PS Two + XRGB-2 + HP 1502

[Jeremy Pallant]

Several times since I started writing about Micomsoft products I have been asked about using an LCD monitor in conjunction with a PlayStation 2 and one of the XRGB products. Until now, I've been forced to say in response that I've never tried it, and so can't make a recommendation. However I have heard from a couple of people who made the experiment, and they were not too impressed with the results.

Experience with LCD monitors on PC's, in line with my profession as a software engineer and systems integrator has certainly justified my cautious response, and and the poor results that have been reported. When an LCD monitor displays a resolution other than its optimum, the results can be undesirable, it not downright ugly.

Recently, I installed a video game system at my girfriend's house, and rather than take apart my existing setup, when considering what console I would prefer, decided on a PS2. As such, I acquired one of the new, cute, slimline PS Two's, and hooked it up to an XRGB-2 I had lying around without purpose, it having been replaced by an XRGB-2 Plus. The small footprint of the combination called out for an LCD display to complement it.

As such, I began to look around at LCD monitors, and based upon my own experience, and that of my correspondents resolved to check on a few points before purchase.

1) Could it display a resolution of 640x480 at a 60Hz refresh rate?

2) What was the quality of the display?

3) Did it have any artifacts from converting that 640x480 resolution to the native resolution of the screen.

4) What was the color quality?

The first thing I found out was that on all the PC's I looked at,  not one allowed a resolution of 640x480 with whatever LCD monitor was connected. I was, to say the least, somewhat surprised. In fact the lowest resolution that could be set was 800x600.

However, I did find one monitor, an HP 1502, in a second hand shop that was connected with a bunch to CRTs to a PC displaying a screen saver depicting an animated marine aquarium. What was immediately impressive was the color quality and the crispness of the image when compared, side by side, with CRTs of various makes and models.

I checked via the monitor's OSD (On Screen Display), and to my surprise, found out that it was displaying a resolution of 640x480 with a refresh rate of 60Hz. Closer examination revealed no obvious display artifacts. So, I bought it.

Upon connecting it to my PS Two and XRGB-2, I found that I had something worthwhile. Image quality is very good, comparable to my girlfriend's 15" CRT, which I had borrowed briefly. In fact she took one look at the video intro to Armored Core: Nexus, and promptly offered to let me use her monitor if I would, in turn, let her use the LCD.

In addition to Armored Core: Nexus, I tried out Wipeout Fusion, GTA: San Andreas, and The Bards Tale. One criticism I had was the limited viewing angle which, to be honest, did not come as a surprise.  The only other is that using the monitor controls alone, I wasn't able to expand the image to fit the entire display. As a result it has a small black border, but to be honest I don't find that to be a problem.

To conclude; attaching an LCD to a PlayStation 2 via an XRGB-2 is certainly possible and worthwhile if you take a few precautions.

Incidentally, Sony? Your little PS Two really calls out for an  LCD display akin to that available for the PSOne.

[NFG]

It seems to me that 800x600 is the new XP minimum resolution, not the limitation of the LCD panel itself.  Or at least I haven't seen _any_ LCD monitors that don't do it.  Mind you I've confined my search to the Samsungs, which seem to be the best with a nice 12ms response.

One thing I wish reviewers would cover is the quality of the scaling algorithm used with LCDs in non-native resolutions, and whether the scaling can be adjusted (hard pixel doubling or filtering, for example, and whether it offers a non-scaled image...)

TBH I'm surprised there ever was confusion over 'if' it would work, it never seemed to me to be something that might not!  Perhaps I'm just too ready to think that common sense is really as common as I'd hope...  

[Jeremy Pallant]

That 800x600 might be the new XP minimum resolution is certainly possible. I hadn't considered that. My bad. But I wasn't about to acquire an LCD monitor unless I had first seen it display 640x480, and most importantly, without artifacts due to the scaling algorithm.

I must admit, until I had received a few emails on the subject, the feasibility of using an LCD monitor with an XRGB-2 had seemed to me to be a given. That some people posed the question, and those emails claiming poor image quality served to make me doubly careful.

Actually, that does make me regard the 1024x768 output resolution of the XRGB-2 Plus with more respect. Clearly Micomsoft's scaling algorithm is pretty good. I must make time to experiment with my XRGB-2 Plus. Certainly the asthetics would make for a better match with the PS Two.

Oh damn! Then I'll have to take my setup apart.

[atom]

Yes 800x600 is the minimum resolution xp allows... normally. If you actually install the software that comes with your radeon or geforce you can then set a much larger range of resolutions. Also, ALL PC MONITORS have to support 640x480 because that is the VGA standard and is what your MSDos and your bios and Windows loading screen is set in. And you're flip flopped on the problem with LCD's as they produce a much crisper picture then a CRT. The problem is that the refresh rate is VERY slow and in fact when used with PC games will most likely hurt your eyes from the blurriness. A PS2 has a lower refresh rate for use on TV's so that is probably why it works well with the PS2. It is also possible that the horror stories you have heard are that you can see the poor graphics quality of the PS2 through a clearer monitor.

[Jeremy Pallant]

I'm just reporting the results I experienced with a PS Two. I've certainly heard that LCD monitors don't work too well with PC games. However my correspondents were specifically referencing LCD monitors, an XRGB-2 and a PS2. Based on my, admittedly limited, experience, I conclude they used monitors that didn't scale from 640x480 too well. All I'm doing here is relating my personal experience.

I appreciate your input, but bear in mind, I write about my experience, and try hard to emphasis that. As a writer, I've had people ask me about this product or that, and while that is understandable, the truth is I simply cannot afford to cover everything. For me, this is simply a hobby.

[Endymion]

Yes 800x600 is the minimum resolution xp allows... normally. If you actually install the software that comes with your radeon or geforce you can then set a much larger range of resolutions. Also, ALL PC MONITORS have to support 640x480 because that is the VGA standard and is what your MSDos and your bios and Windows loading screen is set in.

This has nothing to do with the native resolution of an LCD monitor. Basically, the LCD screen has one resolution and that's it. Any other "resolutions" that are sent to it, it draws superimposed upon its fixed resolution--this is why any resolution other than the fixed one looks crappy and blurry. This is just a technological limitation of the kind of screen you're dealing with. Few screens today have native/fixed resolutions of 640x480--it would probably be a pretty old screen if it had a native resolution that low. Most of the ones I see for sale now seem to be 800x600 or 1024x768 if they are 15 inchers, although they vary from screen to screen even among manufacturers, size seems to be at least as much of a determing factor and there are larger screens (17"+) that may have native resolutions of 1280 lines or more.

The whole reason Jeremy has had good results is because his screen is working with a native resolution the same as the output he is getting. If it were another resolution it would look like crap. This has absolutely nothing to do with sync rate or that it's being used with a console. Once the video goes to the XRGB2(+) it is a VGA signal. VGA is VGA, the screen accepting it can't tell anything else, but if it's an LCD it can go to its native resolution, which looks very nice, or something else, which will look very bad.

[atom]

I didn't realize he was talking about the native res, i thought he meant he was wondering if it supported 640x480. And yes, the low sync rate does make PC games look poor. Windowed games blur too. What you are talking about of course makes the image look poor as well, but is not a problem if you can just flip your game into the screens native resolution. Most PC games (except for stupid Halo) run at 60 or 70hz. When your flat panel can't run that fast you  get out of sync and when your image changes you encounter a blurry or even flickering image. Many newer flat panels are much better at this however.

[NFG]

It's important to note I think that newer LCD monitors, like those from Samsung and Mitsubishi (And probably others) have pixel cycle rates of 12ms, where the normal rate for newer (cheaper) LCDs is more than double that.  12ms allows for very, very quick on/off transitions and allows for very comfortable gaming of all kinds.  

Except for the contrast (which is typically half that of CRTs) there's not many reasons to have a big heavy chunk of glass on your desk anymore.

Thanks for the report, Jeremy.

[Jeremy Pallant]

Actually the native resolution of the HP 1502 is 1024x768. While I've seen other LCD monitors handle non-native resolutions very badly, this one seems to do rather well.

[Guest]

Hmm this is all intriguing. Seems to me that going lower then native resolution should be no problem. Going higher would obviously have terrible problems. All the LCD's i have expiremented with are Dell, Gateway, or NEC brand. The Dell looked the worst of course. Also, in case of flat panels, I believe you will get a better picture with DVI rather then VGA, all these ones have been VGA.

[Endymion]

Hmm this is all intriguing. Seems to me that going lower then native resolution should be no problem. Going higher would obviously have terrible problems. All the LCD's i have expiremented with are Dell, Gateway, or NEC brand. The Dell looked the worst of course. Also, in case of flat panels, I believe you will get a better picture with DVI rather then VGA, all these ones have been VGA.

I guess I presumed his display was native at that resolution, sorry about that Jeremy.

However, I have seen a lot of LCDs that look terrible at non-native resolutions lower than the native, so you don't want to make a big generalization like that. The DVI vs. VGA issue is not really an issue. One is not better than the other inherently, but you may want to avoid the need to switch display types if you can help it (i.e. use DVI with anything digital, VGA with anything analogue), you reduce the chance of interferance. Since all our consoles do analogue it's not going to matter, it's going to have to be converted if you use a DVI screen.

[dj898]

I use Plasma screen and it does decent upconvert of incoming 480p from DC and Xbox. Of course 1080i from Xbox looks beaut...

Still I'd be interested to find a decent LCD panel to use with my spare DC so I can set it up for our guest room - at the moement I have Saturn hooked up there but would like to put DC as well so they don't need to play my main consoles at the family room. he he

[atom]

Oh no no im coming across all wrong. I didn't mean that it won't look bad on lower then the native, i just meant that there is no reason why it should. Now that i even think about it more i see why it can, it would only be clear if it was exactly half of the native res. And im going to say DVI on a flat panel is much better then Analogue. A flat panel display is purely a digital display, with a value sent to each pixel on the screen. Because of the charge sent to each pixel, the pixel will block the light coming from the back of the screen differently. VGA is meant for analogue signals sent to light guns on a CRT monitor, and the strength of charge will equal the brightness of the light sent for each color. If VGA is sent to a DVI display, it has to converted to digital by a chip and analogue signals aren't very computeable. At best your display is going to be able convert a range of your Analogue signal to a singal digital value.

I am sorry If I am coming across as an expert, I do not mean too. This is a problem I have sometimes. This is my understanding of the components of the monitor, your's might be different and you should not assume that you are automatically right. All the poor flat panel's I have seen have used the VGA connector.

[Aidan]

Due to the design of LCD displays, each pixel is very clearly defined. When you run at the native resolution of an LCD display, there is a direct mapping between each pixel the video card creates, and each pixel the LCD displays.

When you run a lower resolution, there is no direct mapping any longer. There's two ways of dealing with this situation. One way is simply to continue to do a direct mapping, but not use all of the surface of the LCD. This results in a nice sharp image that sits in the middle of the LCD display.

The other way is to resample the image, and this is where the difference between LCD monitors becomes very apparent. The simplest way of doing the resampling is simply to double the occasional pixel. With this scheme, converting 800 horizontal pixels into 1024 horizontal pixels means the display doubles either every third or every fourth pixel. This looks *horrible*. The same happens for vertical lines too.

Another method for resampling (as this is exactly what is going on) is to use an interpolation filter to multiply the horizontal signal by a value (32 for my example), then feed the output of the interpolation filter onto a decimation filter which will divide it by 25. However, this requires significant amounts of processing, as we're taking that 800 pixel line and turning it internally into a 25600 pixel line, before we decimate it into a 1024 pixel line. This looks much better, but tends to lead to a loss of sharpness.

Either way around, we're having to do some tricks to scale that image to fit something it doesn't easily go into. That means the image that is output won't be as good as the image if the signal were a native resolution signal, however hard we try.

We have to do this conversion for DVI (It's mandatory that the display device do the scaling). Analog is less well specified, but a decent LCD should also do the same conversion for analog. It's complicated a bit by the fact that LCDs run at a specific refresh rate in order to take advantage of certain quirks of the way you display a signal on the LCD. Typically LCD displays are refreshed at 60Hz, but don't worry, you won't notice any flicker, as LCD use such a different way of generating the image.

[atom]

Aidan, you are always full of information. Are you self taught?