1-Chip SNES/SFC Vs. Standard

[Leon Retro]

but does look better after modding fact you have to mod it again is madness. which they corrected in the 03 1Chip.

I bought an American Mini SNES that had been modded with CSYNC enabled. Then I got my hands on a mint Super Famicom Jr, but had to have it fully modded with a CSYNC signal.

It's interesting what you mentioned about some SNES games being designed to look sharper, as an attempt to overcome the slight blurriness a standard SNES exhibits. Those games must look severely sharp on a 1-chip machine. I definitely prefer how the Goemon games look on a standard SNES -- as the sharpness around sprites and details looks a bit too much on a 1-chip.

It really did surprise me how sharp and clear the image is on a 1-chip mini machine. I can appreciate why some people say it's a 'must-have' for SNES fans. I just prefer retro games to have a little bit of softness to the image. Maybe something between a 2-chip and 1-chip would be ideal for me. 1.5-chip

[andykara2003]

Maybe something between a 2-chip and 1-chip would be ideal for me. 1.5-chip

Sorry to post so late on this, but I stumbled across your posts after following almost exactly the same path you did. I collect CRTs and have some good examples including a 1996 consumer trinitron, Loewe shadow mask and a BVM-20E1E (best 15khz CRT ever made). I've collected retro consoles for a long time and always have striven for the cleanest RGB signal for my CRTs.

However, I believe there's a slowly-growing movement of people who are very experienced in retro gaming hardware (including on the very tech-heavy Shmups hardware forum) that have been using the highest quality signals and mods for years that are starting to think this way. For example my BVM is an amazing monitor, but generally I don't use it as it produces a very over-pixellated image and the scanlines are so thick it's like gaming through venetian blinds.

I have a 1-chip SNES, that I've used on my consumer trinitron for years, but have started to feel that even though the CRT is slightly 'kinder' to the image than an upscaler+flat panel, the heavy pixellation of the 1-chip SNES is starting to look a little inauthentic and jarring to me. As someone mentioned, we didn't play games like this back in the day - in fact the games didn't look particularly pixellated to the point where you didn't really see that aspect of the image and just saw the cohesive game image as intended.

My cousin came over the other day, saw the image on my 1-chip SNES and said "Wow, I don't remember the console being that pixellated'. Sometimes it's good to have an 'uneducated' eye on the screen to give an assessment that's uncoloured by our history of perfecting the retro game image. Another guy, a similarly 'uneducated' friend feels the same and calls the modern outlook 'polished nostalgia', which I feel is quite apt. I'm now buying an older 2-chip SNES to check out RGB, s-video and composite on it to see which one looks best - clean but authentic as you say Leon.

[Leon Retro]

.

I have a 1-chip SNES, that I've used on my consumer trinitron for years, but have started to feel that even though the CRT is slightly 'kinder' to the image than an upscaler+flat panel, the heavy pixellation of the 1-chip SNES is starting to look a little inauthentic and jarring to me. As someone mentioned, we didn't play games like this back in the day - in fact the games didn't look particularly pixellated to the point where you didn't really see that aspect of the image and just saw the cohesive game image as intended..

Well, that was my whole point: How do retro games look on consumer CRTs(even the best ones) and arcade monitors? The image certainly doesn't look severely razor sharp with obvious pixelation.

Just because you can make the image from retro machines incredibly razor sharp, doesn't mean that's ideal. It doesn't mean that's a look everyone is going to like/appreciate. It's down to personal taste.

I started to think about this issue more when I bought a mint 21" Trinitron a while back and once again realised that retro games aren't pixel fests with razor sharp edges. No, you can only really notice the scanlines when really close to the screen, and there's a slight degree of softness to the pixel edges that helps to make the graphics look less pixelated. In fact -- it was surprising to see how easy on the eye SNES games are compared to the extreme sharpness when using emulators at high resolutions.

The thing is -- some people think I'm talking about having a soft filter over the whole image. No, I'm talking about the edges of pixels. I personally think a little bit of softness on the edges of pixels looks nicer than razor sharp edges.

Now, we can all say that if retro games can be made to look 'razor sharp' then that must be how they should look. I don't agree with that. It's very much down to personal taste -- as it is with music and how someone sets up an equaliser.

When it comes to the 1-chip SNES, I made a clear comparison: Use a Raspberry Pi and set the scaling to 'nearest' and you'll see severe sharpness to the edges as with a 1-chip SNES. Set the scaling to 'linear' and you'll see slightly softer edges that are similar to how a standard SNES looks. That's a simple way to understand the image difference betweeen a standard and 1-chip SNES.

If someone loves really prominent pixels and razor sharp edges, they'll love a 1-chip SNES. It really takes away all traces of pixel softness. On a good BVM/PVM, it must look incredibly sharp/clear, to the point where it has nothing in common with how the games look on a consumer CRT or arcade monitor. Some people will absolutely love that look, others will find it too extreme/harsh.

I personally don't like indie games that simply look like NES games taken to an extreme level of image clarity with HD. It looks like everything is made from lego, which isn't how old 8-bit & 16-bit games actually looked on people's televisions. I think razor sharp edges look ugly and make sprites etc.. look too blocky.

When it comes to 'scanlines' -- some people like thick, obvious scanlines, others prefer more subtle scanlines that aren't obvious from a few feet away. I personally prefer scanlines that blend somewhat with the image -- like you get with consumer CRTs. I'm not fond of really obvious thick scanlines. With emulators and scalers, you can at least adjust things to suit your taste.

So, it all comes down to personal taste rather than saying one thing is actually better than another. How someone wants retro games to look is similar to how someone might want music to sound. With music -- some people like heavy bass, others don't. So you use particular headphones and set an equaliser based on how you prefer music to sound. So when it comes to retro games and how they look, you should only be concerned with getting the games to look how you want them to. It's all about personal preference.

[dvdx2]

if you want 'authentic', probably be best to plug your snes into a crusty 14" consumer portable via RF or composite.

most people are trying to improve video signal and display output!

[andykara2003]

My thoughts exactly - I have a decent collection of RGB modded consoles and great CRTs, but am broadening my horizons

[andykara2003]

Not crusty! I have a brand new 14" Trinitron which is what I would have used back in the day if I wanted a 14" - a touch small for me, perhaps. Ironically, RGB does in fact look pretty authentic on that sized CRT as the phosphor density is such that even an otherwise pixellated image blends together nicely at that size. Even composite and s-video look reasonably good for the same reason. I much prefer a 25" screen however.

[Escape-To-88]

When it comes to the 1-chip SNES, I made a clear comparison: Use a Raspberry Pi and set the scaling to 'nearest' and you'll see severe sharpness to the edges as with a 1-chip SNES. Set the scaling to 'linear' and you'll see slightly softer edges that are similar to how a standard SNES looks. That's a simple way to understand the image difference betweeen a standard and 1-chip SNES.
.

Do you think this is a valid comparison? I only ask as nearest is far too harsh for my eyes, so perhaps I shouldn’t bother with a one chip.

[Zaki]

I smear vaseline evenly on my D24 screen to soften the image.

[Leon Retro]

if you want 'authentic', probably be best to plug your snes into a crusty 14" consumer portable via RF or composite.

Well, some people prefer retro games looking like that. That's definitely "authentic" for some people.

But it doesn't mean that using Composite through a Matsui 14" is making the most of retro consoles. No, that's just one extreme away from the extreme of using studio monitors. I think lots of people would appreciate a middle-ground of RGB on a top quality Trinitron. Once I had been introduced to RGB back in the day on a Sony Trinitron, I never went back. It was a revelation.

The thing is -- using emulators and studio monitors allows the image in retro games to be very different to how they look on even the best consumer CRTs. Some people love 'razor sharp' pixels and obvious scanlines, others won't like how it looks. It's very much down to personal taste. I don't believe that extreme clarity and razor sharp edges is necessarily making retro games look their best -- it's just a look that some people think looks great. I don't think it's really about what's "authentic" but more to do with what some people find easier on the eye. It's sort of like how people would set the equaliser on a hi-fi differently.

most people are trying to improve video signal and display output!

Taking an image to extreme clarity and pixel definition is only really improving things if that's the look that appeals to you. Some people will love upscaling a SNES to 4K and removing all traces of edge softness. Others will plug a SNES into a decent CRT and think the image looks more appealing. How someone sets up an emulator on something like Pi is also down to personal preference, because you can adjust things to look anywhere from soft to really sharp.

Do you think this is a valid comparison? I only ask as nearest is far too harsh for my eyes, so perhaps I shouldn’t bother with a one chip.

Well, I definitely think it's a valid comparison. Of course, it's not an exact comparison, but you get the idea.

All I can say is -- I have two 1-chip SNES machines that use Csync -- and as much as you gain a nice bit of clarity, pixels have much sharper edges which can make details look quite harsh/rough. It really is down to personal taste which look someone prefers. I'd personally like something inbetween.

Then again -- if you were using a CRT that doesn't have a very sharp image, the SNES image would obviously look very soft due to the standard machine having a bit of softness, so a 1-chip would help under those circumstances.

I'd definitely say it's a good idea to get a 1-chip and test it out. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to sell again if you end up preferring a standard SNES.

I smear vaseline evenly on my D24 screen to soften the image.

When people act like a standard Trinitron CRT is like vaseline-o-vision compared to using an upscaler or PVM/BVM, that sends out the message that extreme clarity and razor sharp edges must be better. But "better" is a subjective thing. It's all about personal taste.

I personally don't like razor sharp pixel edges and obvious scanlines. So when I upscale a retro machine or use an emulator, I adjust things to look how I personally like them. It doesn't matter what other people think because it's all about what appeals to me. The same with how I set up a hi-fi and what type of headphones I prefer. Also, I've set up my Framemeister with other people's profiles and hated the effect, so it really is all about personal preference when it comes to video and audio.

I'm all for exploring things and deciding what's best for you. Enjoying how games look and sound is very important.

[Zaki]

I was joking Leon I can totally understand that the super sharp image isn't for everyone.

[Leon Retro]

I was joking Leon I can totally understand that the super sharp image isn't for everyone.

I thought you were being sarcastic, rather than joking. I have seen games on rubbish CRTs that were using RF and it certainly was 'vaseline-o-vision'.

I can appreciate why some people love pushing clarity and pixel definition to an extreme, but I personally like to tone things down a bit. Not to another extreme of vaseline softness, but just enough to make retro games easier on the eye. It just looks nicer to my eyes. Ultimately, we can all trumpet our likes and dislikes, but it's down to each individual to decide what suits them.

[Zaki]

I feel very spoilt today when looking back at 10 year old Zaki connecting everything with RF

My first RGB experience was the Gamecube (Saurian modded RGB cable).

Even my Dreamcast was connected with composite

[andykara2003]

I've bought the 2-chip. Can anyone say whether this is an earlier or later board revision? There's not much info out there on the PAL units. Apparently the earlier revisions are better - less ghosting/interference:

[dvdx2]

I thought you were being sarcastic, rather than joking. I have seen games on rubbish CRTs that were using RF and the it certainly was 'vaseline-o-vision'.

I can appreciate why some people love pushing clarity and pixel definition to an extreme, but I personally like to tone things down a bit. Not to another extreme of vaseline softness, but just enough to make retro games easier on the eye. It just looks nicer to my eyes. Ultimately, we can all trumpet our likes and dislikes, but it's down to each individual to decide what suits them.

a nice 600 TVL pvm would suit you nicely Leon; not overly sharp or soft, with excellent clarity and detail.

[Brad]

Back in the day if you could have had a flat lcd and an ossc you’d have thought that was the best way to play. We always wanted a sharper image than what we could actually get. Now we’re all about having it how we remember it but we wanted better than we remember it. What are we even doing people!?