Hdmi (Switch) to Sony Wega CRT TVs (analog 480i/240p)

I’ve been looking up a few HDMI to ycbcr adapters some of the most expensive ones can convert 1080p HDMI to various component resolutions.

The one I’m most interested in is 480i or 240p None of the other devices mentioned it the lowest they go is 480p.

I’m trying to hook up my Nintendo switch to my Sony Wega CRT TV.

I’m trying to find one that’s specifically mentions conversion to either 480i or 240p.

I see composite adapters that’ll do it but not component ones. I currently have an S-Video one.

Anyone know of any HDMI to 480i/240p component adapters?

As for delay time, as long as it’s good enough for fight games that’s good enough for me. Since there are no such thing on the Switch as pixel-based light gun games that require sub-microsecond timing, that degree of accuracy is unnecessary.

Does your model Wega CRT uses HDMI at all?
If so, use that. You want to generally stick to a native output format when possible.

My soda Vega is probably the last of the Sony CRT TVs.

most of the converters only explicitly go from one digital format to the other.

Should I assume that converting from digital signals to analog displays is just simply decoding a digital device, which should have very little time difference?

Well I do have an HDMI to S video converter. I could try that and see if that is considered low delay.

The only reason why I’m afraid of those HDMI to component converters is because it doesn’t explicitly mention 240p or 480i.

If it’s true that most of the delay is in the display technology and if you don’t need precise Pixel perfect light gun accuracy. Then my prediction is it should support it

since I wrote this last I thought “Wait I have an HDMI to S video converter. I should see how low ping that is.”

If you happen to know one that says explicitly HDMI to 240p/480i I’ll listen. But if not hey, S video is plenty good.

The only question is how does it deal with converting 16x9 to 4x3. Of the three extreme choices I prefer letterboxing.

  1. Never assume anything.

  2. As usual, please stop using “ping” as a term for video lag/latency. It is not the right term to use and is inaccurate in this case. For a guy who prides himself for wanting to provide all (if sometimes a little too much) information up front so that anyone reading has all the details from the get-go, I’m surprised you’re still using an incorrect term despite how many times you’ve been told that you shouldn’t.

That being said, you’ve spent A LOT of text saying that you’re looking for an HDMI-to-composite/S-Video/component converter. As far as I know, there isn’t any made with gaming in mind, so any that you find is a luck of the draw in terms of latency due to processing. Most gaming-designed converters are of the sort to convert composite/S-Video/component-to-HDMI, simply due to the majority of people wanting to play retro consoles on modern displays.

I’m not sure why you’d want to do what you’re looking for anyways, personally, from a gaming perspective. Playing a modern console that’s 480p/720p/1080p on a 240p/480i display will really diminish the experience. Even if you’re planning to play something retro, you’re still stuck with the problem of 16:9 vs 4:3.

1 Like

Just wanted to see if there was an easy answer or if it was a wild goose chase.

I guess I could find out myself by directly comparing the Switch outputs on a standard HDTV versus an S-Video or VGA and see if, back-to-back, the CRT is faster than the processing it takes a go from HDMI to either S-Video or VGA.

In terms of the last post I use the term lag, delay, and ping, (sometimes) synonyms of each other.

I understand I’m not technically right with ping but ping conveys the fact between a) the time you see what you have to do, b) you do it, and c) you see the results.

So in that sense there’s a back and forth. Sight to action to sight.

If that’s what I’ll do I’ll post a video showing whether any HD to SD conversion is faster than the HDMI’s natural display lag. It it is, then that would be helpful to know if display lag > conversion lag.

Also, you don’t need sub-Microsecond lag for and HDMI game, since no modern HDMI only game uses CRT dot crawl targeting.

I think there a way to do it, but it isn’t going ro be cheap. Were talking a broadcast industry external scaller, and there still no guarantee that you could avoid lag.

With rare exceptions, it’s best to stick to native formats for a console.

I’m just hoping, (and at first glance it looks true) that the conversion time from HDMI to SVideo being sent to a CRT TV is at least 1/10 of the typical draw time if an average non-CRT TV in native HDMI.

if the conversion time is under a millisecond, then it beats random non-CRTs draw time with Native HDMI hands down.

Probably the reason why this works is because the analog TV wants to receive a signal as a wave which by the very nature of the word is analogous to a real TV wave. When turning a chunky step into a smooth curve, you’re not adding any new data you’re just plotting midpoints between data points.

With more data points there’s less midpoint plotting and therefore the wave might be more accurate along the analog axis

But it’s analog (continuous) along rows, digital (discrete)valong columns, but blending makes them seem more analog.

I have some possibilities to mention, but first some thoughts.

Even with as much as I love C.R.T. televisions, I also think it would be better to just buy an Evo monitor for simple lag purposes. Downscaling is still a form of post-processing and I see no reason why it would be inherently faster than upscaling, and it is an inherently lossy process. The BenQ Zowie RL2460 which was used in Evo 2018 is currently priced at $160 on Walmart’s website and had an M.S.R.P. of $220, so don’t go wild on this endeavor with expensive broadcast equipment. Extrons that can output 240p seem to easily cost more than that these days.

Another problem is that even with the older games that are made for C.R.T., the simple act of emulation is generally prone to some amount of lag, and they are probably letterboxed with borders to make a 16:9 signal, which would probably be pillarbox to make 4:3 again. I know this because I tried watching Star Trek blu-rays on my blu-ray player on a C.R.T. and found this to be annoying. The reason I tried this over purchasing DVDs was that blu-ray has better compression and colorspace. I think I got similar results when I tried plugging my S.N.E.S. classic edition directly into a 4:3 samsung slimfit C.R.T.

If you really want this to downscale to 480i y/pb/pr, it looks like the KanexPro HDRGBRL can do it based on examinatiion of the manual, the manufacturer’s website and B&H Photo’s product page (which prices it at $60), but I have no idea how laggy or not it might be. No word on 240p since that is not a standard television signal, so no manufacturer would advertise it unless the product was made specifically for vintage games.

Speaking of which another method which might be more effective at downscaling is to use GBS-Control custom firmware for the GBS-8200. You might need additional converters, and it also requires some D.I.Y. knowhow to install the modification at the moment, although a plug and play modification kit is planned too. There is a webpage with an informative video about it on Retro R.G.B., and another article on it by Fabio Sanatra on Medum, which also gives you an idea of just how expensive the Extron Emotia line of downscalers are, which is part of why I consider the E.V.O. monitor a better option.

I know of some other converters which may have downscaled to y/pb/pr in the past, but it seems like they discontinued support for the standard definition resolutions in more recent revisions. Somebody else with a similar usage application to yours asked about such a device on reddit, and while a Musou branded converter was recommended and even stated to be able to output 240p, the recommendation was updated to state that more recent revisions may not work. It looks like it may be a similar situation for the Portta N3CVTHR unfortunately: It used to advertise 480i on the amazon page, but no longer does.

Downscalers of any sort are a relatively rare sort of device, and most of the few others I can think of have been discontinued, so there is not much point in mentioning those.

1 Like

Well I found a solution I found a something -VGA (not exactly sure what format that natively accepts 720p signals from my Xbox 360 my switch my Wii U and my Xbox One. And I’m able to capture the footage live and broadcast on Twitch. the PS3 DTV has about two frames worth of DeLay So I was going to test the simultaneous transmission and see if the difference is 2 frames or less.

I’m thinking there’s three different processes that could slow down ideally What would go from high definition HDMI signal to a CRT of some sort. Going from HDMI to component means you’ll have to both interlace it and downscaled video.
Going from HDMI to VGA is thankfully a little better you could get a ypbpr to RGB converter, and manually adjust the screen for 720P. And that’s the only delay, a color space change. Or you could find the lowest ping monitor that accepts native HDMI which unfortunately is 8 milliseconds.

If one cared primarily about quickness. Is the savings in draw time on a TN monitor (about 8 milliseconds) greater than any of these conversion losses (720p->480i to Wega, YPBPR -> RGB and make manual adjustments to VGA monitor).

If I sit all my high-def systems at 720P the whole screen can fit and if the worst conversion time is 720p to 480i I save that by just doing a color space conversion of ypbpr to RGB.)

I assume the speed of going from ypbpr to RGB is the exact same speed as going from RGB to ypbpr, which is what most retro people do, play old games on modern TVs. If it is I heard it only takes two 480i pixels worth of time to convert RGB to ypbpr. If the reverse is true then for everything except photo accurate light gun games using the old technique this is virtually a ping free way to play modern video games and have reasonable definition. I guess if one were to spring for a higher definition monitor with a standard that could do 1080p accurately that would be better but, 720p is plenty.

Strictly speaking V.G.A. is a 680x480 progressive scan resolution, but in a looser sense a single well constructed V.G.A. cable can carry progressive scan video signals of up to at least 2304x1440 at a refresh rate of 80hz. It depends on the capabilities of the source device and the display. The 2304x1440 resolution assumes a P.C. outputting to a Sony GDM-FW900 or equivalent, which was arguably the best C.R.T. ever produced in consideration of the fact that it used the same tube as a Sony BVM-D24E1WU professional color grading monitor if I recall correctly, yet could accept higher resolution signals. An absolutely stunning piece of technology by 2005 standards, especially since C.R.Ts. lack fixed pixels, meaning it can display resolutions all of the way down to 480p just as effectively before the signal falls out of its synchronization range.

Something else that needs to be noted is that component y/pb/pr does not necessitate interlacing. The standards support 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i. Moreover I think if the stars align you can even get 1080p since an xbox 360 or Wii U is capable of outputting a 1080p signal through its component video. The caveat to that is that because it is a nonstandard resolution for the format is that many televisions lack support for 1080p over component. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, most of the C.R.T. televisions which directly support progressive scan over component seem to use digital processing which introduces lag for some reason. The effects of laggy processing had for playing games on H.D.T.Vs. was largely a non-concern until about 2006, and Sony halted their C.R.T. production in Japan by 2004, and the best C.R.T. they produced was arguably the 32XBR960 which was already being produced in 2004.

Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that a C.R.T. does not have drawtime, but my understanding of the situation is different. My understanding is that a refreshrate of 60 F.P.S. that a C.R.T. draws at a rate of about one frame every 16 milliseconds, which would mean that at a half screen measure of the sort usually used in lag test reporting that the amount of time it takes for the electron gun to go from the top-left corner of the screen to the middle is approximately 8 milliseconds. Shockdude of Resetera argues that this means a C.R.T. has 8.3 milliseconds of lag.

Now ordinarily I would not link Shockdude’s claim because I am actually skeptical of it. It could be argued that this 8 miliseconds should not be counted in display lag figures, depending on the details of how an analogue video signal is fed into an analogue C.R.T., because in accordance to Shockdude’s sources, the definition of lag (which I also see as a more contextually sensitive word than he does, with at least three separate applicable types: Overall input lag, H.D.T.V. lag and Display Lag) is the difference in time between video signal input into the display and visual output.

However, if we abstract the process of what is happening beyond the plastic shells of the devices, the way I see it is that using an outboard digital video processor to reprocess the signal into something an analogue C.R.T. can actually use should be no different from using the onboard digital video processor of a digital flat panel display. Either way the signal would be held in a digital frame buffer before actually being decoded into a electrical pulses that can actually be used by actual cathode ray tube or liquid crystal portion of the display to produce visual output you can actually see.

When you use a Time Slueth to measure lag on a P.V.M. Trinitron, you do not get less than 7 milliseconds worth of lag when measuring from the middle bar, as per the standard recommendation as seen in the following two videos:

That means if we assume the best L.C.D. lags by 8 milliseconds as you suggest Tripletopper, the digital to analog conversion process you are suggesting only saves you one millisecond after all factors are considered. Now the fact that we are seeing less than 8 milliseconds suggests to me that Shockdude’s reasoning is seriously flawed, since we should not see such a result unless the C.R.T. finishes refreshing a screen from top to bottom in less than 16 milliseconds, and thus refreshes at a faster rate than the actual F.P.S.

However, the time slueth can output video signals that the P.V.M. Trinitron can natively display without downscaling, and you are correct in asserting that simple signal transcoding is a very fast process. However, in the Lag Testing Retro Scalers video, Bob of RetroRGB states that GBS Control is the fastest downscaler to his knowledge, measuring a relatively simple 480p to 240p conversion to introduce 8 miliseconds of lag. When Bob makes that statement, it implies that he knows of other Downscalers with even worse results.

Although Bob seems impressed with the result, it is a bad one for this given application. It means means the net gross total of subtracting the lag difference between a C.R.T. and a T.F.T. and downscaling the image with the originally suggested process actually adds 7 miliseconds of lag, rather than reducing it by any amount. Downscaling high definition consoles to 480i as originally suggested is not the way to go here.

As for transcoding a signal to a computer monitor it could be a slight improvement. It might not be one worth pursing in consideration of the downsides, but only you can decide which factors you value more. However, I would like to note that if you wish to do so it it is not going to be so simple as outputting everything to 720 though. Video game consoles are weird, in that instead of directly rendering graphics at a given output resolution like P.C. games do, they often render in one fixed resolution then rescale the image to output another. Watchdogs on xbox one renders in 960p for example, even though the console only outputs 720p, 1080p and 4k and making matters worse is that resolutions vary on not only a console by console basis, but a game by game basis. Most games on the Playstation 3 only really support 720p resolution, but a select few are true 1080p games. Mismatch resolutions and you will yet again probably gain lag instead of reduce it.

That does not require you to use more than one C.R.T. for any applicable resolution within its synchronization range, because they are not fixed pixel displays and most C.R.T. computer monitors can accept what N.E.C. called multisync. You’d want a pretty high end model for this usage case though so it could fully resolve letterboxed 1080p, and it’s not as if you can just run down to the nearest computer store and grab one off of the shelf any-… Well actually I have difficulty casually grabbing a C.R.T. off of the shelf in any case, but I trust you understand what I mean.

Yes. My Passive HDMI to VGA adapter is pretty good. You just have to do 2 things. The first is set ilyour sysytem 720p so that it does not overscan. The second is to adjust your screen so that the whole picture of 16x9 does appear correctly with proper black boxes on top and bottom. Thank you monitor OS controls.

As I said going from 1080p to 480i requires a downscaling and an interlacing but does keep the same color space.

If you set your machine on 720P it’ll go accurately to the VGA CRT after playing around with the geometry of the screen. If the delay is true in the reverse way as originally. Someone measured the time of the color conversion to two pixels worth of information on a 480i analog TV. In other words it’ll very slightly throw off a light gun (but it doesn’t use analog light gun technology yet it’s so close that it’s VCR-level close in terms of ping. Only measurable if you fire a light gun) but that’s about it. I heard the range was either something less than 5 microseconds. Five microseconds is a half a percent of a millisecond. Which is close enough for fighting games shmups randomized games, speed running platformers, and anything that needs quick reflexes.

If this is true then practicing Street Fighter 4 and 5 combos will be a lot easier now. Maybe too easy.

By the way does anyone know of a CRT 3D Blu-ray Syncher that is independent of a computer or one that works with a Macintosh?

I heard that almost the exact same technology as the Master System could be added to the CRT VGA. Is there such a thing as a VGA sinker of CRT TVs for 3D?

I never had Flicker problems with the Sega Master System, so 30 frames by two eyes alternating is perfectly watchable by me, and convincing of 3D effects.

So between interlacing ( p to i) , deinterlacing (I to p), digital encoding (converting analog to digital, digital decoding (digital to analog). Digital upscaling, digital down scaling, analog upscaling, analog downscaling, RGB to ypbpr, and ypbpr to RGB, i assume the less steps you do the better? Can you rank them from generally quickest to slowest in microseconds?

Should I assume decoding digital, changing color spaces in analog, and rescaling analog to a put a 16x9 image on a 4x3 is the quickest way to play an HDMI video game on the highest definition screen short of an HDMI direct input on a CRT monitor?

I purchased an Atomos SDI/HDMI to Analog converter from B&H, specifically for the purpose of connecting my Nintendo Switch (for Arcade Archive games from the eshop), and other HDMI output only retro game systems to a CRT. I think the results are excellent, and look era correct:

As far as lag goes, nothing noticeable when playing games like Donkey Kong, and other arcade/console games of the early 80s era.

Available outputs are Composite video, S-Video, Component video (all 480i I believe), as well as VGA and DVI, plus 2 channel analog audio outputs. The main video output connectors are BNC types, so you’ll need special cables or adapters to connect to your TV.

I tried the composite, S, and component video outputs…and the component output is supremely better than the others, as it should be, and the way you would want to connect it, if you can.


I think I know the secret. I have a device that goes from HDMI to S video or composite. If it’s a net gainer versus HDMI to a screen that naturally has 8 milliseconds or more ping, I’d be happy.

I found that mostly conversions, even though they are enough to throw off light gun games, when you’re comparing it versus eight milliseconds of natural delay just to display on a TN display, I find most of them, assuming they first analogize the picture and then scale it down analogly will usually work better than going from one digital resolution to another and analogizing that.

It’s the digital to digital stuff that costs a lot of milliseconds in ping.

Also if I’m correct in assuming a native analog TV input picks up analog waves to encoded luma/chroma/etc, then you don’t really need to down-convert an analogized 1080p signal down to 240p signal. The pixel unit is like the degree of accuracy in measurement like the difference between a centimeter and a millimeter. you could measure something to the millimeter but if it’s if your TV can only display up to the nearest centimeter then extraneous as it may be, putting more and getting less should be even like gun levels of close to no pain.the wave may be accurate to the nearest millimeter in my hypothetical example (don’t complain that my metric example not an accurate way to describe it, I’m just using metric length terms to demonstrate the general mathematical concept of showing degree of accuracy and precision that being more precise than what you need will not do any damage except waste time.) if your TV is only good at showing to the nearest centimeter then a wave accurate to the nearest millimeter analogize would be enough to equal one that would fit a centimeter make sure pixelization.

I think today on Twitch on Fight For Your Right Friday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, assuming I can get my equipment to work, I’ll show the back-to-back demonstration of paying between HDMI native direct PlayStation 3D TV which at the time was measured at 31 milliseconds, and a conversion from HDMI to crtvga and see back to back what it looks like. And or a similar comparison with direct native HDMI to a Vizio TV (more recently acquired as a second monitor, I’ll update you on the details on the twitchcast probably at 10:30 p.m. New York time) and a HDMI to S Video adapter straight into a Sony Wega CRT TV.

Luckily on the switch NES online connection there is one game that tests your quicks punch out starring Mr Dream, in other words the NES version of Mike Tyson’s punch out minus Mike Tyson.

By the way I tested the RetroTink SCART to ypbpr-3 RCA connector and I did pretty well blocking in Eternal Champions CD and reacting to my bot opponent and I’m out of shape and I did that, meaning this was probably like the first time in 10 years I touched this game.

The problem is not every component capture card or every component to HDMI converter deals with 240p ypbpr well.

If Stone Age Gamer lets me, I’ll trade my SCART to ypbpr for a SCART to RGB connectoron Monday, if the PlayStation 3DTV is two frames behind the crt vga. Since the PS3DTV it’s tested at 2 60 Hertz frames, we’ll see if an HDMI to VGA adapter actually gives you an advantage.

Hi…my speculation is that the DVI input is restricted to 1080i goal, and your sources are yielding higher than that. Assuming this is the case, there’s no other option for you, kind of adding a scaler, and that is just not justified, despite any potential benefits. I see no specs explicit to the DVI contribution on the Sony page.

In any case, one thing is without a doubt, the set won’t acknowledge a 1080p sign, so go into your source gadget settings and check whether you can change them to 1080i, and check whether that works. If not, it could be the ideal opportunity for another TV.

pcba manufacturer with iso 13485 certificate