New arcade vga on pc monitor pics, Not impressed at all.

[rlemmon]

Hi guys. I got my new pci arcade vga card today and I thought I would share the results. I have to say I an really disappointed. 
I had high hopes for this.  Each game is displayed in its proper resolution. The settings are all correct to use the card and set as follows. Direct draw on. Hardware stretch off, and Switch resolutions to fit on.

The program is mame 32 v. 102. I also tested mame 32 v. 108  The results were the same. Basically what it boils down to is that it looks like what happens when you run a game on any graphics card with direct draw on without using hardware stretch. Except the screen fills the monitor. Although some games I tried didn't fill the screen

I really thought the games would look better using the card and not having to rely on hardware stretch. But there quite hard on the eyes they look very choppy and pixelie. Maybe my hopes were too high but I at least though it would offer some improvement over my pc's graphic card.

Don't get me wrong i'm not dissing Andy. All of his other products I have tried are great and he has done wonders for the community. I'm just not happy with this product when used with a pc monitor.

As for the pics, you need to click them to see the detail. The top pics are taken with hardware stretch using direct draw ( basicly without using the power of the card)
the bottom pics are with the avga with the proper resolutions and settings. Let me know what you think.

[rdowdy95]

Wish your pics worked?

[rlemmon]

They work fine here. Try hitting refresh or using these direct links 

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=priragebc0.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=priragewvgahd0.jpg


http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=robowoutavgasl2.jpg

http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=robowavgayn9.jpg


http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supwoutavgala9.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supwavgayw8.jpg

[bvicarious]

Looks good to me... what did you expect the card to do? It's not meant for PC monitors, so the real test would be arcadevga vs. regular video card with no stretch on an arcade monitor.

[rlemmon]

Looks good to me... what did you expect the card to do? It's not meant for PC monitors, so the real test would be arcadevga vs. regular video card with no stretch on an arcade monitor.

It is ment for pc monitors. A quote from ultimarcs site "Now also for pc monitors ! For the first time ever run classic games in there native resolutionson a pc svga monitor in windows !"

I just thought it would look better than the generic graphics card my pc came with. 

[horseboy]

It's not meant for PC monitors

Ummmm... actually, I think that it is. That is what all of the hoopla and excitement over this card has been about. The original ArcadeVGA wasn't for PC monitors. Like rlemmon said, this one is supposed to display at correct resolutions on a PC monitor.

[rlemmon]

Thanks horseboy. Here is another quote from ultimarc's site
 
It is important to note that using a PC monitor will NOT produce an arcade monitor-like picture as PC monitors have a much higher dot pitch and finer scan width than arcade monitors. But using the ArcadeVGA will give a much better quality picture than an ordinary VGA card, at the lower resolutions. You will not see scanlines on a PC monitor with the ArcadeVGA card but do you really want these anyway?

[johnvv]

I used the following settings with my AVGA2 AGP tests.  Andy confirmed that these should be optimal for the card:

   Display tab
      - run in window: off
      - start maximized: on
      - enforce aspect ratio: on
      - Clean Stretch: Auto
      - Use Scanlines: off
   Advanced tab:
      - Use DirectDraw: on
      - Triple buffering: on
      - Match game refresh: on if using auto resolution settings, off if forcing resolution settings
      - sync to monitor refresh: off
      - wait for vertical sync: off
      - switch resolutions to fit: on
      - switch color depths to fit: off
      - Resolution: auto or set to the known resolution for your selected game.
      - Stretch using hardware: off
   Direct3D tab:
      - Use Direct3D: off

[daywane]

I have never figured out all the hoopla over a arcade monitor VS PC monitor
I have a real arcade Nintendo Vs and Mame cabs
put side by side Super Mario ( Nintendo VS , Real Nintendo Arcade monitor)
Mame cab running same game. Yes there is a differance. But if you do not put them side by side so people can see the differance. Most people would never even notice

I will just stick with 21 inch PC monitors or larger TV with Svid and be happy

[pointdablame]

you're running these games at their native resolution on a PC monitor that is capable of displaying resolutions far above the game resolutions.  The WILL look pixely because they ARE pixely.

The card is meant for PC monitors, in that it displays the correct resolutions for the games, but the card doesn't magicially make the games look better... they make them look similar to what they looked like originallly.

That was always my take on the PC monitor compatibility.  It displays at original res and as clost to original quality as possible... which would be pixely, especially on a PC monitor that wants to use a much much higher res.

[krick]

I really thought the games would look better using the card and not having to rely on hardware stretch. But there quite hard on the eyes they look very choppy and pixelie. Maybe my hopes were too high but I at least though it would offer some improvement over my pc's graphic card.

News flash:  they look pixelly because the games ran at very low resolutions and they *were* pixelly.  I don't know what you were expecting the card to do.  It's not going to magically increase the resolution of the original game and add pixel data where it didn't exist. 

I think the output looks awesome.  Use the ArcadeVGA2 and compare the output on a PC monitor and an arcade monitor.  That's the comparison you should be making.

[rlemmon]

"News flash:  they look pixelly because the games ran at very low resolutions and they *were* pixelly.  I don't know what you were expecting the card to do.  It's not going to magically increase the resolution of the original game and add pixel data where it didn't exist." 

I realize they were pixelly. I really wasn't expecting the card to increase the resolution but I did expect it to offer a better overall picture than you would get using hardware stretch and a regular graphics card. I didn't think things would be quite so blocky. I have played many of real arcade games and they didn't look so choppy. Click on the two robocop's do you really think the second one ( it uses the avga) looks better overall. ?

"I think the output looks awesome"

I think it would definitely look awesome on a real arcade monitor, but i disagree about they way it performs on a PC monitor.

[rlemmon]

sorry double post

[Kremmit]

I didn't think things would be quite so blocky. I have played many of real arcade games and they didn't look so choppy.

That's because real arcade monitors had much lower resolution and would "blur" the edges of the pixel blocks.  Graphics designers of the time took advantage of this, and counted on the blur effect to make their sprites seem more rounded and the color transitions seem less abrupt. 

That is the real reason to use an ArcadeVGA- so you can drive a real arcade monitor and have the games look like they ought to.  Old games are always going to look overly pixelated on computer monitors that are designed to show 1600x1200 and above with razor-sharp edges.

[rlemmon]

"That's because real arcade monitors had much lower resolution and would "blur" the edges of the pixel blocks.  Graphics designers of the time took advantage of this, and counted on the blur effect to make their sprites seem more rounded and the color transitions seem less abrupt. 

That is the real reason to use an ArcadeVGA- so you can drive a real arcade monitor and have the games look like they ought to.  Old games are always going to look overly pixelated on computer monitors that are designed to show 1600x1200 and above with razor-sharp edges."



That makes allot of sense. I guess maybe I should look into how to hack a VGA cable and get a arcade monitor.

[Negativecreep0]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also? If so then whats the point of buying those monitors anymore now that arcadevga2 does the same thing on regular monitors?

[ahofle]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

[horseboy]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

[Havok]

I think the lesson here is stick to a regular video card, unless you have an arcade monitor...

[ahofle]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

Can you give a link (I'm not too familiar with PC multisync monitors)?  I'm guessing if its max resolution goes much above 800x600 (ie smaller dot pitch) it won't look as good (but that's just a guess).  Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer this...

[horseboy]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

Don't have one yet, but looking into it.

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

Can you give a link (I'm not too familiar with PC multisync monitors)?  I'm guessing if its max resolution goes much above 800x600 (ie smaller dot pitch) it won't look as good (but that's just a guess).  Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer this...

[RayB]

I think the advantage here, (and maybe Andy should clarify it a bit in his marketing texts) is that we're no longer stuck with "signal out of range" when we're trying to set up software on a PC monitor. To me THAT is the advantage here.

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

PS: To quote people, just click QUOTE.

[rlemmon]

I think the lesson here is stick to a regular video card, unless you have an arcade monitor...

I agree

I think the advantage here, (and maybe Andy should clarify it a bit in his marketing texts) is that we're no longer stuck with "signal out of range" when we're trying to set up software on a PC monitor. To me THAT is the advantage here.

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

PS: To quote people, just click QUOTE.

I tried using scanlines it didn't make any difference. Also the ultimarc site says scanlines should be turned off.

[Lutus]

If you don't want it I am in the market to aquire one.  PM me if you want to get rid of it.   

[bvicarious]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

[Havok]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

Or, don't believe the hype...

 

[Rocky]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

Wrong answer!

We count on these early adaptors to check out all the new stuff

[u_rebelscum]

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

I tried using scanlines it didn't make any difference.  Also the ultimarc site says scanlines should be turned off.

That's because scanlines needs extra lines to work.  If you run at ~4 times the res (1024x768 to 1600x1200), then the lines can be drawn between the "real" game image lines.  That means if you run at the orignal res, the faked scanlines cannot be drawn.  But the reason for the arcade VGA is so you can run them at the original res.

To restate:
Run at original res, scanlines don't work.
Run at higher than original res, scanlines might help simulate the orignal look.
ArcadeVGA helps run the games at the original resolutions.

[Xiaou2]

 Btw - As far as Ive seen and know..   there is no such thing as a 'scanline'.

 Its just an attempt to simulate the mesh of the monitor
which is called a " Shadow Mask ".

 http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv3.htm



 The older monitors used much more primitive masks.. which were much larger
and thus more visible to the eye.   

 

 As you can see from the closeup of the Turbo car...  the mask appears to look
wavy and crooked.   Its an optical illusion.   The pixels can illuminate half of any space..
and can also be so bright as to project over the mask - thus making it appear that the
mask isnt there or is wavy.

 The mask coupled with other factors such as where the actual r,g,b locations are
in relation to position..  create a look that is far different than any simulation currently.

 There is color bleeding, and blending..  and this is also not simulated.   Which is why
the colors in the arcade monitors look so very different from mame on a pc display.

 Hopefully someday, someone will create a program that will accurately simulate this effect
in realtime.    Being that we now have dual core processors..  its actually a proposition thats
probably feasable now.   Or, it might be something that sepearate hardware could do...

[NickG]

 Btw - As far as Ive seen and know..   there is no such thing as a 'scanline'.

Let's not misinform anybody here;  Horizontal scanlines are present in any horizontal raster video signal, but not in vector.  Whether or not you can visually detect them is up to the quality of the signal and the quality of monitor.   

Its just an attempt to simulate the mesh of the monitor
which is called a " Shadow Mask ".

Closer attempts to simulate the mesh of  monitors such as the aperture effects and rgb group effects (triad quad, etc.)  are available now with some versions of mame.  They don't bleed or vibrate like real shadow masks or aperture grills, though.

Or, don't believe the hype...

 

Yeah, what he said.

[Xiaou2]

Nick G,

 Define Scanliine.   Looking at my arcade monitors under magnification, and there is not such
lines seen.

 The only thing that I consider a scanline might be when you see a video game or pc monitor video-taped and displayed on tv.  You see the 'line' of the monitor refresh.   And that looks Nothing like what is shown in the effects in mame.   The lines shown in mame are the ones you actually see on a monitor - which is the shadow mask.

 Shadow masks do not vibrate.   It simply is a divider which seperates each of the
Red,Green, & Blue phosphors "clusters" (or pixels).

  Shadow masks are fairly thick in arcade monitors and older tvs.  They can be seen as black
lines when viewed closely.  And under magnification, you can see the actual grill cells.

 As far as I recall last time using the RGB effect.. there was no shadow mask added to the effect.
Not to mention, they just dont come close to looking and behaving correctly.  I wouldnt call them
"Close" at all.

 Apperature Grill?   I believe that you mean shadow mask.   

 The bleed is not from the mask..  but the actual RGB phosphors brightnesses.  Thier light expands beyond the mask and bleeds and blends with the nearby colors.

  http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv10.htm




 
   

[NickG]

As per Xiaou2's suggestion here are some nice definitions of scan line and aperture grille.  He has done an excellent job defining shadow mask already.

The following info is from wikipedia, sorry if I am getting OT at all here.

"A scan line is one line, or row, in a raster scaning pattern, such as a video line on a Cathode ray tube (CRT) display of a television or computer. A scan line represents a row of picture elements (pixels) in the image being displayed."

"An aperture grille is one of two major technologies used to manufacture cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and computer displays; the other is shadow mask.


Fine vertical wires behind the front glass of the display screen separate the different colors of phosphors into strips. Depending on the size of the display, one or two horizontal stabilizing wires are also used, and may be visible as fine lines across the face of the screen, providing the easiest way to distinguish aperture grille and shadow mask displays at a glance. Additionally, aperture grille displays tend to be vertically flat and are often horizontally flat as well, while shadow mask displays usually have a spherical curvature."


It is the aperture grille which is susceptible to vibration.  A Shadow mask, being one piece is not.  I don't see scanlines either, Xiaou2,  merely wished to confirm that they do exist in the signal of any scan line - rendered game.

Aperture grille close up

You can compare the difference with the shadow mask close up in Xiaou2 post with the car close up.   As the caption mentions "arcade rgb monitor"  yes the shadow mask is much more common to arcade monitors than aperture grilles.  So back on topic his close up is probably the effect most of us are after here.

On another subtopic here, I use a multisync  presentation type monitor (NEC XM29) that syncs to jamma and a standard resolution arcade monitor.  From a non-magnified playing/viewing position my jamma games look great on both monitors. 

[RandyT]

Scanlines don't exist......riiiiight.


I'm here to inform you that they most certainly and absolutely do.  Normal raster tubes draw horizontal lines onto phosphor with varying persistence properties, using a focused electron beam guided by magnetic fields.  It starts at the top of the screen, drawing line by line until it reaches the bottom, where it snaps back up to the top to start again.

The higher the horizontal frequency, the more lines there are to "paint" on the phosphor, and therefore the less space present between the lines.  A low horizontal scanning frequency, as used by CGA or NTSC monitors, will have very visible black lines between the scanlines.

If there were no such things as scanlines, your NTSC TV couldn't uses interlace to vertically offset the starting point of the scan in order to fill the spaces in between them.

If you don't clearly see horizontal (or vertical in the case of a vertically oriented screen) scan lines on your low-res arcade monitor, the EB gun is out of focus... or your eyes are.

