Seeking clarification on OLED / BFI...some beginner questions

[Chief Blur Buster]

So for my needs (see my previous post) what I need is a 480p output (the max I can use if I want the least motion blur possible) @ 240hz and RetroTINK can do that. Is it correct? Note that I'd like to get 4:4:4 chroma, since basically all CRT masks/shaders for RetroArch need it, otherwise artifacts of every kind should be expected.

Do you mean 480p input, not 480p output, I am confused?

If you mean output, it's a non-sequitur. 480p is too low resolution for CRT filters. 4:2:0 is at the high resolution level, not the original console resolution level, so 2560x1440 would mean 1280x1440 chrome, despite just being 480p scaled, and 480p is what Blur Busters Law follows (doesn't matter if original or scaled pixels, so why stay 480p).

You have to think in the "correct frame of reference", the theoretical 4:2:2 (which is not yet a feature of Retrotink 4K), is at the high output resolution level, not the original resolution level, only if you were doing filters. Now, if you use 4:4:4 you could do a different resolution like, say, 2560x720 which would be fine for aperturegrille, since the vertical resolution doesn't matter for aperturegrille masks. As long as the OLEDs could scale. So then you don't need the 4:2:2 in that case (at least in theory). But this is as of, yet, untested.

1) I must connect RetroTINK to the GPU via HDMI (I suppose) and then to the monitor, it is correct?

Yes.

2) I need to feed RetroTINK with a low res signal: if I use RetroArch for emulation, the signal provided to RetroTINK is that of the emulated resolution/frequency or the one set in Windows?

The proper way to use Retrotink 4K is low-resolution input, high-resolution output (preferably native).

Evaluate this carefully; This may or may not be the Right Tool for Right Job for you, so I'm saying there's possibly caveats/risks, e.g. like needing to lower refresh rate to 120Hz (e.g. 2560x1440 120Hz would work, as it's the same bandwidth as 4K 60Hz).

Ugh! I thought I understood that the software-BFI and even more so the RA-BFI (which allows you to vary some parameters) were practically perfect for OLEDs. Now you tell me that RA BFI has problems! What exactly? What kind of visual defects should I expect?

If the emulation module is good and RA is configured well, it can be practically perfect. It's just that there's some framepacing optimization issues with RetroArch and some emulator modules.

However, as I wrote in my opening post, it seems to me like a good idea to suggest to Mike that he seriously think about proposing a device with the sole exclusive functionality of implementing BFI and perhaps also CRT masks and the scanlines.

That's what Retrotink 4K already is, it can do input=output resolution too.

If you were wanting higher resolution output (even without scaling), it'll likely have to be a more expensive device, even if narrowscoped to avoid scaling. That's not the compute/bandwidth problem, it's somewhere else.

What do you think Chief? Can you tell Mike about this idea, since you work with him and know him well?

No need. He already has the idea but you will have to wait a similar time interval between Retrotink5X and Retrotink4K, for such a device to happen. If you want to wait that long... Maybe ask him directly yourself on the Retrotink4K discord?

[tong]

I really hate how manufacturers are dropping the ball HARD with BFI on these new OLEDs.
The new Ultrawide 240hz WOLED only offers 120Hz BFI, giving 120hz content the same clarity as 240hz (4.2ms pixel blur):
https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus-r ... t-pg34wcdm

However, it could do 60hz BFI with many options for the end user:
75:25 duty cycle (180 frames on, 60 frames off) - ~13ms pixel blur and 25% brightness loss
50:50 duty cycle (120 frames on, 120 frames off) - 8.3ms pixel blur and 50% brightness loss
25:75 duty cycle (60 frames on, 180 frames off) - 4.2ms pixel blur and 75% brightness loss

This is exactly what the TINK4K does after all. And for 480hz panels the results could be even better.

[O-T-T]

Do you mean 480p input, not 480p output, I am confused?

If you mean output, it's a non-sequitur. 480p is too low resolution for CRT filters. 4:2:0 is at the high resolution level, not the original console resolution level, so 2560x1440 would mean 1280x1440 chrome, despite just being 480p scaled, and 480p is what Blur Busters Law follows (doesn't matter if original or scaled pixels, so why stay 480p).

You have to think in the "correct frame of reference", the theoretical 4:2:2 (which is not yet a feature of Retrotink 4K), is at the high output resolution level, not the original resolution level, only if you were doing filters. Now, if you use 4:4:4 you could do a different resolution like, say, 2560x720 which would be fine for aperturegrille, since the vertical resolution doesn't matter for aperturegrille masks. As long as the OLEDs could scale. So then you don't need the 4:2:2 in that case (at least in theory). But this is as of, yet, untested.

Hello Chief, sorry for the very late reply! I was veeery busy the past week.

I also apologize for the confusion: as I imagined, I still didn't have a clear idea of how RetroTINK works. Now I think I understand better, thanks for the further explanations.

So, to sum everything up, RetroTINK does what I want on 4:4:4 BUT only @ 2560x720 (if I use aperture grille mask).

The problem is that i'd like to use also slot mask, that was the standard for arcade monitors and TVs back in the days...so I believe in this case I need much more vertical res and RT cannot do that. Also, with such restrictions on band, wouldn't it be a waste to use a 4k 240hz monitor with RetroTINK? (OLED or not should not matter, I think)

On another topic: I read that some people report that Nvidia's Pulsar works well only on the top of the display while it is disastrous on the middle and on the bottom as it generates a lot of artifacts, ghosting, etc. Can you confirm this, having seen it first hand?

Again, many thanks for your time!