isn't optimised for composite signals (or even ingesting and filtering the composite signals in the first place), but also laserdisc is just going to look kind of bad compared to modern formats even under the best of circumstances. Even back in the 90s, when encoders were at their worst, DVD was considered a meaningful step up from laserdisc.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • LargoLasskhyfv 2 days ago

      My link has a link to 240p, which also goes into 480i.

      That aside, all that stuff was made for CRT technology, with dot/slit masks, and phospors with varying intensity of afterglow. Bigger computer CRT screens worked similar in principle, just not interlaced(mostly), and higher resolutions.

      What they both have in common is resolution independency within their technical limits.

      Flat displays of today don't have that, no matter which panel technology they are based on.

      Their internal upscalers may compensate for the resolution, but not for the effects of phosphor, and it's afterglow, after the beam raced over them, until its hitting them again, through the mask.

      There is a reason that hardware stuff exists, more so than much so called 'audiophile' stuff, though it's still 'niche'. Once you have seen it in direct comparison, with, or without, you'll know.

      Or you've been lucky, and have a really good screen.

      Or bad eyesight/perception, not noticing the difference. ^^^^ Not meant to be condescending, but I've seen that IRL.

      Reply View 0 replies
[removed] 2 days ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies