Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC

[genesim]

I know there have been many questions about this, so I thought I would post my own.   Please take a look at Retroblast.com and check out their new review for more details.  I have been bugging them for months, and I am finally glad to see the review.  Here are my experiences.

*update*  It looks like the website changes the resolution to 640x480 from 800x600.   So the best bet is to download and then magnify to see the change.  It is hard to see the difference here, but it is well worth it if you are curious.




I am using a 19 inch LCD monitor with DVI Input.
The comparison is using Direct 3D with Hardware stretch vs Direct Draw with Resolution to fill the screen.
First Picture is 800x600 second picture is 352x288
 
Pacman had a resolution of 224x288 so the difference in the Horizontal is attributed to the fact that the "borders" have to be accounted for.   This gives the biggest picture while maintaining the original aspect ration.
 
End result is no blurring...etc.    I like to look at the Big Power up.   The points on the slant aren't even distinguishable in the 800x600 model.   Stretching and native old Windows mode doesn't allow for that accuracy.
 
Notice the bleeding with the Reds like in "Blinky".  I am wondering if this was an effect from the old game.   I seem to remember something of that, but I attribute this more to my work experience.   Reds seem to be very dominant.  Having them closer together to me is likely to have the effect of say a clock with red LED's or specifically the effect of the ones in the hand held football game of the 80's.




Again, I am using a 19 inch LCD monitor with DVI Input.
The comparison is using Direct 3D with Hardware stretch vs Direct Draw with Resolution to fill the screen.
 
Mortal Kombat is again in 800x600 in the original shot and the second shot is 401x256.
 
MK was orignally 400x254 so there is a couple of pixel difference.   I read somewhere why they did that with this new video card, but 2 pixels are hard to distinguish....unless they are shifting,for example screen burn protection, which was something the HDTV did and I could see it.   I can't really tell at all in this case though.  Afterall a pixel on a 19 inch screen is quite a bit smaller then one on a 42 inch!
 
   I can however tell the 90 pixel difference in height when you do the proportion calculation comparing the relationship between the 2 resolutions.   If using the height from the original  the resolution should have been 800x510, that is almost 100 pixels of fake resolution!    Street Fighter II is actually worse in this regard because it has a weird resolution of 384x224...so the compensation on that height is equivalent to 800x466.  That is 134 of faked resolution.    I always though that game was screwed up in look on MAME.  Unfortunetly the only resolution I can use to achieve the best quality is 384x288.   Still a 64 pixel differnce is better then 134 plus again, I don't have to buy a perfect monitor to at least come closer.   Pretty cool card when you think of it.
 
I did explain the difference and I do think the softer resolution in some ways benefit MK because of more accurate rounding i.e. Raidens face and every other human aspect when you understand full motion rendering.   
 
Though looking at "Raiden" as the name on the top or the score, it has the same Pacman problem.    Rounding does not help in those instances. 
 
Though rounding may give you more desired results.   Like in Calculus with an integral APPROXIMATION, that is all it is.
 
At least now it is more accurate.    That and I got a pretty good graphics card with 128 mb of ram as opposed to my 32 mb stock that came with my computer!!   I am glad that this company made the effort.   It is a nice poor mans solution to the problem of having an emulator that has almost 7000 games now with so many different properties without having an Arcade monitor.   Computers sure have come a long way!

[Anubis_au]

What MAME / front end / OS are you using with this setup?

[shorthair]

You know, with D3D you can increase the pre-scaling, and DD you can use RGB sharp, and get very sharp pictures, especially on an LCD. (Not a recommended monitor, but....) The only thing I've found sharper, and I have no idea why, is using my integrated graphics (Intel 915 board, 215mb max graphics memory) with some kind of specific resolution and switchres. If it's able to put out the resolution right - usually if it doesn't have to do the 15khz refresh - it'll be damn sharp.  Probly too sharp. I'm still working with my avga, so no new info on that.

[ahofle]

Those look like MAME screenshots, not photographs of your screen (which would be more useful).  Also, even though you run MAME at a low resolution, your LCD will just upconvert the image to the native resolution of the monitor (ie invent pixels).  If it's just the blurring you are trying to get rid of, you don't need an ArcadeVGA.  Just select directdraw and disable 'hardware stretch'.

[genesim]

I think you guys are totally missing the point.

It is a faked resolution.   It is true that there is a upsampling occuring, but it is with a LOWER resolution.

The added effect is that lower resoluting fits the screen to the correct ratio over just having the approximation with an incorrect ration.

You cannot get the desired effect with a lowest setting of 800x600.    Even with direct draw, it is still that resolution at best.

Ultimarc Arcade VGA rectifies this.

I tried to get pictures, but it is damn near impossible to capture.    There is abolutely no comparison though.   Each to their own, but the screen shots above prove this.

[shorthair]

At this point I'm not sure what your point is. And, a whole lot of fuss over a terrible monitor choice.

[genesim]

And the flaming begins

First of all, for my uses....along with alot of others, and LCD is an excellent choice.   No screen burn and able to handle most a variety of displays.

Secondly, I am happy to say with a 4ms response, I get absolutely no blurring.

So horrible??   How do you figure, by your standards??

I have done comparisons with my LCD side by side with friends of mine that have arcade monitors, and the difference is minimal when running Arcade VGA.

Most of your criticism comes from ignorance.    Have you seen what the card can do yourself??  Or are you just assuming based on the emperor's clothes attitude that nothing is better then an arcade monitor.

My choice isn't horrible and this is coming from a veteran of the arcades.   Most of the gushing over old monitors comes from nostalgia and nothing more.

The Ultimarc Arcade VGA(new version) is a god send.    Screen shots can't even begin to explain how great this picture is.   

But anyway back to the subject at hand, how about offering constructive criticism over blantant crap retorts.

Disprove what I say, and go from there.    What I said was not unclear.

[ahofle]

Why are pictures of your monitor "damn near impossible"?  My point was that displaying screenshots from MAME as evidence of an improved LCD picture is just silly.  I'd honestly like to see the difference between the two on your LCD screen.  Also if you can, take some pictures of the Robotron high score screen.

[sirwoogie]

And the flaming begins
[snip]
Disprove what I say, and go from there.    What I said was not unclear.

At this point I'm not sure what your point is. And, a whole lot of fuss over a terrible monitor choice.

There is no need all around to criticize one choice over an other. You have to find what best works for you: to your eyes, your ego, and your budget.

Some people like LCD, some people like CRT monitor, some others like exact video resolution and sync with an arcade monitor. Be happy with what you have and don't put down people that made "the wrong choice in your opinion."

[genesim]

Exactly my point.

LCD's have come a long way.   Response time has been the biggest bottle neck.   That to me, is perfected especially on a smaller 19 inch display which is what I got.

The onlyproblem I have is the "blacker then black" problem.    LCD's by disign just don't do it 100%.

Now do I care that much...no.   Because the trade off is that High resolution games like Marvel VS Capcom 2 or Soul Caliber on the dreamcast look fantastic!

To me, getting a old arcade to blur the image to be more "authentic" is going backward.    Kind of like running a vector graphic monitor...yeah its best, but is it really worth burning your eyes out for?

I cannot say enough how much the Arcade VGA looks awesome on my LCD.   Someone posted pics earlier of the "blocky" look.     That is what I want, because that is how it should be.     Letter and scores get the most from this.   If you want "blurring" go with Direct 3d stretched, but it won't be authentic.   Having an arcade monitor may be closer, but even with that you are sacrficing because there are thousands of arcade monitors and no "one" will do it.

Each to their own, and I certaintly don't begrudge anyone for making the old style work.    For me, it just isn't my taste.

[genesim]

By the way, I am going to take pictures when I get the zoom figured out(new camera).

I do realize the mame shots were not the best, but I still think you can see it if you save and look.

[shorthair]

The point of taking actual pictures is that whatever display is being used will look different than a screenshot. As for my earlier comment, you (and woogie) mistake my meaning:

1. really, I wasn't and am still not sure what your point is. Just honesty.

2. I got rid of an LCD monitor for general use cos it screwed my vision up. Even more so, for raster (and particularly, classic) games, the problems (ones I've mentioned before) with LCD's are a) they don't seem to present graphics in as detailed a fashion - they make approximations; b) their contrast ratio doesn't match the capabilities of a good CRT; c) possibly related to b: the side lights inherent in the technology.

On a and b, I actually called and talked for a good spell with a tech at Samsung. He confirmed my observations of LCDs with information such as contrast ratio and bandwidth of CRTs being better than them. Point c isn't as much an issue, and probably hardly an issue with current LCDs, if the game is '85 or newer (note, most of your preferred games are 90's up) where the screen is graphics-saturated. But anything classic, where the screen is largely black, and the glare from the side lights is unbearable.

I'm not at all a purist. I don't generally prefer native resolutions. I just want something that will display cleanly and with good deflection angle. I don't care what technology it is, and actually await the advent of OLEDs.

[genesim]

I will take your points one by one.

1.   My point is and still remains that the arcade vga by ultimarc improves the picture particularly on an LCD screen.   It creates the same picture that direct draw creates except for the fact that it fills up the screen.

How does it do this...by using multiple pixels to create one representation.   Now when you say it just upscales it all, what you don't understand that it is upscaling a more accurate reprentation of the orginal pixel count.

This is because all the resolutions cannot be mathmatically/evenly divided into the discret native resolution of 1024x768 (like my monitor is).

Now that said, as in a calculus integral, the more samples(i.e. the numerous pixels representing one pixel) the closer you can get to the actual value.    This be beyond what the human eye can see.

You say what is the point, well the point is that it fills up the screen in a very accurate way, in some cases beyond what the original arcade screen captured.

Now direct 3d doesn't do this right because it takes an arbitrary resolution like 800x600 as the minimum which means the pixels are artificially "stretched" to fill the screen which causes blurring.    This makes for a horrible picture because most of it is not the original graphics!    This can be easily seen with good pictures that others have posted.

The problem with direct draw alone is that it doesn't fill the screen.

So you say what is the point, PLENTY.   

2.   I don't know about your vision, but some of what you said doesn't make sense.   

a)  LCD don't present games in a detailed fashion?   Many have said it is TOO detailed.    As it stands, I don't get either logic.   One, LCD's of today can completely capture every pixel, in multiple fashion as described above.    The fact that it is native is a good thing in these regards.   Some games with strange resolutions don't translate as well, but neither do they on most multisync monitors because they don't have those resolutions either, and they stretch the image only by doing so, they use a crappier display(which I will get into in a bit).    But as I said, the "approximations" are what all monitors do, but with this card they are even better!   Some cases it is even close to one to one if the pixel count divides evenly.

b)   I wish I had a nickel everytime the so called experts dissed a new technology.    Many make a judgement on a young demo and won't even see past the first observation.  The contrast ratio of LCD's have been a problem in the past,  but at the same time, theory is one thing, and what the human eye can see is another.   