RandyT

[AndyWarne]

I would not disagree with most of what has been said on this thread.
Yes the graphics certainly do look more "blocky" because the original games were such a low resolution and they are not being smoothed out by the effect of stretching.
I think actually there are two categories of game.
The first type are the games where the designer drew out the character sprites on squared paper and then they were mapped into a ROM. Galaga, Pacman etc.
I believe these games are simply better at native resolutions with the AVGA, no question about that in my mind. On my 31Khz monitor in my Sega cabinet these games look fantastic. Horizontal movements are much smoother as well which is another benefit of the native mode: correct vertical refresh rate.
The second type are the games where artwork has been produced and then scanned at a fairly low resolution. If these are run at native resolution they do appear to be more blocky and for these graphics using stretch blurs the picture slightly but smooths out the blocks and gives a picture which is easier on the eye.
The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I will try to explain the benefits more clearly on the site to ensure people are not being misled.
Andy

[RandyT]

I think actually there are two categories of game.
The first type are the games where the designer drew out the character sprites on squared paper and then they were mapped into a ROM. Galaga, Pacman etc.
I believe these games are simply better at native resolutions with the AVGA, no question about that in my mind. On my 31Khz monitor in my Sega cabinet these games look fantastic.

The second type ....<snip>

It's not surprising that they look great on the 31khz monitor in your Sega cab (Sanwa is it?)  There is a big difference between the dot pitch of an arcade monitor and that of PC monitor.  On larger arcade monitors the dot pitch is somewhere around .75mm.  Most PC monitors have a dot pitch that is roughly one third of that.  The large dot pitch allows the edges of the pixels to blur together and that just doesn't happen with a modern PC monitor, even though both are capable of scanning at the same 31.5khz frequency.

This is true regardless of the way the game was designed.  Either the graphics were intended for the gross dot pitch of an arcade monitor, or they were not.

Horizontal movements are much smoother as well which is another benefit of the native mode: correct vertical refresh rate.

No argument there.

The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with this analogy.  The PC monitor is the "HD-TV" and the arcade graphics (all low-res arcade graphics, in fact) would be considered the "poor source".  A good HD TV will incorporate some rather impressive upscaling technology to smooth out a low-res source.  It doesn't try to sharpen the blocky edges.

RandyT

[Kremmit]

The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with this analogy.  The PC monitor is the "HD-TV" and the arcade graphics (all low-res arcade graphics, in fact) would be considered the "poor source".  A good HD TV will incorporate some rather impressive upscaling technology to smooth out a low-res source.  It doesn't try to sharpen the blocky edges.

My dad recently bought a nice big HD Plasma, because I've been teasing him about his old 27" CRT.  When he watches an HD channel, it looks really, really good.  But when he watches a plain-jane 4:3 pic from a non-HD show, it looks la lot like trying to watch a Youtube video fullscreen- all pixelated due to the digital upscaling. 

Low-Res is better than High-Res in such a case.  "Hogan's Heroes" reruns will always look better on my 35" Standard-Definition CRT than they ever do on an HDTV Plasma or LCD, because they won't have all the digital artifacts on my tv. 

[Xiaou2]

 NickG,

  Thanks.  Just remember,  that  Aperture grilles  were not used in most arcade
machines. 

 Aperture grilles are the modern version of shadow mask...  as Aperture grilles can
be made much smaller, and thus finer pixels.

 
 Randy, 

   Ok scanline do exist as a term for the beam the rides each line by line
drawing.. however,  this drawing is so fast,  that its undetectable to the
eye.   Ive not seen a black line in between the pixels.   In fact, that would
be impossible,  as the thing in  between the RGB phosphors is the shadow mask.

 My guess is that it is an optical illusion.   If you can proove otherwise, Id be
interested to see.   Show us a pic and point out the black like that is Not
the shadow mask.

 Kremmit,

  Digital is not really better.. its just that it saves space.

 Analog can be a nearly infinite depth of range..  depending on the circumstances.

 If you read a Pot with a multimeter..  you get a range from X to Y..   from a
whole number & fractions of that number.    If your multimeter was set up to read
incredible detail.. its decimal placement reading would be huge...  and the data able to
be collected from a single dial turn might be in the high megabyte ranges.

 The problem with analog recording.. is that its typically prone to degradation over
time.   Also, the cost of making analog equipment that is high enough bandwidth
and sensative may cost way too much to implement and institute.

 Digital is a means to cut those readings down to managble sizes.. and maintain
non-degrading accuracy.   Its much more afforable and practical..   but that doesnt
mean better.   Digital could approach Analog, but then its data sizes would again
be insane.   In the future, this might not be a problem..   but for now.. we see the
problem.   

 Once the displays advance in resolution,  and the range of digital signal
its fed isnt the range the tv is capable of..  it shows its imperfections
because of the lack of "intermediate steps".   "pixilization".

 
 This can also be heard in music..   which is why many people still
prefer Records over Cds.  Tho its much more noticible in display
technology, to most people.
 
 Some Tvs use a method to try to scale an images digital range
by inserting newly created steps.  However, these steps are not
always what the original data was.. and also, may be
constructed inproperly.  Thus looking a bit odd and overly
blurry... and Many Details getting lost.

 

[RandyT]

My dad recently bought a nice big HD Plasma, because I've been teasing him about his old 27" CRT.  When he watches an HD channel, it looks really, really good.  But when he watches a plain-jane 4:3 pic from a non-HD show, it looks la lot like trying to watch a Youtube video fullscreen- all pixelated due to the digital upscaling. 

I don't want to get too far off topic, but not all upscaling technology is created equal.  I just recently got an HD converter from the cable company for my 2 year old Mitsubishi HD projection set.  The internal upscaler in the set is pretty good and allows a number of intelligent ways to fill the screen.  But the one upscaler available in the HD cable box is much, much better.  The stuff from Farjouda used to be top of the line and it does a really nice job with my DLP projector as well.  Not too long ago, one of the big cost differentiators of large screens used to be the quality of the technology used for the upscaling.  How this affects things nowadays, I'm not as sure, but Hogan might look pretty good with a better upscaler.

RandyT

[RandyT]

Randy, 

   Ok scanline do exist as a term for the beam the rides each line by line
drawing.. however,  this drawing is so fast,  that its undetectable to the
eye.   Ive not seen a black line in between the pixels.   In fact, that would
be impossible,  as the thing in  between the RGB phosphors is the shadow mask.

Sweet jeebus, Steve, how do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, the drawing is fast, but it's in exactly the same spot!  Care to guess as to why interlaced video flickers?  It's because every other image is placed in the blank spaces between the scanlines of the previous image and only one image can be shown at any given time.

My guess is that it is an optical illusion.   If you can proove otherwise, Id be
interested to see.   Show us a pic and point out the black like that is Not
the shadow mask.

You should stop guessing.  See the image below.  The teeny tiny lines that are offset by by one half of the adjacent vertical rectangle belong to the shadow mask.  They are hella small.  The big black horizontal lines are the spaces between the scanlines you say are an illusion. 

RandyT

[Kremmit]

 Kremmit,

  Digital is not really better.. its just that it saves space.

 Analog can be a nearly infinite depth of range..  depending on the circumstances.

 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Dude, I understand the difference between analog and digital.  And the entire point of my post is that sometimes analog is better.

...but Hogan might look pretty good with a better upscaler.

Probably so.  Now if they can just get my dad to stop stretching 4:3 pics to 16:9.  Everybody's head looks like Ernie from Sesame Street!

[Xiaou2]

 Nice try but not good enough.

 First off,  we arte talking about Old monitors without Apeture Grills.  As I doubt any game
before maybe the 90s used them.  And those games were probably the new 3d games,
racers, and pc driven stuff.

 The majority of old skool classics were done with shadowmasks.. .and not aperture grills.
In fact, the pixil arrangement and size is different as well for those monitors.

 The pic you show has No blue element showing aslo.  Where is that located?

 There is also considerable blur.

 I just looked at my Turbo Monitor under a High magnifaction loop,  and there is ONLY
a shadowmask.   All the shadow masks lines are the same thickness.. and there is no
thick bar as seen in your pic.   

 A) what monitor are you running?
 B) what is driving your monitor?
 C) lets see a pic with all r,b,g elements drivin

 I suspect these form much of the problems that you are seeing...  and is Not true
to what is happening.

 Not sure if I can snap a pic with my loop,  but i may try to do so later.


 Btw - some games interntionally make bars and seperation.  Better check other games
and non-title screens.    I suspect that title screen is doing just that.

[RandyT]

Nice try but not good enough.

 First off,  we arte talking about Old monitors without Apeture Grills.  As I doubt any game
before maybe the 90s used them.  And those games were probably the new 3d games,
racers, and pc driven stuff.

 The majority of old skool classics were done with shadowmasks.. .and not aperture grills.
In fact, the pixil arrangement and size is different as well for those monitors.

This is not an "Aperture Grille" rather a "Triad Shadow Mask", and we were talking about the existence and visibility of scan lines, not "old monitors without Aperture Grills".  The photo tells it all.

The pic you show has No blue element showing aslo.  Where is that located?

Hmmm...from left to right there is a red area, a green area and a black area.......

There is also considerable blur.

There is absolutely NO blur.  If there were, you would not be able to even see those tiny lines of the shadow mask.

I just looked at my Turbo Monitor under a High magnifaction loop,  and there is ONLY
a shadowmask.   All the shadow masks lines are the same thickness.. and there is no
thick bar as seen in your pic.   

First of all, your Turbo monitor is vertically oriented, so the scanlines go up and down and second, your pictures indicate it to be in pretty rough shape.  It's probably in dire need of some adjustment, but it might even be beyond that stage due to its age.  As I stated earlier, if the EB gun is out of focus, you might not see the lines.  You will also have some very fuzzy images, and it looks like you do.

A) what monitor are you running?
 B) what is driving your monitor?
 C) lets see a pic with all r,b,g elements drivin

None of this is important.  It is an RGB monitor running at 15.75khz H and 60hz V.  The reason the blue is missing from the image is because it was a yellow image with a red outline.  Red + Green = Yellow and Red + nothing =Red.  The blue part would have just filled in the black area next to the green and the big black horizontal line would still be there.  To provide you with another picture would just be a further waste of my time as you would only attempt to conjure up some other unrelated thing in an attempt to refute what anyone who knows anything about monitors knows to be fact.  What you see in the photo I provided is precisely why there are options in MAME to simulate that effect on a PC monitor.

I suspect these form much of the problems that you are seeing...  and is Not true
to what is happening.

Steve, the only problem here is that you formulated (and published for consumption) a conclusion without enough research and you are now trying to change your statements in mid-stream.  You can't come to a conclusion based on one very old and poorly performing example.

Btw - some games interntionally make bars and seperation.  Better check other games
and non-title screens.    I suspect that title screen is doing just that.

Grasping at straws = You.

RandyT

[AndyWarne]

It's not surprising that they look great on the 31khz monitor in your Sega cab (Sanwa is it?)  There is a big difference between the dot pitch of an arcade monitor and that of PC monitor.  On larger arcade monitors the dot pitch is somewhere around .75mm.  Most PC monitors have a dot pitch that is roughly one third of that.  The large dot pitch allows the edges of the pixels to blur together and that just doesn't happen with a modern PC monitor, even though both are capable of scanning at the same 31.5khz frequency.

Perfectly aware of that of course. Well if the games look great on that monitor they look even better on my 24 inch LCD screen...

This is true regardless of the way the game was designed.  Either the graphics were intended for the gross dot pitch of an arcade monitor, or they were not.

I would bet that game designers never have any concerns about monitor dot pitch. The early games were designed with game hardware in mind, and to economise on RAM as much as possible. The monitors would have simply been a bought-in afterthought. The pixel size would not have been influenced by dot pitch.

The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with this analogy.  The PC monitor is the "HD-TV" and the arcade graphics (all low-res arcade graphics, in fact) would be considered the "poor source".  A good HD TV will incorporate some rather impressive upscaling technology to smooth out a low-res source.  It doesn't try to sharpen the blocky edges.

The analogy is valid. HD-TV produces a more accurate representation of the source by increasing the resolution to more closely match that of the original (which can be thought of as infinite if you go right back to the actual scene). The resolution ends up being limited only by the LCD panel.
Running a game at native resolution produces a 100% accurate representation of the hardware source by matching the pixels, so it is in fact the ultimate in definition, again limited only by the LCD panel. The methods differ but the result is the same.


I have posted some more description and a couple of pictures on:
http://www.ultimarc.com/avgainf.html

PS agree 100% with Randy on scanlines...

[Xiaou2]

 This is what I see as a "Scanline"

 

 The darker looking bar..  BUT,  its not noticible with the naked eye.   The camera
is the only thing able to pick it up.

 Now, Here are the Shadowmasks pics...  NO 'SCANLINES'.

 


 

 

 


  These Pics were Not easy to accomplish.    Also, they arnt as perfect as seem with
the eye.   The problem is that the camera pics up too much light.. and blurs it over the
very clear shadowmask.   The eye sees it fine, but the camera blurs it a bit.   Im sure
there are people with better camera skills and cameras that could capture them even
better..  however, they proove my point.

 Seen in the pics are RGB block sections in an alternating brick layout.   The lines
in-between them are the shadowmask.   NOT Scanlines!    There are places where
one or more Red, Green, Or Blue  Pixel Elements  are "OFF"..  which then causes
them to be Black.   This LOOKS like is one of your so called scanlines.   However, 
its NOT the case.  As you can see very clearly where all 3 rbg elements are lit.. 
there is no thick line between them.

 My monitor is in great shape, and in good foucs, with briilliant brightness, colors,
and clarity.    while it may not be perfect..  its easy to see that its not a monitor
problem... but instead one of human perception.

 

 Btw - I disargee with you Andy...

 "I would bet that game designers never have any concerns about monitor dot pitch. The early games were designed with game hardware in mind, and to economise on RAM as much as possible. The monitors would have simply been a bought-in afterthought. The pixel size would not have been influenced by dot pitch"

 Designing a game like Turbo..  you can see how in my SVGA -vs- Arcade pics  how the pixels
are carfully designed with odd colors and placements in order to make the car look shaded
in a certain way... a way that was well beyond the color pallette of the hardware.

 Many game objects at such low resolutions are very hard to construct in a way that
makes them look good and clear.

 Id be willing to bet that the DEVS actually got out the specific hardware they inteded to use,
including the monitior with its specific resolution and pitch...   and began making the objects
to look good on them.   

 Again, looking at the Turbo car example.. and how Awefull its colors look in mame:

 

Nobody would use that Pink in a game on purpose.   Yet, when that pink is placed
next to the other colors.. it just creates a warm highlight.  Not pink at all.   This cant
be designed without actual experimentation on the actual monitor, when in development
stages.
 
 Too high of Dot pitch,  Differing Shadowmasks, Resolutoion, ect..  all have a profound
effect on how these images appear.   

[Patent Doc]

Sweet jeebus, Steve, how do you come up with this stuff?

The pic you show has No blue element showing aslo.  Where is that located?

Hmmm...from left to right there is a red area, a green area and a black area.......

  Randy you have just made my weekend.  That was awesome. 

Andy and Randy,

Great explanations. 

Patent Doc

[Xiaou2]

 His pic was BS and so is his point.  Where does that leave you making fun of
me?  lol

   My pics are worlds better and so is my understanding of
what is clearly visible here in my pics of
 a REAL TURBO ARCADE MACHINE RUNNNING ON A REAL LOW RES ARCADE MONITOR!!!   

 Vindication is so sweet... 
 

  " In your face "
 


 

 


 

[Xiaou2]

 Btw - you want to know Why Randys pic is so very differnt?

 I believe I know why...

   Because hes using a very different monitor which is higher Dot pitch and higher resolution..
and has an apature grill.     

 Because of the differed spacing of the pixels..  its probably casuing the in-between lines.

 Not to mention the title shown is probably an effect based picture.. which creates lines
by spacing appart pixels.   As seen in many of the turbo shots.

 And I asked why there was no blue pixel in his shots for a reason.  That
reason was because without it illuminated..  you cant make out where the black
lines are supposed to be and where the blue element was supposed to be.

 As seen in my pics,  you can clearly make out all the RGB elements, and the
shadowmask very clearly.    That is the reason.   For 100% certainty.  Not
100% arrogant egotistical BS.
 

[Patent Doc]

Xiaou2

His pic was BS and so is his point.  Where does that leave you making fun of
me?  lol

   My pics are worlds better and so is my understanding of
what is clearly visible here in my pics of
 a REAL TURBO ARCADE MACHINE RUNNNING ON A REAL LOW RES ARCADE MONITOR!!!   Angry!

 Vindication is so sweet...
 Cheers!

  " In your face "

Easy there little camper.  I seem to recall my comments said nothing about you.  Hell, I have no technical expertise in this area nor have I ever claimed to have such.  Just search every post in the forum...at best I claim LEGAL expertise.  I would NEVER try to enter into this conversation regarding the technical merits...I just don't have a basis for judging this. 

As for my comments, I merely thought Randy's comment was funny and he and Andy had nice explanations.  Try not to be so sensitive all the time.  Not everything is about you.  Your comments are hardly "in my face" nor provide "vindication" because you failed to see my comments for what they were...an appreciation of humor.

You sir are 

As for arguing the merits of comments made by Randy, Andy, or frankly anyone else on this board (as you seem to do quite often...and I notice you seem to be at odds with most, most of the time), simply saying you understand more or that someones post is BS, hardly validates your point or shows you are correct.  All hail Xiaou2 he says he's right and everyone else is worng  .  I mean if I went before a judge and said I'm right because his point is BS and I know more, I'd be laughed out of court.  Please, you are constantly trying to impress people on this board with how smart you are.  At least make a better effort than you just did.  Granted, you may be right here....of course you may be wrong as well.  I think your photos show scan lines, but what do I know. 

Anyway, you should really try to not take things so personally.  You may be right in this situation and you may be wrong.  The merits of the arguments made on the board will provide that answer.  I will say, that the frequency with which you seem to be the lone contervaling voice against the majority opinion on the board really works against you.  Though you may be right some of the time, you can't be right all of the time...and this tendency to always act like you're the only one who knows the right answer just hurts your argument when you may, in fact, be that person.  Randy and Andy (among others) have earned peoples respect...I think you had it at one time, but lately you really seam to be ...well...  

Patent Doc

[AndyWarne]

The scanlines are not visible because the focus is out. The focus of the red and green seem to be worse than the blue gun. The blue is showing scanlines quite clearly.
Try this: look at the screen with a magnifying glass while adjusting the focus control. There might be a point at which the red and green start to only illuminate part of the dot. The blue might then be out of focus. This means the tube is out of alignment unfortunately.

[RandyT]

Steve,

I agree with your disagreement on graphic design.  Certainly the designers took advantage of the display when they could not make the hardware better than it could be at the time.  Any good artist will use the medium of the work to his / her advantage, and low-res graphic design is no exception.  A youthful pursuit of mine was to become a games graphic designer.  I even created graphics for an entire game that could probably have been considered "state of the art" at the time (not much of a statement by today's standards.)  Unfortunately the bottom fell out of the 8-bit market before it was finished. 

It is fact that using the coarse dot-pitch of the display to one's advantage was a "trick" used by virtually every professional in the field to increase the apparent resolution of their graphics.  It was mentioned in industry columns and just about every available text on the subject.  Sprite editors of the time would have two depictions of the artwork; a "graph paper" style editor that was huge, and the sprite at actual size.  Often times, a pixel of an oddball color in just the right place would have dramatic effects on the image.  But you would never want to see the actual well-defined pixel as part of the image, only the effect it had on it.

As for your vindication, I think you'll have to wait on that one.  Your monitor is showing scanlines.  You would be able to see them much better if it wasn't 20+ years old and ready for the long sleep.  Like Andy stated, it's out of focus.  Come back after you have fixed or replaced it, then try to make the same argument.  What you are doing is tantamount to stating "all cars only have one gear" because your gear shift broke off.

BTW, the shadow mask in your picture is exactly the same style as the one used in my monitor.  An "Aperture Grille" was originally a Sony technology and indicated by a very thin horizontal line at roughly 1/3 and 2/3 of the screen vertically.  Very different technology.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 Andy,

  I believe you are mistaken.   Please circle the area where you see scanlines showing on the Blue
areas of the pics(s)  I posted.    I believe what you are seeing is an illusion, or intentional
effect.

 

[Santoro]

Low-Res is better than High-Res in such a case.  "Hogan's Heroes" reruns will always look better on my 35" Standard-Definition CRT than they ever do on an HDTV Plasma or LCD, because they won't have all the digital artifacts on my tv. 

Better pick a better example, Hogan's Heros has been transfered from the original films to Hi-Def and is shown weekly on HDNet.  It's stunning to see an old show in such clarity.  The funny thing is you can see that the snow is fine white powder in closeups and white bedsheets in the distance.

Not to derail the thread or anything.

[quarterback]

Not to derail the thread or anything.

Hoooooo-gaaaaaaaaaann!!!!

[ppilot]

The funny thing is you can see that the snow is fine white powder in closeups and white bedsheets in the distance.

I can see where you'd want that.

[Xiaou2]

Easy there little camper.

Whos little?  Is that a comment supposed to make me feel small?  Be-little me?
Thats the problem  here...  to much of that.   And you expect me to eat that
all the time from the all High and mighty?   I dont think so Pal.

I seem to recall my comments said nothing about you.
And yet you are supporting and obvious cheap shot at me.   Do you have
a daughter?  If someone thru an iceball at her face would you laugh
at the culpret and claim it was an appreciation of humor?  Your the
tool, by supporting a tool.


As for my comments, I merely thought Randy's comment was funny and he and Andy had nice explanations.  Try not to be so sensitive all the time.  Not everything is about you.

 And not everything is about YOU either.   You have little clue as to the personal attack Ive
gotten for having an opinion.   I always have tried to keep my cool...  after a while,
enough is enough.   

 As for sensativity..   thats quite a long post for such a simple and Jokingly comment.  Hmm... who
else is sensative?    Yeah, the joke wasnt in good taste..   and with a bit of anamousity in
there..  but..  it was too outrageous to be tooken serious,  so I let it stay.   Surely, you are
much more sensative than you let on..    And youve not had to endure constant abashings
either to test that as I have.  I think Ive done quite well under the circumstances.

 Being that you brought up sensativitiy,  means that You KNEW what you were doing
by adding fuel to the fire.   It means that you know that the joke was in bad taste,
nstead of a sincere reply.    You see..  you dont get sincerity when you disagree
with egomaniacs...   Instead..  you get persoanl attacks.

Your comments are hardly "in my face" nor provide "vindication" because you failed to see my comments for what they were...an appreciation of humor.

You sir are  Lame!


 This is my fav Quote    l      As the quote of  "In your Face"   was a joke
comment.  Ohh the Irony...   


As for arguing the merits of comments made by Randy, Andy, or frankly anyone else on this board (as you seem to do quite often...and I notice you seem to be at odds with most, most of the time),

 Back the truck up a minute.   You read every post Ive ever posted?   Delt with each issue? 
Seen where Ive been attacked on a personal level for having a differeing opinion? 
I think your judgements are quick and unjust.

 One time Howard C  said he thought there was no visible difference between
Composite output, and SVideo...  and was directing others to making a poor and
expensive desigion that would have been a disaster for them...  as there is a
Night and DAY difference in the output!   I stood my ground.  And took the
time and effort to put his Egotistical Overbearing attitude in its well deserved place.
I took the abuseive attacking commentary...  then I took pics, and posted the
evidence.
 
 There are plenty of "Tools" here,  with bad attitudes.   And I will stand my
ground to my opinions.  I dont kiss --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules--.  I dont back out just cause I dont
want to deal with a fight.  I believe in standing up for myself, and others.
Maybe you dont...

simply saying you understand more or that someones post is BS, hardly validates your point or shows you are correct.

 Firstly, I will say that after spending hours of time taking photos, editing them, retaking more,
uploading them, and posting the commentary..  I was well past my bed time and in no mood
for a bashing..  nor in the right frame of mind to deal with posting a proper explanation
to You.    Besides, My POINT is in the pics, and the coments made.   If you dont get it,
then its your problem.

 All hail Xiaou2 he says he's right and everyone else is worng  We're not worthy!.  I mean if I went before a judge and said I'm right because his point is BS and I know more, I'd be laughed out of court.  Please, you are constantly trying to impress people on this board with how smart you are.  At least make a better effort than you just did.  Granted, you may be right here....of course you may be wrong as well.  I think your photos show scan lines, but what do I know.

 Thats right.  "what do you know?"   Obviously, you dont.. and arnt making an honest effort as I am
to know.    As for the comment "Im always right"  thats SO very opposite of the situation.   Im very
easy to admit when Im wrong and am not sure of my ideas and theories.   Yet for that what do I get?
A bashing attack from Randy stating that I shouldnt waste my time Guessing.  THat I shouldnt post
because HE knows it all.   That for posting something at all is a crime.. punishable by
belittlement.   Now who is Lame?!

 Randy, and many others may have some great knowledge..  but many times thier attitudes SUCK!
And as Ive said... I dont take well to being pushed arround.   I also dont BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT
OTHER KNOW IT ALLS POST!   WHY?  Because many times these self proclaimed experts MAKE
SH*T UP!   Such as in Howard Cs case.    ANd, furthermore,  will outright LIE and make stuff up
to defend thier bloated Egos.  Will try to Smokescreen thier bad comments and mistakes in a
barrage of insults and side-trackings...   and yet, all that makes them look like is what they
are.   Tools.

 My attitude is just fine.  I never attack others unless I am attacked.  And even when Im
attacked.. I usually try to let it slide and bite my tounge.  But after Many attacks,  and or
previious dealing with such people.. then I Will fight back.   My desire is Not to fight.. but
to dwell in my hobbyland in peace.  To be able to find the truth in whatever I am
interested in.  To make comments, and to help others when I can.

 I do not try to Impress people here with my intelligence.  In fact, Im not that intelligent at all,
Just a little creative.  I do like to share my ideas like everyone else tho.  Sorry if Ive
offended you by sharing my ideas   
   

Anyway, you should really try to not take things so personally. 

 Really?  Why?   Like YOU?!    Get a life... Your own.   Dont tell ME WHAT I SHOULD DO!
You arnt such a good example for your preachings.    And,  you havent been
thru what Ive been thru either.   I DO take attacks personally...  as THEY ARE
PERSONAL ATTACKS!   I WILL DEFEND MYSELF over such mean spirited and Belittleing
comments.  I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF IT.

  I will say, that the frequency with which you seem to be the lone contervaling voice against the majority opinion on the board really works against you. 

   And that makes me Wrong?!   Just cause most people will choose Not to argue thier
points for fear of the Bashers?!   Or maybe they dont want to offend the A$$KiSSERs of the
KnowITAlls.   Or maybe they think that these Jerks will never grow out of thier Bad
attitides?  Maybe they have no opinions..   Maybe they do, but choose to keep it
to themselves.   

 Look into history...  and you will find Majority means NOTHING!!!    MAJORITY of people
USED to believe the World was FLAT!!!!!!!!!!!    What does that say?!

 Ohh.. but I guess your right in your A$$umptions...     

Though you may be right some of the time, you can't be right all of the time...

 My desire is to learn the right answers.  I never claimed to know them all.   Dont you see me
ASKING?!   I just dont like it when I get a bad attitude for having an OPINION.   Or that
I dont believe something just cause they say so.   

 There are plenty of people that do martial arts for example..  who have years more
under thier belts.  Yet,  these people are often just Zombie followers.  They do everything
they are told without question,  and accept that as the  Ultimate truth.   

 When I took the arts..  I was opposite.  I took everything they told me,  and tested
it myself.   I basically re-invented the wheel.   And guess what?   I found flaws in
many things...  as well as better ways to do things.   I surpassed many instructors
in a fraction of the time, merely because of this attitude.    The attitude for the
ultimate truths and depth of knowledge.   I may be wrong at times,  and I have
no problem with that.   As many times, the only way to progress, is to learn from our
mistakes. 

and this tendency to always act like you're the only one who knows the right answer just hurts your argument when you may, in fact, be that person.  Randy and Andy (among others) have earned peoples respect...I think you had it at one time, but lately you really seam to be ...well... You're a tool!

 I never claimed to be the one with all the right answers.  Yet you take it that way...  then its your
issues.   Usually when you go against someones opinions, they will feel that way.

 As for the Repect thing..   let me tell you this...   I admire Randys knowledge...  but my
respect for him has dwindled because of his Bad attitude.  Especially when out of simple
opinion differences out comes the belittlements.    You cant be respected when you dont
respect the others arround you.    Simularly, there are others who also exibit simular
qualities here.

 Some people allow the abuse, and take it just cause they dont want to deal with it...
or are affraid these people will stop producing parts..etc.    Sorry, but I dont feel that
way.  You could be the president,  and if you beltittle and disrespect me,  then Ill
set you straight.  I dont take crap from NOBODY anymore.  I swallowed years of
abuse when I was younger.. and have learned that it wasnt healthy.

 

[Patent Doc]

Xiaou2

And yet you are supporting and obvious cheap shot at me.

I'm sorry Xiaou2 I fail to see the cheap shot.  Randy's comments were

Sweet jeebus, Steve, how do you come up with this stuff?

The pic you show has No blue element showing aslo.  Where is that located?

Hmmm...from left to right there is a red area, a green area and a black area.......

Nevertheless, you clearly feel they are...rather than the note of frustration that I read in the post.  Whatever

Do you have a daughter?  If someone thru an iceball at her face would you laugh at the culpret and claim it was an appreciation of humor?  Your the tool, by supporting a tool.

OK, first this is perhaps the worst analogy I've ever read or heard.  Of course I wouldn't laugh at the end result of an iceball thrown at someone.  But Randy's comments weren't an iceball...you're blowing this a little out of proportion don't you think.  Secondly, Randy is not a tool and has not been rude to you.  My comments refer to his exasperation. 

And not everything is about YOU either.   You have little clue as to the personal attack Ive
gotten for having an opinion.   I always have tried to keep my cool...  after a while,
enough is enough.   

 As for sensativity..   thats quite a long post for such a simple and Jokingly comment.  Hmm... who
else is sensative?    Yeah, the joke wasnt in good taste..   and with a bit of anamousity in
there..  but..  it was too outrageous to be tooken serious,  so I let it stay.   Surely, you are
much more sensative than you let on..    And youve not had to endure constant abashings
either to test that as I have.  I think Ive done quite well under the circumstances.

 Being that you brought up sensativitiy,  means that You KNEW what you were doing
by adding fuel to the fire.   It means that you know that the joke was in bad taste,
nstead of a sincere reply.    You see..  you dont get sincerity when you disagree
with egomaniacs...   Instead..  you get persoanl attacks.

  Anyway, Xiaou2 I have clearly touched the tip of a very sensitive nerve for you.  For that I am truly sorry.  I will be sure to put on my kid gloves next time I post anything that could be even tangentially associated with you.  FYI, the intent of my second post was to both respond to you and offer constructive advice as I have seen you shift on this board from one with an opinion based on knowledge and experience (you were, as far as I can tell, the first to use rotating controls...to which all who followed...myself included appreciate) to one who paints hisself into a corner and won't back down despite all evidence indicating he's wrong.  This is why constantly being a countervaling opinion works against you.  People start to discredit what you say...even when you are right.  You've lost respect over the years (yes, I have read most of your posts...I've read a large percentage of all the posts on this board over the years...your's included). 

Anyway, I don't have time to respond to everything you said, and sorry I so obviously offended you.  But seriously, don't be so easily offended (ie sensitive..talk about long posts....geeze) and really think about what I said ...I was trying to be constructive...even if you didn't take it as such.

Patent Doc

[RayB]

I can't believe how this thread has degraded into so much banter. Man.

Grab any arcade monitor, and tweak the FOCUS knob so that the graphics are SHARP and you will see lines. Whether the lines are an illusion and are really all wavy, jagged or whatever, is irrelevant. A properly adjusted monitor of this type should be slightly unfocused to blur the pixels together a little and minimize this "line" effect. (also helps to blend one color pixel to the next in low-res graphics).

I'm a former pixel artist and it's true, we took advantage of the "non square" pixels and slight blurring/blending when drawing our graphics with such limited resolution and colors.

For anyone interested Sony Trinitron CRTs are Aperture Grill. That's why every Trintitron has 2 faint, but visible horizontal lines on the screen (one a few inches from the top, the other a few inches from the bottom). Arcade monitors were/are (mostly) Shadow Mask.


So the bottom line here is that the new AVGA card displays the games on a PC monitor in EXACTLY the same way (from technical standpoint) that it will on your arcade monitor. This means you can configure and tweak your setup with a PC monitor and know you will get the SAME resolutions when you switch over to your arcade monitor.   VISUALLY, of course it will LOOK different, because the display devices are different.

[Kremmit]

Low-Res is better than High-Res in such a case.  "Hogan's Heroes" reruns will always look better on my 35" Standard-Definition CRT than they ever do on an HDTV Plasma or LCD, because they won't have all the digital artifacts on my tv. 

Better pick a better example, Hogan's Heros has been transfered from the original films to Hi-Def and is shown weekly on HDNet.  It's stunning to see an old show in such clarity.  The funny thing is you can see that the snow is fine white powder in closeups and white bedsheets in the distance.

Not to derail the thread or anything.

 

Barney Miller, then.

BTW, Xiaou-  that last post was way too long.  I had to click my scroll wheel more than once to skip it!

[rlemmon]

Good god, What have I started ? Stop the madness

[GMZombie]

wow i actually thought that the reason that he got this working on a pc is for the second monitor for some games....lol i guess i fumbled that 

[RandyT]

Sorry this took so long...been up to my armpits in bits and bytes.....

Here ya go, Steve.  I got the good camera out just for you.  As you can see, it has some pretty sick macro capabilities.

This image is a very small section of  mostly solid white.  As the picture indicates, my blue convergence is slightly off and its level is jacked up a little higher than the others, but I like my colors adjusted a little "cold".

The presence of the 6 horizontal scan-lines in this image, as indicated by the black spaces between them, is undeniable.

RE: Your Rant...

Some things just are and those things are fact and not open to opinion.  To use your analogy about the Earth being flat, to state so in today's world does not mean you have a valid opinion, rather that you have a screw loose and require observation.  While that example is much more extreme than this one, this is still a technological fact.  There is no magic, nor mystery.  It's not a topic that is open for opinions.

If you review the way this fiasco went down, an individual who was obviously more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself attempted to prevent the furtherance of misinformation by attempting to give you, and everyone on this board, the benefit of his knowledge.  You promptly, and incorrectly, refuted his statements.  It was only then that I became involved.  And while it is not my job to educate you personally, it is my moral obligation as a member of the community to help stem the flow of misinformation where I can.  And, I'm sorry but,  at this moment it is flowing from you.  If that makes me "arrogant" and/or "egotistical", then I guess I am guilty as charged.

RandyT

[wpcmame]

The first type are the games where the designer drew out the character sprites on squared paper and then they were mapped into a ROM. Galaga, Pacman etc.
I believe these games are simply better at native resolutions with the AVGA, no question about that in my mind. On my 31Khz monitor in my Sega cabinet these games look fantastic. Horizontal movements are much smoother as well which is another benefit of the native mode: correct vertical refresh rate.

Do you display these on a vertical monitor? Otherwise, can you explain how you display pacman at correct refreshrate on a 31KHz monitor?

[patrickl]

Gents in the scanline debate,

I think you need to get a definition of "scanline" to work on because you seem to be talking about different things. The technical definition or scanline is the line which the electron beam scans while drawing the picture. These "scanlines" you cannot see on a screen other than by seeing the mask/grill or whatever.

What people refer to with visible "scanlines" is caused by interlacing. With interlacing the picture is drawn in two runs of the beam. Each half on a different set of alternate scanlines. So after each run of the beam the other half of the scanlines will be black. This is meant to not really be visible to the human eye (the refresh rate is choosen so it goes too fast to detect), but with low refresh rates I guess it is visible. A photo camera can show these scanlines, but on the same screen with a longer shutter speed you will not even see these scanlines. So it depends on the shutter speed of the camera and the refresh rate of the monitor if these interlace scanlines will show in the picture or not.

Randy seems to be talking about "scanlines caused by interlacing" while Xiaou2 has looked up the technical meaning of the term scanline, but also seems to find other definitions. For instance the top picture in reply 43 which is not really a scanline, but more a demonstration how shutter speeds can show you half drawn images on a TV picture.

[RandyT]

I think you need to get a definition of "scanline" to work on because you seem to be talking about different things. The technical definition or scanline is the line which the electron beam scans while drawing the picture. These "scanlines" you cannot see on a screen other than by seeing the mask/grill or whatever.

A scanline is a scanline is a scanline.  The mask is exactly that, a mask.  Black and white TV's do not have these masks so the lines look a little different, but they are the exact same thing.  Tell me, are you not really you, just because someone views you through a screen door?

What people refer to with visible "scanlines" is caused by interlacing. With interlacing the picture is drawn in two runs of the beam. Each half on a different set of alternate scanlines. So after each run of the beam the other half of the scanlines will be black. This is meant to not really be visible to the human eye (the refresh rate is choosen so it goes too fast to detect), but with low refresh rates I guess it is visible. A photo camera can show these scanlines, but on the same screen with a longer shutter speed you will not even see these scanlines. So it depends on the shutter speed of the camera and the refresh rate of the monitor if these interlace scanlines will show in the picture or not.

Close, but not quite:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3AScan+Line&btnG=Google+Search

Your definition of interlace is sort of ok, but only if a "run" of the beam is your terminology for a vertical refresh.  But you are making a big mistake in assuming that arcade machines use interlace.  Theoretically, they could use interlace, but I am not aware of a single classic game that does.  So the function of interlace does not apply here and that is precisely why the black lines are visible.  That second offset sweep never occurs to fill them in.  The way interlace functions was brought up in support of the existence and visibility of scanlines.  If scanlines weren't as I stated, interlace methodology would not only not work, but it would be pointless.

The effect seen with the camera is not from interlace, rather from the scanning of the CCD (VIDIKON, whatever) not being in sync with the scanning of the CRT.  A slow shutter speed or very fast scanning CCD will minimize this effect when filming.

Randy seems to be talking about "scanlines caused by interlacing" while Xiii2 has looked up the technical meaning of the term scanline, but also seems to find other definitions. For instance the top picture in reply 43 which is not really a scanline, but more a demonstration how shutter speeds can show you half drawn images on a TV picture.

I think you are confused about who is saying what.  I know exactly what I am talking about.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 I believe I know why you see the lines and I do not.

 Its because your monitor is higher resolution than mine.

 In such a case... the monitor is being fed  too little information to fill all its
available  pixels up...  so it skips every other line when drawing.   This causes
the lines to be there..   and maybe more visiable than not.

 However,  on my turbo monitor,  all the pixels are lit up,  as there are no extras
so there is no need to skip lines.  Thereore,  you do not see the black lines.

 The true Drawing of the lines is too fast to see, unless using photography.

  The black lines are not created as an effect by drawing.. but instead,  because they being skipped.    However, not all  monitors are skipping like this.  The skipping is usually done in
Interlace modes only... or maybe in such a case where there isnt enought data givin to completely fill all the pixels.. as described above.

 
 Btw,  there are arcade games that have Interlacing.  Tekken III   is one of them.
It can be turned on in the service menu.    This is a late model (3d fighting)
game... and such a feature was not in the golden oldies as far as I know.


 And finally, my rather newish Panasonic TV does not have the appearence of the
scanlines either.  Its limited use, and its rather new age, tell me that the guns are not
out of whack.  I can upload a pic later. 

[RandyT]

 I believe I know why you see the lines and I do not.

 Its because your monitor is higher resolution than mine.

 In such a case... the monitor is being fed  too little information to fill all its
available  pixels up...  so it skips every other line when drawing.   This causes
the lines to be there..   and maybe more visiable than not

A CRT is an analog device.  It does not have "pixels".  The number of lines it produces is based on the scanning frequencies.  How many you can count is based on the dot-pitch and how well the focus and convergence can be controlled.

A 15.75khz scanning monitor with a 60hz refresh will produce the same number of scanlines as any other CRT running at those specifications (IE. Standard Resolution)

However,  on my turbo monitor,  all the pixels are lit up,  as there are no extras
so there is no need to skip lines.  Thereore,  you do not see the black lines.

Again, no pixels.  It's just a piece of material with holes in it.  A fat, fuzzy out of focus electron beam will pass through far more of those holes than it should.  It will also cause impurities in your color and result in overall poor definition.

  The black lines are not created as an effect by drawing.. but instead,  because they being skipped.    However, not all  monitors are skipping like this.  The skipping is usually done in Interlace modes only... or maybe in such a case where there isnt enought data givin to completely fill all the pixels.. as described above.

Interlace doesn't "skip" lines.  Doing so would be pointless.  Interlace cuts an image of higher vertical resolution than the monitor can display into 2 parts and displays it in two passes.  It relies on the persistence of the phosphor to keep the previous one lit until it draws the next, which is offset, using timing, to fill the gaps between the lines of the previous image.  A standard res arcade machine draws a full frame 60 times a second (with a 60hz refresh).  An interlaced screen draws a full frame only 30 times a second.

Your Turbo monitor is not interlaced, it's just old and / or improperly adjusted.

 Btw,  there are arcade games that have Interlacing.  Tekken III   is one of them.
It can be turned on in the service menu.    This is a late model (3d fighting)
game... and such a feature was not in the golden oldies as far as I know.

I don't consider Tekken III a classic, which is why I stated it that way.  But it's not surprising.  It takes more horsepower (memory. processor speed, etc) to manipulate data for interlaced operation than progressively scanned output at the same frequency.  Not an issue nowadays, but it was big one in the "old days".

And finally, my rather newish Panasonic TV does not have the appearence of the
scanlines either.  Its limited use, and its rather new age, tell me that the guns are not
out of whack.  I can upload a pic later. 

Of course it doesn't.  It is NTSC and NTSC is by definition an interlaced technology.  It probably also has long persistence phosphor so you don't see a lot a flicker ....for TV images anyway.  Check out the Windows desktop at an interlaced 640x480 and watch your brain hurt.

RandyT

[NoOne=NBA=]

Now if they can just get my dad to stop stretching 4:3 pics to 16:9.  Everybody's head looks like Ernie from Sesame Street!

There's no "Smart Stretch" mode on his set?

Mine will allow you to stretch the screen to fit while leaving the center of the picture relatively unstretched.
The idea is that you will probably focus more on whatever is at the center of the screen, so it stretches all the "not being looked at" stuff.

[patrickl]

Xiaou2, doesn't it make sense that if the electron beam is finer than the scanline spacing that you get gaps between scanlines? Which is something which might happen when a CRT is used on a low resolution. Besides, if your monitor doesn't show gaps between scanlines it doesn't mean no game will ever show these gaps.

I wonder though, can't the electron beam be made roughly as wide as the scanline? But then maybe that's something they couldn't do properly back then (giving too much overlap and/or a fuzzy look)? Or is there simply a maximum width for the beam.

BTW how does ArcadeVGA handle this?

Anyway, I think I have to upload a picture I once took of a CRT screen too

OK, so I took it a few months ago and it's more "artsy" than technical, but it has purdy colors    It's a (full frame) picture of a windows cursor on a TV screen (100Hz Philips Matchline so no gaps between scanlines showing)