To me, the black looks pretty freakin black compared to my plasma which captures it even better then CRT.

There is no "side lights" or bandwidth problem.    The LCD by design has nothing to do with either of those observations.    If anything a properly designed LCD should be all "light" not just part of it.    Are you getting this confused with lamps??    If you got leakage of light, then you really had a crappy LCD.    As for bandwidth...being purely digital, there is actually alot more information.  Video games in MAME are digtal, bottom line.

My LCD has a 4ms response.   This is WAAAAAY beyond even a movie which runs at 24frames per second.    The blurring is no longer an issue.   At 12 ms it cannot be seen.   

Now lets take a look at all analog signals like CRT.     Not only is it no longer one to one which is what it should be, you actually lose signal when compared to a good DVI connection.     Video games were meant for pure digital.      Analog by design loses signal.   

Want to talk about blurring, how about the color bleeding or the side distortion of ALL CRT's!!    Google how they work, LCD's do not have this problem.   

Now you want to talk about lost signal, what about arcade scan lines.    With every scan, you have lost information.    this is not true with an LCD because it like digital, it is either all on, or all off(for the most part).    With an incredible fast "refresh", you cannot tell the difference.

Scan lines are like singing in the shower...we all think we sound great because we are muffled by th sound of water, but the facts are scan lines only disguise the limitations of the original hardware.    An LCD exploits what most of us already knew.   Crappy graphics.   But at least LCD's are accurate(using multiple pixels).

Oh and by the way, about the angle viewing.    Anthing beyond 45 degrees doesn't matter anyway on an arcade.    LCD's have gotten alot better about this.   The design of the pixels though are not as good as CRT's because they do not provide blurry angular functions.    Yeah you can see better, but at what cost!   Again, this is mostly myth with the new LCD's though.

Now as for the personal comment, you don't know me or what I have played.   Only the games I have mentioned that I like as well.    I am an old school gamer and I have had lots of experience with older monitors.    I have been playing as young as 4 because my dad was hard core even back to pong.    I got an atari when there was literally no games.   

[shorthair]

1. Contrast ratio of CRTs to most LCDs is still an order of magnitude difference. There are a few that are over one thousand. But this is eclipsed by...

2. side lights. I've called manufacturers and asked if there's a way to turn these off. There isn't. It's inherent in the technology. When the unit is displaying very little, there is glare from this.

3. deflection angle is still an issue. If I move an inch or three in any direction, it matters. I notice that stuff. It's disconcerting. Let's say someone else is playing or a game demo is running - then it's really noticable.

4. personal comment?...I referred to those you mentioned, largely 90s and up: soul caliber, etc. Which is not the point, anyway. As I said, anything that's graphics-saturated will drown out the side light glare.

5. I know how the avga works. I have one. I've seen it in all PC monitor applications but with an LCD. However, Mame itself on the 12ms LCD I had wasn't great. There was slight ghosting. Plus, the colors were weird - both on mine and my friend's $500 Sony LCD. They're pastel-like. On a non-switching CRT, it makes the image sharper than with special features in Mame, but like I said in early posts, you can use newer Mame with D3D and bilinear filtering off and it's just as sharp. And if there's any artifacting, I don't see it. Now, as for 'how it was or is supposed to be', I think it's just a matter of what it was. If you want it how it was, then you want 'authentic'. If not, then you want it different.

I went to an arcade, recently and some old games, like Gyruss, Moon Patrol, Robotron and Joust were very focused. No scanlines but the image was soft enough to smooth out the pixels. Smash TV, on the other hand, looked blurry. Both, D3D without bilinear filtering and the avga make it look very blocky. If you like that, fine. No need to explain it. And (while D3D sans bilinear filtering may or may not be different from using the avga) you're obviously obviously willing to pay a whole bunch for it.

[ahofle]

1.   My point is and still remains that the arcade vga by ultimarc improves the picture particularly on an LCD screen.   It creates the same picture that direct draw creates except for the fact that it fills up the screen.

Since you seem to know about calculus and integrals, then you must surely understand that if Mortal Kombat (401x256 or 1.57:1 aspect ratio) completely fills up your 4:3 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio LCD display without black bars, then you have an inaccurately stretched picture.  Your mortal kombat characters will all look skinny (stretched more vertically).  This is why I wanted to see a picture of the LCD, not a MAME screenshot which has the correct aspect.

[genesim]

First of all, guys at Ultimarc came up with a specific way to exhibit the resolution.    So it is not as easy as saying...it doesn't divide, so it cannot be.

So lets take a hypothetical.   401 is approx 2.55 to 1 when it comes to 1024 resolution.   Is it really that hard to write a program to ignore the left over?  I don't know how they come up with the distinct resolution, but according to Andy it is possible.  Specific software can do alot of things.

While 256 divides evenly into
768.    So in essence pixel count can be merely be tripled.  Which means you have 3 pixels making an approximation for every pixel!!!

Because there a million mathematical ways that one can arrive at the totals.   It depends on how the pixels are configured.   Matter of fact did you ever stop to consider how they arrived at 401 which doesn't divide evenly at all?  I remember the reason why, which had to do with bypassing windows, but all I know is that they did it.

BUT lets take it to simpleton terms.    Lets say they did it simple 512 x256 which would be 2 pixels to draw the horizontal with 3 pixels to draw the vertical.    That would mean that there would be 131072 pixels total.

Mortal Kombat had 102400 which is 28,672 pixels that would be upscaled from the original resolution.    As opposed to using  800x600(the lowest windows default)which has 480000 or 640x480 which has 307200 pixels.   You see easily that there is  a hell of alot more to compromise with newer resolutions.

Still, these are hypothetical, and with the limited information I got from Andy, it comes down to the fact that it is special software that gets it alot closer then even that.

All I know is what I see, and it exhibits the exact same results of Direct Draw(which is the most accurate) without the compromise of screen size.

Meanwhile you guys are ignoring the inherent problem of conventional cards and thier rounding effects.

Now back to short hair:

1.  Actually LCD's have 5000+ now.   Go to any decent TV store for this.   Just google.  I could care less, because the difference is not that great.  Even with lower contrast ratios....the trade off shown below are much more detrimental when in it comes to CRT.

2.  Side lights...still don't know what you are speaking of, even after google.   Please don't repeat it again, and just explain this phenomenon.    I seriously don't know what it is.

3.  Inches...BULL.   Even with my crap LCD of a few years ago it is difficult to see fade until damn near beside it.   You are living in the past.    New LCD's virtually have no problem in this regard.    Besides, like I said before.   This is an Arcade we are speaking of, if people have side viewing areas for big screen LCD's for multiple viewers, how could "inches" be exceptable.    New tech, gets better results.    At least spend a little more, and you might be more satisfied.  That and the fact that if you are standing that far to the side your arcade is built like a fool.

4.  You hinted that my "preferred" games are 90's and up, when I merely mentioned that old monitors cannot display said games very well.    Though still clueless on this "side lights" thing.   Are you meaning Pacman type games with the side that isn't dark enough to your taste?    I compare plasma to LCD(and crt for that matter) and the black levels are just fine.     Side by side, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.   I play tons of old games all the time, and they look beautiful...especially these games with this card.   The difference is astounding.   The pepsi challenge with Direct 3D blows it away!

5.   You say you know how it works..but then you say things like "up sampling" so therefore why all the fuss???    It leads me to believe you have no understanding when you make remarks like that.    First of all, you haven't seen it on an LCD which by design is where it shines.   The pixel replication makes for a more accurate picture.

The problem is that it is too accurate to someone that likes Direct 3D with bilinefilters.    Which hinders accuracy because of all the faked resolution.    You cannot polish a turd.    Just because it appears better(through averaging) does not mean it is more accurate.   I prefer ORIGINAL UNALTERED IMAGE over handy dandy new fix its.

As I said before even original ANALOG arcades faked it because of their limited monitor.    Original roms are digital, which can be accurately represented on new monitors with said technology.  I think you confuse something giving the results you want as "sharp"...no it is BLURRED and the original arcades did the same thing.

LCD's in the past were not the best.    Still 12ms is even beyond what the human I can see.   Isn't film at 24 frames per second???

Still all this said, lets take a look at a CRT, I noticed you ignored my point about image distortion by the very nature of design.    LCD does not have this problem.    Scan lines.   LCD does not have this problem.   Reflections.   LCD does not have this.   Color bleeding.   LCD does not have this....on and on and on.

Blocky is accurate.   SMOOTH is not.     The original arcades may have appeared better but this was because they masked the flaws of the source.    There have been many pictures around the net showing this fact.

The new arcadeVGA rectifies all these problems and gives you a much closer representation of the original picture, not using Dircet3D which deosn't even get you in the ball park.

What resolution are your setting at anyway???

[shorthair]

Heheheheh, fussy are we?

1. LCD TVs are distinguished from PC monitors. They're much higher performance. Most PC monitors still aren't above 1000:1 contrast ratio.

2. delfection angle: I notice it. I've been to arcades with (particularly large) LCD displays...and they have TERRIBLE deflection angle. Just standing in front of them, the image seems washed out....although it would help if there were no ambient lighting. Now, I agree, current LCD TVs are better...but I don't think they're good enough. And the LCD PC monitors I was referring to are only about a year and a half old; of course, they're under a thousand (or two thousand) dollars.

3. side lights: try this - In Windows, set your screensaver to 'blank' and set your display to turn off a minute after this. Then turn off the lights in the room and draw the shades/curtains/blinds, whatever you got. When the screensaver engages, and you should notice a slight overall glow on the screen. Then watch as the display turns off a minute later, and you'll see it turn off. This is the side lights in action. As long as the display is on, these are on.

4. my point on the card, vs using Mame (with either ddraw and hardware stretch with the effect used being 'RGB sharp', or D3D with bilinear filtering on and prescaling set at '2') is that it's plenty sharp enough. But with D3D and bilinear filtering off, it's as sharp as using the avga. Granted, this is on a CRT...and I think it's overkill. Using an LCD on top of that would be blocky as hell.

What it comes down to: I don't like blocky (or very blocky); you do (and you're willing to pay a lot of money for it). Fine. All you had to say was something like, 'the avga makes things very very sharp and blocky...I like this'. Telling us that it's the most signal-accurate rendition I think few if any here care about. If you haven't noticed, most people here are quite the reverse.

In any case, it's not correct. Scanlines are a natural result of the native resolutions. If an LCD was made to run at such low resolutions, you'd see scanlines, because the display would be fed that signal. There's a reason the DVI port of the avga is for PC monitors: it doesn't deliver the low timings an arcade or multi-sync monitor can handle, the original timings of the games. It's not even a matter of pixel accuracy but scanrate. So, actually, the digital signal is not correct. On top of that, there are ways to get native-like resolutions using high refresh rates. I've found this using soft-15khz. Look in that thread in 'Software' for details.

As to my general Mame set-up: I run either ddraw - hardware stretch - effect= RGB sharp; or D3D with prescaling set at 2. In both cases, I the resolution is defaulted to the desktop resolution, which in this case is 1024x768. Yes, the image looks different than using the avga, but I don't see any artifacting, and there are no scanlines (which I generally don't prefer, though they are a certain novelty to me).

[genesim]

1.   And WHO CARES.   If you can really tell good for you...but me thinks you fall into the category of listening to what other people say over using your own eyes..i.e. writing off what a VGA card does with specific technology before you have even seen it!   Even Andy says you have to see it to believe it on LCD, I tried taking pictures, and it just doesn't capture it even after trying so many different lighting schemes.

2.   But you don't seem to notice the REFLECTION on CRT's which does impair vision.   You go to the store and just try to see a glare on an LCD, it doesn't happen.    Now are you seriously going to compare a crap LCD in the arcades???  RGB monitors had problems, what makes you think first generation LCD's are going to be any better.

3.   I tried your trick and I didn't see it.    SERIOUSLY.   I tried several times, and believe me, I can see 1 pixel shift on the Plasma screen saver.   Sorry.   I'll keep researching, but noone I know seems to know what you are talking about.  Documentation would help.

4.  Ok so if you think it is plenty sharp enough try this.    Look at my amateur picture and put pacman on and pause the power pellet.   If you get ANY blur at all and it doesn't look exactly like my artwork(as bad as it is), then you have compromised the original design.    My monitor now shows this(with the ultimarc arcade card) distinctly with no compromise.

If it is hard to tell the peaks(which I know it is because I have used D3D and direct draw for years on several crt's) on the power pellet then you got to know that you are missing out on the true potential of your computer.



Scan lines are not NATURAL, there are a limitation and screwed up the original graphics to begin with.   Don't confuse lack of technology with intent.    For the first time in history we are able to get pure original picture without sacrfising aspect ratio.   

It is true that alot of MAME lovers are looking for that crap blurry look to replicate what they saw in the arcades.   The facts are though, that what they saw in the arcades were compromised to begin with.

Actually you keep bringing up how I am willing to spend so much money.   Not true.   I needed a minimal graphics card to replace my on board.   The added benefit was way worth the price.    Though you aren't exactly on even ground.   I have seen the results, you have not.     When I find a way to capture it, I will, but as it stands it isn't too hard to imagine.   Though if you prefer blur, then I can't help you.     Though don't tell me this was how the programmers intended.   Code is code, and I don't care how many dev's think it to be so.   It is an urban legend, and far too many monitors have screwed up what the programmers wanted.    That is why MK machines were converted to SFII.   Different monitors that hurt the game visuals.   

Pacman has to be seen to be believed.   The improvement is drastic, and after comparing it with Direct Draw alone, it BLOWS IT AWAY.   

If you run at 1024x768 without the card, you have compromised already.    You have a generic approach that makes most games lower then their potential.    It is like having all the workers on the same pay scale...for some it might work, but for most it doesn't exactly reflect how it should be!

But seriously, have we got off this my monitor is crap issue.   It would be nice if you would at least comment on some of my points that I have repeated over and over.   You seem to want to ignore the distortion problems with CRT as well as color bleeding etc...

"There's a reason the DVI port of the avga is for PC monitors: it doesn't deliver the low timings an arcade or multi-sync monitor can handle, the original timings of the games. It's not even a matter of pixel accuracy but scanrate."

This simply isn't true.   If calculated proberly and using software you can get a very close approximation that can be hard for the human eyes to tell.    When you say that LCD tv's aren't there yet, I gotta laugh.   Just how much faster do they need to get?   How much more wide do you need then 170 degrees with no change??

You compare a arcade monitor as if that is the be all end all...not to mention the fact that most LCD monitors in the arcade were PROJECTED.    If that is the case(which it probably was when and if they isanely would use an expensive LCD), then your rationalization for reflective problems, doesn't exactly hold water.

[shorthair]

visual distortion, etc: no, I just didn't see any need to address it as that's a given.

power pellet: yes, I know what you mean. I see it to differing degress depending upon what mode I'm using. Like I said, I don't necessarily like it too sharp. I don't like blurry graphics - which for example is what I see with regular Mame without RBG sharp effect, or D3D without pre-scaling - but I don't want them blocky.

contrast ratio of LCD PC monitors vs TVs: um, well, that was a point we were discussing. You can dismiss it if you want. Again, I generally play with low or no ambient lighting, so reflection isn't an issue in my case. However, LCDs with a plastic or glass covering will have reflection, too. As for the side light thing, obviously I'd have to show you in person. Though, I have seen it talked about in articles. Anyway, whatever.

I have seen newer games using LCDs and they look pretty good...but they're not in dimly-lit arcades and they're not displaying classic games. That's my point on that.

As for scanlines, well, this is one of my sources:

http://www.ultimarc.com/monfaq.html

I agree they're an obstruction, though there is also the point (I don't know if anyone's noticed or thought of this) that scanlines give an optical illusion of the graphics, particularly text, as looking like it's 'embossed'. Like it stands out. There is a certain appeal to this as things will appear to have a very slight dimension of depth, though again this is mostly on classic games.

Heheh, on the 'I'm just going with what other people say' thing....um, okay. And I never said only an arcade monitor, but rather a CRT. Remember, I said I have an arcade monitor (multi-sync, actually, which is a little different) and a presentation monitor, the latter being very much like the former rather than a PC monitor.

Relax.

[genesim]

Yes, that link is an old one.   Of course you have to get to the update of UNTIL NOW!

http://www.ultimarc.com/avgainf.html

I am sure you saw the pics, but take a good look at the dots.   Do you know why they look "boxy" compared to garbled mess that is Direct 3D.....because PIXELS ON ARCADES WERE SQUARE TO BEGIN WITH!   

Thats right, the blurred crap you see with arcade monitors and such are an illusion based on the fact that you have poor connections along with compromise of the original digital code. 

Does your picture look like the one above without blur?   If it doesn't then you have compromised the picture.    There isn't any if's and's or but's about this.    This is a verifiable fact.

What cracks me up is that you accept approximations with Direct 3D which is say 1024x768 compared to 224x288 of original pacman and you get 721000+FAKED resolution and you talk about LCD upscaling??

You don't seem to understand how much the new card does with and LCD, look at the link and understand the wonders of the new 352x288 resolution.   Like I said, multiple pixels draw a more accurate picture with NO "upscaling".     Direct 3D is based on upscaling.   

Your damn right scan lines give an illusion just like low resolution monitors.  They cover up the flaws of the source.   Well guess what I like PURE resolution over again FAKED Direct 3D bilinear(thats right, I had that throttled on my pictures, and you can tell the difference).   Look at the first posts, look closely at how blurry the power pellet looks, look at your own for crying out loud, can you honestly say that soft look was how it was supposed to be?

BLOCKY was true to the original.   Were you not there in the arcades?   Even scanlines could not cover up this fact, and like I said, I have actually compared one to one.     

Just admit it, you like your stuff blurry and appearing better.     But don't come off telling me my monitor is crappy and the card has no point.    The pictures speak for themselves.   The in person visual is even more so.    I am betting if you actually saw it, you would be singing a different tune as well.

As it stands you are criticizing something you have not seen, and in effect deterring people without ever letting Andy's hard work get a chance.

I on the other hand, have compared, and if you stick to the idea that you are seeing absolutely no blur, then you must have a direct 3D crt image different from the rest of us, and a MAME snapshot would suffice on proving this.    I await this find.   Just pause on the Power pellet in Pacman and I am sure it will be surprising.   Me guesses picture number one on the Ultimarc site is closer to the truth though.

By the way, are you seriously going to compare glare from and outside housing?   That is like me saying CRT's don't look better because of a booger on the screen.     

LCD's do not have glare PERIOD.   They don't need specific lighting because of their design.   Still wondering what the hell this "side lights" thing is.  If you find a link to this please pass it on, because I am finding NOTHING on it.    Which is strange with even wikipedia.    Much less it being some widespread phenomenon that hurts vision???

P.S.   As for calming down...I try, but I am finishing my arcade with consoles built in and it can be frustrating.    I just soldered an arcade button to the digital/analog source connector...not exactly easy.

[RandyT]

I am sure you saw the pics, but take a good look at the dots.   Do you know why they look "boxy" compared to garbled mess that is Direct 3D.....because PIXELS ON ARCADES WERE SQUARE TO BEGIN WITH!   

No, they were not.  The images stored within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display and were never intended to be seen block for block.  I pushed plenty of pixels in the 80's and that is the first thing I learned.

Thats right, the blurred crap you see with arcade monitors and such are an illusion based on the fact that you have poor connections along with compromise of the original digital code. 

No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT.  "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.

Does your picture look like the one above without blur?   If it doesn't then you have compromised the picture.    There isn't any if's and's or but's about this.    This is a verifiable fact.

You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.  Many times there are pixels in a low res image designed for CRT display that were never intended to be seen directly, rather it was the effect they had when combined with surrounding areas and viewed on the target display that was intended to be seen.  Anti-aliasing is the modern day equivalent that started when displays were much lower res.

You don't seem to understand how much the new card does with and LCD, look at the link and understand the wonders of the new 352x288 resolution.   Like I said, multiple pixels draw a more accurate picture with NO "upscaling".     Direct 3D is based on upscaling.   

You don't seem to understand how LCD panels work.  I can't comment on the card, nor will I for a number of reasons.  But I will tell you this:  LCD panels have very specific pixel counts which are what gives you the "native resolution" of the display.  Suppose your displays native resolution is 1024x768 and you want to display an image that is 352x288.  Those numbers will not go evenly into the native resolution of your screen, so one of three things must occur.  Either you 1) live with an approximation of pixel sizes that cause some pixels to be larger than others (also known as artifacting from upscaling), 2) you use only the portion of the screen into which the image resolution can be evenly divided and accept a smaller on-screen image.  In this case it would be 704x576 assuming proper aspect ratios.  Or 3) crop the screen to remove the remainder of pixels which cannot be displayed, in this case resulting in a loss of 32 vertical and 96 lines horizontal.  It's also important to note that without some means of communicating the native resolution of the LCD panel to the drivers (which can scale just as readily as D3D, BTW) methods 2 and 3 couldn't be used as there are many different "native resolutions" out there.

Look at the first posts, look closely at how blurry the power pellet looks, look at your own for crying out loud, can you honestly say that soft look was how it was supposed to be?

BLOCKY was true to the original.   Were you not there in the arcades?   Even scanlines could not cover up this fact, and like I said, I have actually compared one to one.     

Yes, the power pellet was supposed to appear round, not like the thing you drew.  The softer smoother look was the intention of the artist, but the low resolution of the display hardware limited what he was able to do there.  You are making bizarre assumptions based on something I'm afraid I cannot begin to fathom.

Still wondering what the hell this "side lights" thing is.  If you find a link to this please pass it on, because I am finding NOTHING on it.    Which is strange with even wikipedia.    Much less it being some widespread phenomenon that hurts vision???

I worked in the glasses-free 3D business for about 5 years and part of my job was to find and evaluate LCD screens to be used with the technology.  I have seen many, many LCD panels, all with different pros and cons.  One of the "cons" is the brightness and / or color shift one gets depending on the viewing angle.  Some panels also "bleed" light at the edges, causing uneven blacks.  Some panels are better than others, and the technology is improving, but still, there are no, none, nada LCD panels that can provide the same brightness and contrast ratios as CRTs when solid black levels are required.  This is why the display industry is pushing toward newer display technologies that more closely mirror what can be delivered by CRT's.

So in short, if you like what you are seeing, that's great.  But please don't try to support "what you like" by spreading falsehoods about myriad other topics.  People come here to learn, not to be misled.

RandyT

*edit* spelling...

[genesim]

No, they were not.  The images stored in within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display...

So you admit that they were programmed that way....next, are we now trying to delve into the mind of all the programmers??

No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT.  "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.

That side effect is blurred crap.   Though I don't get your last part.   Pixels were square PERIOD.

You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.

Again...going into the inner minds of the programmers...  Can you at least admit that achieving close to this PRE crapped out low res monitor would be more effective in getting the original image?

You don't seem to understand how LCD panels work.  I can't comment on the card, nor will I for a number of reasons.

Based on what???   Have I not said over and over that LCD's have a native resolution of 1024x768 and that several pixels are used to create one?   So why do you proceed to explain to me what I alread knew??

Either you 1) live with an approximation of pixel sizes that cause some pixels to be larger than others (also known as artifacting from upscaling)

So the alternative direct 3D upscale is better where it upscales ALL of them??

2) you use only the portion of the screen into which the image resolution can be evenly divided and accept a smaller on-screen image.

But of course the image isn't smaller on the arcade VGA so that point is moot.

In this case it would be 704x576 assuming proper aspect ratios.

Actually 352 x 288 was used, how they got there, I don't pretend to know, but seeing is believing.    Theores alone just don't cut it.

3) crop the screen to remove the remainder of pixels which cannot be displayed, in this case resulting in a loss of 32 vertical and 96 lines horizontal.  It's also important to note that without some means of communicating the native resolution of the LCD panel to the drivers (which can scale just as readily as D3D, BTW) methods 2 and 3 couldn't be used as there are many different "native resolutions" out there.

As far as I can see no cropping has occured.   Incidently, are you hip to the fact that Arcade VGA has to be configured for each and every resolution separately???    If you were, you might not have made that last statement.

Yes, the power pellet was supposed to appear round, not like the thing you drew.  The softer smoother look was the intention of the artist, but the low resolution of the display hardware limited what he was able to do there.  You are making bizarre assumptions based on something I'm afraid I cannot begin to fathom.

How bizarre is it to fathom the code was discreet and is rendered in the EXACT way it was programmed???    You keep assuming that you know what the original programmer wanted, yet have you actually asked this?    Do you know for sure?    The "thing" I drew(bad artwork aside) is exactly how the power pellet is shapped with NO BLUR.    It makes me wonder how you are the key whiz and you can't grasp this concept.   I don't mean to be rude because you do have plenty of knowledge, but geez is this really that obscure??

I worked in the glasses-free 3D business for about 5 years and part of my job was to find and evaluate LCD screens to be used with the technology.  I have seen many, many LCD panels, all with different pros and cons.

Yada yada...and how long ago was that?   So meanwhile the technology has grown leaps and bounds and only a fool would argue that a top end LCD does anything but TROUNCE a CRT display.   Come up with facts, and I will counter, but how you "feel" doesn't cut it.

Refresh rates are beyond the human eye as fast as 2 ms(which is way overkill), there is no glare, the viewing angles have improved so much they are a non issue, blurring is a myth on current LCD's...etc. etc. ad nauseum.

But please don't try to support "what you like" by spreading falsehoods about myriad other topics.  People come here to learn, not to be mislead.

RandyT

What false hoods??   So far you have actually proved me right on a hundred different levels.    Point out where I was wrong and I will happily admit it.   But if you think your reading minds attitude is going to "prove" anything, you are mistaken.    It would be like the MAME dev's not rendering code accurately because of what they "think" of what the programmers wanted.

Square is accurate.    Blurring is approximations, and unclear at that.    You sacrifice clarity for what "appears" to be better.    The original arcade monitors were the same way.     

But just because you think you are seeing more...i.e. a person who prefers a full screen display vs progressive widescreen, because they THINK it looks better.     Yet ignore the fact that their screen is effectively cut off.    Same goes for every single blurring image.    IT AIN'T REAL!!!

Some of your response/prejudices toward the card mirror this.

[RandyT]

wow....


RandyT

[genesim]

Lets take a look at my pictures when zoomed(that is all I did).

Which is really more accurate.    First is Direct 3D using a bilinear filter.



Now here is Direct draw using the original approximation of true resolution.

[genesim]

Damn it...it won't display properly.

Just download those pellets and look for your self.    Put it on your viewer and you will know the "thing" that I drew.

[ahofle]

wow....


RandyT

 

[genesim]

You know what hyenas do.....hang around an pick up scraps.

The problem with this scenario is that there is nothing to get because when I shred I leave nothing behind.

Disprove what I say and go from there.   Being a smartass isn't virtue.

I have sat back and devoured every debate, and key whiz, while being very interesting, essentially spends him time being a "know it all" with virtually no substance.

It's all smoke an mirrors.

[genesim]

You know, instead of arguing with me, why not try to find out how the resolution was achieved instead of writing it off completely??

Multiple pixels representing one is not a bad thing is it?    If you have say 3 pixels for every one, I would say that is a very good estimate of what the true nature of that pixel is.

What I can't understand is that my screen shots are EXACTLY how I put them in the options.    That MK screen shot is exactly 401 x 256.    Besides it looking awesome, how in the hell is this done?   I understand that the pixels don't divide evenly, but yet, it is there.

I wonder if some are bigger by one pixel and others are smaller??   It doesn't look like it when I zoom in.  No cropping either.

Say with pacman.   352 only doubles..so that would mean that 320 pixels are left over...which of course is a hell of alot better then Direct 3D alone.  I wish I knew how it was done!

[shorthair]

<BIG SIGH> genesim....that ultimarc link I provided is not on the avga. It's called the monitor faq, and talks about native resolutions and stuff.

I saved your images and compared them at the same magnification. They're like I originally thought: the 'blurry' (I would say out of focus) ones look like regular Mame without effects; yours look like a D3D image with bilinear filtering turned off. That's what I see. I like it in-between: Mame with ddraw - RGB sharp, or D3D with pre-scaling at 2.

On the other half of your point - your monitor - since none of us can view it in person, let's just say there's no reason discussing it. However, the main point of the AVGA is for arcade monitors. I don't know why Andy added the PC monitor feature, but it's not the main feature of the card, and Andy even explained this in another thread some time ago. You might ask him about all this or do a thread search.

[genesim]

Actually, the screen shots from MAME are an exact representation of the what the monitor does.

I reupped the picture using DIRECT 3D with BILINE FILTERING.

How about doing the same yourself.

Then again, I guess the ultimarc guys are lying as well?   Did you not see the caption?   It is obvious from the picture that the exact same settings were used.

Post your own pics so I can see how much different your Direct 3D is with biline filtering.

But you say you like your pics in between.   Hmmmm so again, you like your picture DISTORTED.    The UN BLEMISHED picture is true resolution.     How many more times do I have to hammer this in??     If you like it that way fine.

Still answer this.    Is my second picture not true resolution, or do you think there is some kind of flaw with the original code.    Did Key Whiz not give up the same information???    If he can admit it, why can't you??

The difference with him is that he thinks that yes its that way, but it wasn't meant to be seen that way.....small steps, but at least he acknowledges that is how the original code was rendered.   

BLURRY IS FAKE.    BLURRY IS FAKE.   

p.s.   I do resent you calling me a lyer though.    The picture was Direct 3d with biline filtering.     Though the resolution was 800x600.    I remember I turned it down to get as close as I could to the original using new techniques.

[RandyT]

I have sat back and devoured every debate, and key whiz, while being very interesting, essentially spends him time being a "know it all" with virtually no substance.
It's all smoke an mirrors.

I guess some people just need pictures....

RE: Artist's intention

This is a close-up photo of a section of the actual control panel showing the real world version of what the programmer was shooting for.  Note:  No little squares or pointy objects like the ones on your LCD or the one in your drawing.  Round and smooth, as I stated earlier.  The artist did what he could to approximate it, and fortunately the bit of blur produced by the coarse dot-pitch of the monitor gave him the softness needed to pull it off.  All computer artists of the day, to include myself, took the soft output properties of the CRT into consideration because it was all they had to work with.  If you assume differently, I'm afraid you are just incorrect and there are plenty of folks here who will tell you the same thing.

Now I'm going to give you something that you've failed to provide.  An actual photo, not a screencap,  taken from a full screen display (not cropped or reduced in size) on one of my LCD panels.  It's a pretty mediocre 1280x1024 LCD with a standard analog connection attached to a less than mediocre nVidia Vanta mobo based video chipset.  In other words, pretty much the bottom of the bottom by today's standards.  Whatever glow you see is mostly due to the camera, with a tiny amount caused by the non-digital connection.  It looks much sharper in real life than in the photo.

Now my question to you is, what is it that you do not understand about what people have been telling you here?  If you don't like the effect provided by the filtering, turn it off!  If you think the pixels aren't being 100% accurately portrayed then fix the settings to do what you want them to.  And BTW, as stated before,  you aren't getting 100% accurate pixel representation unless the native LCD resolution can be evenly divided by the target resolution.  If your assertion is anything other, then you are mistaken on that front as well.  However, a high resolution LCD will look much better in this regard as the native pixels are much smaller and extras are less detectable.  IOW, what would look very bad on a 640x480 LCD would be hardly noticeable on one that was 1600x1280, but a purist such as yourself might still be able to find fault.

As for my "prejudice", that statement was just a "low blow" and would assume that I have an opinion one way or the other about the hardware. I do not.  I'm sure it's a dandy piece of kit that takes headaches out of the process.  This discussion is entirely about getting you to provide some sort of backing for what a good number of the knowledgeable folks here will view, at best, as uninformed conclusions and at worst, flat out deliberate obfuscation.

Be sure to click on the images if you want to see them better.

RandyT

[Naru]

Hmmm...
What can I add to this...
I have both types of monitors.
I love the LCD because of it's slim and sexy figure.
I love the CRT because she's got curves, and that nice thick caboose.
Hmmm... doesn't look like I have anything to add after all.

[genesim]

Man you are not only prejudice, but you have thrown out all reasoning???!!!

Now let me get this straight.   You are pointing to a PICTURE(??!!) and saying that is what the original code was supposed to be???    Gee and can we do the same for the pacman that is not pictured directly to its left?

Hey while were at it, why don't we make other "improvements".

Fact CODE is CODE.    This is non-debatable(though you seem to think this can be).

The programmers intention....all OPINIONS.

Do I need to spell it out even more?   Can you imagine if the MAME team took your approach and just arbitrarily added things to make it fit what you THINK the programmers wanted??    I am sure Night Driver was programmed with the car in mind, but do we add it at base level?

NO.   If you want accuracy, then you render the graphics FIRST, then apply the smoke or whatever.

You keep saying my screen shots in some way take away from my point.    How do you figure??    My first attack is at least getting it through some skulls that the ORIGINAL code should not be tampered with before it gets to the source.    Filters change this, and are not real.   The screen shots first posted are the EXACT resolution of the screen shot of what code was rendered through MAME.   Any other size is an estimate.   Nothing to do with the screen, but everything to do with what the Arcade VGA is putting out.

Direct 3D even without filters also has the same problem.   FAKED resolution.    I can tell you for damn straight that Pacman was not meant to be played on 640x480 which is the lowest that windows allows(though I have heard of other cards that allow different resolutions, but that is another story).

Why can you not grasp this fact??   Even if you don't buy that the Arcade VGA can achieve this, how can you defend the matter by saying it is as simple as unselecting the filters???

Now lets get to this point that you say...uh if it doesn't divide evenly, then it can't possible be more accurate.

You do realize that with any screen that is not exactly to the Pacman specifications there has to be black bars on the side.    Lets say for instance that those black bars are where the rest of the "left over" resolutions reside.   Black is black...who cares how many pixels represent it.     As long as the picture is centered, and it is close to the horizontal resolution.    This would be a drastic improvement over just assigning a generic resolution for all games which is what Direct 3D does.

Oh by the way, to smoke out all this crap about Programmers dealing with the limitations of the CRT monitor.

Isn't it true that Pacman was developed on a single chip processor.   Gee that wouldn't have anything to do with the display adapter not even coming CLOSE to filling up the CRT technology of the time.

CRT monitors have been around at much higher resolutions since the 40's.   The problem is the chip communication.    If they could have made it rounder they wouldhave.     Don't be rediculous.   

In closing....

All I tried to do is share what the Arcade VGA did admirably.    It FILLS UP THE SCREEN with a direct draw like results(actually it looks better then that to me, which is unimagineable).

I wasn't really trying to sell an LCD screen, though it is wonderful for an arcade experience that doubles for regular computer applications along with high res consoles.    What I was trying to do was share the direct pixel to pixel relationship that the software seems to render well.

In the end, those that appreciate original code, will see that there is alot that can be done with this.    If they feel they need scanlines, put them on.   If they don't like it "blocky"(which is still funny to me because that was how it originally was before it reaches the computer), then don't buy this card and stick to NON AUTHENTIC averages....or put more effects on, at least you have a more accurate representation then at the lowest...640x480.    I can't believe someone like short hair would actually prefer that garbled mess at the highest resolution??

We can split hairs( ) to the end of time, but it won't get us anywhere.   Those that want to belive in low res compromising image is best, will continue to do so.   The facts don't support it(unless it is a one to one relationship which no arcade monitor can do for every game!!).     Multiple pixels representing an image can produce very close to the original.    In some cases it is actually one to one.     If it isn't, like Key Whiz said, the human eye may not even tell.

For me, the card is wonderful, and I am glad that I spent the pitiful chump change to get it.    I needed a decent video card for minimal tasks, and I got that.    I needed something that would display Direct Draw like results full screen, and I got that.    I am happy, and I just wanted to share the wealth.   

The rest is for the horses to drink.   

[ryantheleach]

ermm, dont screenshots save from what mame says is going to the video card, not what the video card is actually processing, im probably very way off here but it seems to me a screenshot is a screenshot regardless of what hardware is used.

[genesim]

Yeah, and just exactly how do you save a screenshot without it displaying?

The information is one to one.    If it displays, then that is what is produced. 

Now please tell me, how do you get 401 x 256 on your regular card.....

Do you see the black bars on the top and bottom on the first Mortal Kombat pic, that is 640x480.    Do you see any black bars at all on the second picture...NOPE that is 401x256.    A one to one relationship on what is put out on my monitors screen.   

Don't believe me, right click and see.   I suggest saving liking I did way back when and then zoom to see the attrocities of filters with Direct 3D that supposedly fills up your screen.

[RandyT]

Now let me get this straight.   You are pointing to a PICTURE(??!!) and saying that is what the original code was supposed to be???    Gee and can we do the same for the pacman that is not pictured directly to its left?

A pie with a slice cut out of it as a character on the side of an arcade machine is too abstract,  so they gave it feet and eyes.  Apples and oranges.

Fact CODE is CODE.    This is non-debatable(though you seem to think this can be).

The programmers intention....all OPINIONS.

Which mean mine are as valid as yours, I suppose.  But here is one absolutely undeniable fact: without the display, all that code is just 1's and 0's.  It doesn't become the Pac-Man that lived in your local arcade until it is coupled with a display like that which was used in the original machine; a 15khz, RGB, large dot-pitch CRT monitor...oriented vertically.  Anything else is, using your vernacular, "faked".  Not saying that it's bad, just that it's not what you are trying to convince yourself of it as being.

Do I need to spell it out even more?   Can you imagine if the MAME team took your approach and just arbitrarily added things to make it fit what you THINK the programmers wanted??

It's not about what anyone thinks the programmers wanted, rather an attempt at re-creating the original look of the game as it existed in the arcade.  And that is exactly what many of those filters are there for.

You keep saying my screen shots in some way take away from my point.    How do you figure??    My first attack is at least getting it through some skulls that the ORIGINAL code should not be tampered with before it gets to the source.    Filters change this, and are not real.   The screen shots first posted are the EXACT resolution of the screen shot of what code was rendered through MAME.   Any other size is an estimate.   Nothing to do with the screen, but everything to do with what the Arcade VGA is putting out.

Quite simply, your "screen shots" don't have enough pixels in them to fill the screen.  So if MAME isn't scaling then something else has to be.  And I am assuming that something to be hardware scaling on the video card, which equally fits your definition of "tampering".  IOW, you are throwing up the source as evidence of  a great output system that hasn't even touched it yet.  Nonsensical, to say the least.  It's literally as silly as telling everyone about a great painting you did, and then for proof, you show them the photo you used for inspiration.

Direct 3D even without filters also has the same problem.   FAKED resolution.    I can tell you for damn straight that Pacman was not meant to be played on 640x480 which is the lowest that windows allows(though I have heard of other cards that allow different resolutions, but that is another story).

Your LCD doesn't go below that either.  "Faked" is "Faked".  But don't take my word for it.  Hit the menu button on your LCD while a game is running and tell me the resolution and the frequency that is being reported on the input.  And if you'd like, do some math and report to us how those numbers interact with the points you have been trying to make.

Now lets get to this point that you say...uh if it doesn't divide evenly, then it can't possible be more accurate.

You do realize that with any screen that is not exactly to the Pacman specifications there has to be black bars on the side.    Lets say for instance that those black bars are where the rest of the "left over" resolutions reside.   Black is black...who cares how many pixels represent it.     As long as the picture is centered, and it is close to the horizontal resolution.    This would be a drastic improvement over just assigning a generic resolution for all games which is what Direct 3D does.

Talking about the empty space on the sides of a vertical game is just more obfuscation and doesn't relate to the point.... If the vertical resolution is the limiting factor, consider it and it alone.   Again, if you don't like what Direct3D does to your screen, turn it off.  That's what I did when I took the photograph.

Isn't it true that Pacman was developed on a single chip processor.   Gee that wouldn't have anything to do with the display adapter not even coming CLOSE to filling up the CRT technology of the time. CRT monitors have been around at much higher resolutions since the 40's.   The problem is the chip communication.    If they could have made it rounder they wouldhave.     Don't be rediculous.   

You seem to be dancing all around the point, yet never seem to get your feet wet in it.  A complete system cannot exist without all the parts that comprise it.  Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.  But the neat thing about artistic types is that you can hand them a stick, a bic lighter and a sheet of paper and you get a result that is much greater than the sum of the physical components.  To say that an artist does not take advantage of the traits inherent to his medium only tells me that you aren't one.

The rest is for the horses to drink.   

What do you have against horses?

RandyT

[ahofle]

And BTW, as stated before,  you aren't getting 100% accurate pixel representation unless the native LCD resolution can be evenly divided by the target resolution.  If your assertion is anything other, then you are mistaken on that front as well. 

This is obviously the reason he "can't figure out" how to take a simple picture of his monitor so we can demonstrate his incorrect aspect ratio on Mortal Kombat.  Although maybe his LCD magically physically morphs into a 1.57x1 aspect ratio display to eliminate black bars?

Yeah, and just exactly how do you save a screenshot without it displaying?

The information is one to one.    If it displays, then that is what is produced. 

Wrong.  The Mortal Kombat screenshot you generated by pressing F12 in MAME has 102,656 pixels.  Your LCD has 768,432 pixels.  You neglected to show us the other 683,776 invented pixels.

I only hope the EE guys don't discover this gem of a thread and send it (and the OP) to post hell within minutes LOL.

[genesim]

ahofle,

Are you reading?   Do you even understand a damn thing as to how the card works???    Einstein, I repeat, MULTIPLE PIXELS are used to generate the resolution.

Windows display properties reports the resolution as 401 x 256 at 60Hz.

When I hit F11 on MAME it reports the refresh at 53 fps.    This leads me to believe that the computer is being "fooled".     Software can work wonders, and I am not about to try to figure out how it came to that conclusion, all I know that this is proof that it DID!

Unless of course my computer is now "lying".   

The screen shot is the exact resolution that is being sent to the card, and the fact that it plays is what is EXACTLY running.   What more can I tell you.

As for needing a picture, I can take pictures all day, and it wouldn't change the fact that the Ultimarc website has the best one.   It illustrates the point exactly, and me not being an expert in photography have added nothing to the mix.    I have taken multiple pictures and it just isn't lit well.    I am not hiding anything though, like so many accuse me of.    You want proof, go look at the link, because that is exactly what I am seeing.   I have a 7.2 megapixel camera and it still pisses me off that I can't get a non-blurry image.     I cannot reproduce what I see.   But I match colors for a living and my job is being able to see differences up to 3 decimal places, a crap resolution is not going to be my downfall.

Now seriously, get your head out of the clouds.   IF I take a snapshot, and even if my LCD doesn't report it correctly, does it change the authenticity of the snap?   I am illustrating the difference of direct draw and direct 3D, so at this point, it really doesn't even have anything to do with a monitor does it??

Not that what I said is wrong, but I can't even get some people to see one plus one.   That is how I debate.   I start from the ground up.   

Key Whiz,

Your LCD doesn't go below that either.  "Faked" is "Faked".  But don't take my word for it.  Hit the menu button on your LCD while a game is running and tell me the resolution and the frequency that is being reported on the input.  And if you'd like, do some math and report to us how those numbers interact with the points you have been trying to make.

Fake is not Fake, as I have tried to illustrate.   There are degrees of being faked.   As I said to ahofle, the widows display properties show 401x256 at 60.   That is what is being reported.   PERIOD.

Now how it got there, I don't pretend to know, but there are a million ways of doubling/tripling pixels that could produce acceptable means.    Perhaps the black lines on the side are how it is done.    You do realize that 401 lines aren't easily noticeable.   Could it really be that hard to leave off most of one line, and yet get a proportional enlargement that would be much more satisfactory as opposed to using direct 3D which upscales windows defaults of 640 x 480 as best?   

You keep going over that native resolution doesn't change for LCD, YET I have told you time and time again that I FREAKIN' KNOW THIS.    Listen broken record, I got it, and it takes nothing away from my point.    MULTIPLE PIXELS MULTIPLE PIXELS MULTIPLE PIXELS.    Am I getting through here??

Does it really matter if multiple blacks are used on the the borders of Pacman if the rest of the resolution is upscaled accordingly to present a bigger pictures while still mainting the aspect ratio(or very close to it)?    Actually when I look at the picture in startup mode, the white border of the agreement guide is cut off(before the game loads), but when Pacman starts, you only get a cut black border at most.    I have compared, and it looks like behavior like this has happened.    NO LOSS in my book.

You seem to be dancing all around the point, yet never seem to get your feet wet in it.  A complete system cannot exist without all the parts that comprise it.  Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.  But the neat thing about artistic types is that you can hand them a stick, a bic lighter and a sheet of paper and you get a result that is much greater than the sum of the physical components.  To say that an artist does not take advantage of the traits inherent to his medium only tells me that you aren't one.

I have never disputed that what you say COULD be true.   But at the same time, why would an artist CHOOSE his pellet to be that shape over a perfectly round one??    Don't you think it is more to do with the limits of the chipset over the supposed cost of a monitor(I am still reeling over this....gee I am sure that tall narrow monitor was cheaper to make then a standard model )??  Or do you really believe there was tons of chips laying around, and tons of ram and they just wanted to use that screen so bad, but they would rather be "arty" about it.

I got one even better...just maybe monitors were actually so cheap compared to the chip set, that one could do a read made of just about any resolution they wanted, so the lazy asses programmed as they saw fit rather then matching a standard.    I am not saying this was a bad thing, but if you take a look at the 101 resolutions, I highly doubt the monitor was a real problem.

What I do know, and I will say it again.    Getting the original vision right FIRST is a must.    It may be one's and zero's, but it is still repeatable.    Do you understand?    It doesn't matter how it is displayed afterwards, it matters how it is sent to the screen.    If you have an incorrect aspect ratio like 640x480, then "simply turning off direct 3D" is not going to cut it.   Direct 3D does not work with lower resolutions because most video cards do not have that to start with, and as you said LCD screens can't go below it anyway.   So can you not fathom the idea that Direct 3D would actually do more harm then good in this case.    Well I can tell you that it does.   When I  put on Direct 3D while it is in a lower then say 800x600 then actually whole rows are cut out from the "rounding".    If you have a high display like LCD, then you obviously have to write software that will correct this by using MULTIPLE PIXELS to represent one.   OR you have Direct Draw and you don't utilize the screen.    How else can I explain this?    I can say it over and over, and you just won't get it.

The artist part comes AFTER you get the resolution correct.    Not BEFORE.     You can put any effect on a correct estimation, but as they say, if you start with 640x480, you can't polish a turd.     You may get it really shiny, but a turd is a turd.

Lets face it, do we really disagree that much?    I know exactly what you mean, and I see merit in a programmer most definetly knew his hardware, but still you cannot ignore the fact that the limitations of the software were the bottle neck.     Do you really dispute this?     

I don't think an LCD player is a crappy display, and in alot of cases if done correctly it can give you closer results with clever software(or hard encoded/rigged hardware).    You don't believe so.    Cool.    Everyone has opinions.    Perhaps you may be closer to knowing what the original programmer thought.    But it doesn't matter because the documentation is there and yes....that one was a one, and that zero was a zero, and no after the fact monitor is going to change this.

Oh incidently I feel that I am an artist as well as a scientist.    Not only do I excel at abstract thinking, but the talent runs through my family, with the closest as my dad being a painter.    Still, you can learn through observance.   I don't have to be hit by a car to know what it does to you.

I hate idiotic rationale like your background lends some kind of weight to having more knowledge.    History will show you that people with absolutely no connection to x technology can know more then someone that has spent a lifetime in the field.     The greatest inventions of the world were materialized through that one guy that could make the connection.   

[ahofle]

I am still reeling over this....gee I am sure that tall narrow monitor was cheaper to make then a standard model )?? 

Oh man this is good stuff...

Wanted:
Talented scientist/artist who excels in abstract thinking to help me convert a standard 19" CGA monitor to a Pacman monitor.  I've tried looking everywhere for a replacement, but all I can find are short and fat ones (I need tall and narrow), so I've decided to try a conversion.  Please advise.

[RandyT]

I concede because you were obviously born smarter than me and my continuing to post in this ridiculous thread is unfortunately proof of that.


RandyT

[genesim]

Ahofle,

Do you even know what planet you are on?   That last comment has got to be the most assinine thing you have said since this whole topic began.

Randy T(oops never did get that name right),

Please do concede.   It is obvious when faced with cold hard facts you haven't a defense.

You can continue to be ignorant or not only must you read...but you must comprehend.   It seems you have chose the former.

The only ridiculous part of this thread is some of the comments that were made trying delve into the inner minds of thousands of programmers...that and jackasses that have nothing to add but complete foolish behavior.

At least you Randy T show some signs of intelligence...even if a bit hard headed.  Over and out, lets move on shall we?

[NickG]

[Naru]

that and jackasses that have nothing to add but complete foolish behavior.

Thanks for noticing.
Sometimes I feel invisible.

[genesim]

You weren't invisible with me.   Your humor was at least intentional.

[Malenko]

now that the smoke has cleared, I'll hop in!!!!!!!!!

I have an Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 machine with arcade monitor, it sits next to my MAME cab with a VGA monitor running 640x480 , across from that is my PC which has a 19" flat panel LCD.

Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 has the sharpest image on my LCD but its NOT "arcade accurate"  It has a good picture on MAME but again not "arcade accurate", and well its arcade perfect on my Arcade machine.  I can mess with the filters and stuff on the MAME cab and make it look almost exactly like the arcade machine (which Ive done when I MAME it up), same goes with my PC and LCD. so I dunno what the argument is.

I guess one person is saying LCD is better cause you see all the pixels and the other guy is saying its not better because artists took the limits of the CRT into consideration.  I'd go with the latter, Im sure if PacMan was made today it'd look alot different since technology has advanced so much but I guess the key thing is this:

Everyones Opinion is "right" there is no wrong opinion. Whats better is a comparison based on opinion so whats better to one wont always be better to someone else, so in a way they are both wrong and right at the same time.

[genesim]

NO.

I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.   

NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.   

You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.

You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code.   Accuracy first.   Interpretation later.

[Malenko]

NO.
I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.   
NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.   
You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.
You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code.   Accuracy first.   Interpretation later.

well in my opinion, the user should make the game how he wants it to look; its not about accuracy, its about enjoyment.

Much like RandyT  I'm done with this thread, your replies remind of an old adage......

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."

[krutknut]

What does a pixel look like when there is no monitor to render it?

This is one of the ageless questions that he tibetan monks have meditated upon for hundreds of years.

[genesim]

And my thing is don't put a player down because he wants it as accurate as possible with the added effect of playing new games without glare and with smooth response(4 MS!!!!).

If you look at the very beginning of the thread it wasn't me that said "you have a crappy monitor so what is the point".

Though to get it straight, it isn't an age old question.    Pixels are square, and the code is quite clear.

Monitors were capable at the time of rendering anything that programmers created.    The limitation as I said before were  in the chips, not the display.

Malenko, you call me an idiot...why?   Because I am right and you hate it?   Disprove what I say instead of personal attacks.     That was the problem with Randy T.    I pointed out how he was dead wrong on monitors capabilites so he skated and gave me no credit.   I pointed out he was dead wrong on the interpretation of the code because you must start with accuracy first.

I am not "making" anyone do anything.    You guys can't stand it because I don't stoop to the level of sacrificing accuracy to create a so called artisitic vision that no one can possibly know without being exactly into the programmers head.

Meanwhile one can have the filters on a bettered rendered picture to begin with!!  You can have it both ways.

The only thing that I did was post pictures of what the card was capable of, and furthermore defended an LCD monitor as a fine display.

But instead people like you call me names when I forced NOTHING on you guys.    You don't like it fine.    You don't care about accuracy fine.   Just don't put me down for it.

I like square pixels because that is exactly what was in the original code.   PERIOD.   

Now be done, because it is clear you like the others are incapable of being civilized.

I recently had a friend over and showed him the difference and while he wasn't blown away he did see it...especially on older games.    I do laugh because most people don't care that much about the difference.

I admit, I am not like most people.   Big deal.   I didn't put down anyone else for wanting their vision.   Why are so many putting me down for wanting mine?   Especially when using logic you gotta know that I am making sense.    Truth is truth.   You cannot twist it.   The code is the "DNA" of Arcades.     To argue anthing else is absurd.

[Malenko]

The code is the "DNA" of Arcades. 

First off, you argue about CRT vs LCD then bring in the irrelevant point of code being the "DNA" of arcades. 
arcade do not have Deoxyribonucleic Acid, so I don't get it. Also, some say that innovations in games and graphics; the social value, and the challenge is what made arcades great, and while you can say no one would have played any games without code, I can say no code would have been written if no one was playing the games.

Secondly, at no point did I call you an idiot. I am saying your "argument" is idiotic.  You don't seem to realize that unless you were the programmer ,you haven't the foggiest idea of what they wanted. The end result of their artistic vision was achieved with them full well knowing the limits of any and all technology at the time. You SCREAM code over and over and over without realizing the the CODE is being emulated perfectly on 90% of the games. you also claim monitors had no limits in what they can show..... I'm pretty sure there weren't any monitors in 1977  that could  display 2048*1536 in 32 bit color, is that your alleged chip limit or perhaps the technological limit of the cathode tubes at the time

You claim to not be putting anyone down, but saying that your point is the only valid one is quite insulting to all. Ive been on this forum a very long time and more often then not I was reading and not preaching my opinion as the word of the lord. Message boards are for the spreading and mixing of everyones ideas and ideals. I've read many replies of RandyT's over numerous threads and Ive come to respect his opinion a great deal; you how ever are far too pig headed and unwaivering in your opinion to validate further posting in this or any other thread concerning you and your alleged "opinion"

As for you being "right" (and subsequently me "hating it") scroll up a little and you'll see my answer to that, opinion is opinion and is never right nor wrong; so you are right in having that opinion you are wrong in thinking that opinion is fact when its not. Your opinion is yours, and while others may share it, its practically guaranteed others WONT.

The problem is no one even know what your point is. If you are saying LCD is a better display then a CRT tube; thats fine, and thats your opinion. But then whats the point of saying the programmer were limited to CRTs then say that CRTs can display anything, understand now why no one understands you?

More often then not I prefer to have my games arcade accurate but certain games like Mortal Kombat look better to me in MAME on my LCD  then on my arcade machine running the PCBs, does that mean everyone should like that? NO! because its what I prefer not what everyone else SHOULD prefer. I have no problem with for example, RandyT thinking Mortal Kombat should look arcade perfect if possible, its what he wants so he should go for it!

I feel like the level of redundancy of my text is staggering but I know you'll completely miss the point. And also, I only used RandyT's name as a reference point I have no idea what he thinks Mortal Kombat should look like, but I respect it


just for the heck of it, heres UMK3 running on
1) Arcade 25" monitor
2) MAME cab, 27" VGA monitor 640x480 resolution
3) my PC, running MAME, 512x384 on my DCL LCD 19" monitor

I admit UMK3 looks better to me on my LCD, but even though it looks "better" its not arcade accurate. I think PacMan looks weird running on my LCD, too sharp too crisp, but looks "perfect" to me on my MAME cab

[genesim]

First of all, I appreciate your detailed response to the fullest extent.   There is no reason for any of us to get personal.   My apologies if I haven't followed the rules.

Now, you and I both know what was meant by the "DNA" comment.  In other words it is the basis.   Thats all I meant.   I hope you weren't being serious, arcades are quite mechanical.   Me being on a sequencing project at one time, I am can quite tell what is living and what is not.  METAPHOR

If one is going to play games with any kind of accuracy that should be done right.   That is getting the basic building block of the arcade projected in the best possible manner.

I do understand that I am not the programmer and I don't pretend to know what they wanted as far as final display...BUT I do know what they wanted when it comes to what was prorgrammed to begin with!

The code may be emulated perfectly, but my quam is how it is being displayed.   Even with arcade monitors distortion was happening from the word CRT.    Color bleeding, relection, edge distortion..etc.    LCD's have none of these problems because they are purely digital.   

I think you misunderstood my arguement about monitors.   Randy was saying that Pacman was programmed intentionaly "boxy" because of the limitations of displays at the time.   I am blowing the BS whistle from the word go.   Monitors weren't 1080p, but they also weren't limited to 252 resolution either!    It was obviously the limit of the chip.   This is undisputed.  Did you really think I needed to have it pointed out that there weren't such high resolution monitors?

Now as for my "preaching", quite the contrary.  I am defending my points.    I too have been reading Randy T for a long time and I am simply challenging his falicies that have come to full bloom on this very thread.

You say that I am unwaivering in my opinion.  No what I am saying is fact.   Disprove, and then go from there.   The thing is even Randy T agrees with me on the basics, it is his opinions on how programmers felt where we diverge(or maybe not).   I just don't pretend to know.   

As for LCD's looking better.   Yes I do support this, but I can't make people like them. 

BUT it wasn't just the LCD, it was it paired with the Arcade VGA card!   The "boxy" look was how the original look before the crappy monitors "fixed" this.    I have said it before and I will say it again.    If you want scan lines an LCD can draw those too.   If you want any other effects that mask the original code, then go for it.    Just don't tell me it is more accurate before even interpretting correctly.

Multiple pixels representing(using smart software) will give better results then just simply upscaling.   It has always made no sense to me how a monitor with better resolution is a bad thing???

It is only a bad thing when not utilized to its full extent.    Good software can actually be superior to the old CRT monitors because of the numerous reasons I have laid out before....that and you don't have to kill yourself putting one into your arcade.

Most things that have been said to be drawbacks to LCD's are either A. Myths to begin with, or B. Rectified with technology.

You can lead a horse to water....

Incidently, your pictures are fantastic, but not exactly the discrete resolution of a the 401x256 specialized resolution put out by the arcade VGA.   I still wish I knew how they got there, but the picture is wonderful.

What is the best way to take pictures without blur??   I have a 7.2 megapixel camera, do you know of the best option??
   

[Malenko]

I still am not sure what the argument is.....

If you are wondering why people dont use LCD's in their MAME cabs Im pretty sure its the cost of a 20"+ LCD monitor; nothing more nothing less. If I could put a 27" LCD in my MAME cab and it only cost the $85 or so my CRT did, it'd be an LCD instead.

As for pictures being taken without blur, your best bet is a tripod or holding really still. On my camera using the flash seems to help, but I didn't use the flash on the pix above.

I still say Pac-Man looks silly on my LCD without any effects to "mask the original code"

[genesim]

Prices getting cheaper all the time...

As for Pacman looking silly...of course it will when upscaled to your numbers!

I cannot say enough how the video card I stated a thousand times before, fixes the problems using multiple pixels.   

Seeing is believing.   Pacman looks 100% improved and comparing it with the arcade, I definetly give it the edge.   

Thanks for the advice.   I need a tripod anyway.   

How many megapixel do you have??

Incidently, my critique of the pics above.   The only thing making the arcade screen "apear" ok is the scanlines masking the effect.    A illusion.

[RandyT]

I think you misunderstood my arguement about monitors.   Randy was saying that Pacman was programmed intentionaly "boxy" because of the limitations of displays at the time.   I am blowing the BS whistle from the word go.   Monitors weren't 1080p, but they also weren't limited to 252 resolution either!    It was obviously the limit of the chip.   This is undisputed.  Did you really think I needed to have it pointed out that there weren't such high resolution monitors?

No, this is NOT what I have been saying at all, and if you believe otherwise, your reading comprehension abilities are in need of attention.

My posts on the matter speak for themselves and I'll thank you not to continue to put words in my mouth.

RandyT

[genesim]

Lets take a look at some of your comments.

The images stored within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display and were never intended to be seen block for block.  I pushed plenty of pixels in the 80's and that is the first thing I learned.

This statment makes absolutely no sense.   You are implying that artists purposely created square pixels???

Why on earth would anyone INTENTIONALLY program like crap??   Do you honestly think that someone would program the dots in pacm in anything but round if they could!!

Many times there are pixels in a low res image designed for CRT display that were never intended to be seen directly, rather it was the effect they had when combined with surrounding areas and viewed on the target display that was intended to be seen.  Anti-aliasing is the modern day equivalent that started when displays were much lower res.

How else can one interpret this comment?  Now which is it Randy, are the chips the bottle neck or the monitors?

Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.

Here is more of those gems.

So again, the implication that the monitor was the bottle neck and programmers were held back from the lack of a good display.   LMFAO!

All that 700+ of interlaced video kept the programmers from producing mind blowing graphics!   So that is why a specialized 224x288 display was used???    Again, nothing to do with the limitations of the chip. 

Oh and I suppose Atari games looked so "blocky" because of the limitations of the "bad" home displays as well.   

Nothing to do with 4kb worth of game there.

For more evidence of the logic, look at the picture pointed out as "proof".    It was all because of those crappy displays.   


Each to their own....

But lets get to the whole point of the thread that I have said numerous times.

Ok, lets say for instance that the desired effect is to be filtered/round etc.

DOES IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A DISPLAY SHOWN CORRECTLY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Whether you are using CRT or LCD or Plasma etc...

You must have an accurate ratio.    Starting with a stock resolution of 1024x768 or 640x480 or 800x600 is aproximation as opposed to using DISCRETELY programmed resolution like the 401x256 for Mortal Kombat SPECIFICALLY with the Arcade VGA!!

Utilizing all pixels possible by using multiple pixels to represent one is much more accurate and effecient especially using good "smart" software which knows when to double and when not too as opposed to the stock resolutions mentioned above.    Randy doesn't think so.

Forget the card, how about the simple concept that I outlined above??

Even an arcade monitor approximates because of the crap way that it displays.    All the flaws you speak of mar the picture and hurt the original accuracy.     Even with scan lines...larger dot pitch, it is robbing paul to pay mary.

At least with an LCD all the physical problems are eliminated and what is left is a pure DIGITAL picture that displays the code correctly before special effects like crap scanlines/reflection etc tear down the picture.....even if Randy says that it is in a "good way".

[RandyT]

As I wrote before, maybe there were very specialized displays with greater resolution (I don't really know for sure as I'm going from what you stated, even though you've provided no references to back it up).  I'm sure there were more powerful processors and lots of (very low density) memory, but those things were far too expensive to be put into a machine that had to pay for itself 25 miserable cents at a time.  So regardless of what was technically achievable, they were not always practical, making the consideration of what you think "could have been" quite moot.  There were all kinds of limitations that had nothing to do with technology, rather sound business principles and with what was cost effective.  However, the programmers / artists of the day still had to do the best they could with what they had to work with and that is exactly what they did, whether you wish to believe it or not.

Furthermore, that's precisely why your Atari 2600 (assuming you actually ever owned one) didn't have spectacular graphics as well.  Cheap processor, little memory and an RF connection to a fuzzy TV set.  But don't think for one moment that the programmers and artists didn't work night and day to try to make the best looking and best playing game they could given all of those limitations.  Every nuance of that machine was exploited, including bugs and undocumented features to do things that the original hardware designers would have said were impossible.  If you think for a moment that they didn't try to arrange the pixels in such a way to take advantage of a fuzzy TV display, then I don't know what else to say.  And if you want to see something really ugly, take a look at a 2600 game, in full-screen,  on an LCD display.  I'd rather have a TV (or an effect that approximated one ) to soften the display of those big blocks, just as the game designers expected the TV to do when the code was written.

From what you have written, it is my opinion that you've never written a single line of machine code in your entire life and that you probably weren't even alive in the 80's, let alone ever designed graphics for older machines and displays.  You also don't seem to have even the most basic grasp on the things that are done in business to make a marketable product.  What is it exactly about who you are, your occupation, your past experiences, etc. that makes you feel so qualified to interpret for others what I write, or makes you expect others to take your words as definitive?  Please don't answer with more of that "Rainman-style special in-bred skillz" stuff, just something (anything) substantive.  The fact that you have yet to offer this type of information, you constantly dodge direct questions that might lead to meaningful technical discussion and  that the post that began this thread was the first you made, makes it appear very much like you are here primarily as either a troll or a shill.

As with a good deal of other community members who participate in these forums, everything I write is based on experience, having "been there, done that and still doing it."  If what you have written is based on that premise as well, I am genuinely interested in knowing how you have managed to deviate so profoundly from the views others have here as this topic is concerned.

Once again, please stop trying to interpret for others what I write.  It doesn't need interpreting and you have yet to do it correctly. 

RandyT

[genesim]

Now this is getting really funny.

So now you are saying that the big "blocks" were done to bypass the interlaced effect.

NO Einstein.   4kb is 4kb and there wasn't a television around that could not handle anything and everything that an Atari 2600 put out.

Incidently, yes I did own the machine as I stated before, as well as Pong, a Colecovision, a Vic 20, a Commodore 64(of which I copied more then a few "arcade close" games), Apple, Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, Game Boy, N64, Playstation, Dreamcast, and finally PS2.

Not to mention the standup arcade I built to relive my memories of the thousands of dollars in quarters I spent.   

Now do I need to further dig out my family pictures to show you the first Christmas that I got an Atari as a tyke?    DIMWIT.

I am very aware of the RF outputs and the millions of switch boxes that I went through the years.   I am also very aware that the games looked very boxy then, and the "fuzzy" TV was absolutely ZERO hinderance on the graphics.   Do you understand that an RF unit at WORST is able to put out well over 200 lines of resolution.

But hey, you bring up a great point...not only was the processor limited, but so was the frickin signal that gets there.    Again, so this translates as bad for a monitor that can draw that many more pixels representing just one??

I brought up Calculus because it is a fundamental theorem for integrals.    Pick an integral and fill it up with rectangles.  You do understand that the more rectangles used, the closer you are going to get to the original shape right?   For example...like in a sine curve...minimum or maximum.

You claim to have so much expertise, yet you have no concept of anything that I have written.   Do I understand that programmers took SOME advantage of their limitations.   Absolutely.   Do I believe that they would purposely make anything more blocky...HELL NO.

You see the difference?    Don't think for a moment that anything was kept from being a circle to keep some kind of artistic standpoint...don't be absurd.

Even with scanlines...bad signal...color bleeding...etc.   A CIRCLE is going to look better then a BLOCK.   Get this through Randy, and listen good.   IF THEY COULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE!

Now looking at your last post, I do believe I have pushed a button, even to the point of you calling me every name in the book without knowing a single thing about me.   You claim you know so much about how an artist/programmer thinks, yet you are making the same assumptions about me as a person, even down to my very life experience at video games and having more then enough experience to be able to make the most simplistic observations.

The difference between you and me is that I have used what you have written, and you have taken a holier then thou approach and even personally attacked everything that is me!

Only a fool would keep repeating that you have to be this kind of person or that kind of person...as if it holds more weight.   

Look at what is written, and not what you "feel".    As I said before,  the greatest minds in the world had little concept of the subject matter that they excelled in....yet they were able to make conclusions that even the most experienced scientists..inventors...mechanics etc...could not see!

Though I must stress...I am hardly a rookie.    Its just irrelevant to this conversation.   As it should be on your end.   Have some class.

Incidently, what questions have I dodged?  What "PROOF" have you brought to the table.   You don't even know that a pixel is SQUARE!

How is anything I have said so "profoundly different" then everyone else?   I even fail to see how you come to the conclusion that I have somehow deviated from popular view.   Quite the contrary...most of what I have said can be easily looked up.    Matter of fact, you know it too.

So I challenge you...please tell me.  WHERE AM I WRONG.   I have pointed out your mistakes and you dodge...dodge...dodge.   It is all there plain as day.   

Hell I didn't even intrepret that much...I just quoted you and stated the obvious.

Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them.    Randy is wrong.   

[RandyT]

Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them.    Randy is wrong.   

It's official.

 

[genesim]

 

When you have nothing to add, you resort to more name calling.   I knew people like you once.   Go back to the playground.   

[Singapura]

Guys, you've made my day. I haven't read a spirited discussion like this since the days of vinyl vs CD (I'm a regular at audio fora). I know this is my first post on this forum but I'm not a newcomer to the arcade scene. Can I add a little bit to the discussion? IMHO it's not only the pixel size or native resolution that gives dedicated CRT monitors the edge over LCD screens. The curve of the screen as well gives a whole other look and feel to the game. Even the way outside light reflects on the screen adds to the arcade "feel"  Is there a software way to recreate this for LCD monitors? If computers can recreate Optimus Prime, they should be able to do the same for "imperfections" that give Mame games that "authentic" touch.

[genesim]

I know I know, and those scratches in records give such a nostalgic feel....

Yep been there too..

Though I think the old debate was Vinyl vs CD....now its DVD-A, which there is no comparison!

I swear there are analog people that still claim they can tell the difference...I should have seen the pitfall on this one.   Thx for pointing it out though.    It is so hard not to step in crap when it is spread around like landmines. 

p.s. 

If computers can recreate Optimus Prime, they should be able to do the same for "imperfections" that give Mame games that "authentic" touch.

Its called Arcade VGA and the new way of showing lower resolutions is fantastic!

[Malenko]

NO Einstein.   4kb is 4kb and there wasn't a television around that could not handle anything and everything that an Atari 2600 put out.

Now do I need to further dig out my family pictures to show you the first Christmas that I got an Atari as a tyke?    DIMWIT.

So much for no name calling eh?

You claim to have so much expertise, yet you have no concept of anything that I have written.   Do I understand that programmers took SOME advantage of their limitations.   Absolutely.   Do I believe that they would purposely make anything more blocky...HELL NO.

So I challenge you...please tell me.  WHERE AM I WRONG.   I have pointed out your mistakes and you dodge...dodge...dodge.   It is all there plain as day.   

I'll tell you where you were wrong.  Back in 1979/1980 when they were making Pac Man the programmers and artists made the pellets square with soft color changes so they'd appear round on the display, and they did it on purpose. Why? because it was the most logical way to do it, any change in the hardware such as more memory, faster CPU, higher resolution display; ANYTHING like that; would have increased the production costs and put a hit on the profit line. You seem to think round over square was the most important thing to them when in fact the most important thing was money.


I read back through the entire post and I still cant figure out exactly what your point is. so heres some guesses:

Arcades in 1970-80s should have used LCD displays:
not feasible by any stretch of the imagination

MAME cab builders should use LCDs instead of CRTs:
I'm sure many would if the price wasn't so high. If you can look me in the eye and say its worth $700 for a 28" LCD ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116084 ) instead of gutting a $150 27" TV then you're just insane and theres no point in even posting.

We would have enjoyed video games more if stuff was round and not square:
thats opinion again, I think everything looked stunning considering when it was made and the fact stuff was blocky had little to no effect on me or the millions of others that played in arcades.

Programmers and artists wanted to make square stuff:
its not that they wanted to, its that they needed to in order to get the game made with their budget.

You are right:
no. You have your opinion and I have mine, neither is right or wrong.

RandyT is a dimwit:
umm no, hes awesome sauce and he runs groovy game gear and I'm saving up to buy a turbo twist 2 spinner from him, because simply put , it looks amazing

with that out of the way I'll say this, eventually arcade makers thought like you and started dumping a lot of money into games and while they didn't use LCDs for displays they started making higher resolution games that used expensive CPUs and stereo sound, high polygon counts and hard drives; know what happened then?  yeah thats right, arcades died. profit > LCDs

[Patent Doc]

OK, I have to enter into this one...and not because I know anything about displays or programming...cause we all know I don't, but because I do understand language, arguments, and I'm unbiased.  However Genesim, I think you are still misunderstanding RandyT.  My take on what RandyT is saying is that the programmers for Arcade games and the home gaming systems were well aware of the limitations before them when creating these games be they economically induced or technological.  With respect to the monitor, realising they had a crappy display to work with, they took advantage of the drawbacks to turn turn the bad into good (you know make lemons into lemonade).  They would tweek the pixels to take advantage of the image was displayed to make the image look as much like they wanted as possible.  If this meant they made something more blocky because when displayed it would look smoother due to the shortcomings of the display, then they did it.  If what they wanted to represent didn't need such tweeking then they would do this.  In some cases, the display wasn't the limit, but other factors such as budget or the computer hardware.  That said the programmers were always making the best product possible given the constraints.  It is guess work and opinion to suppose what they wanted beyond what was displayed.  Furthermore, it is incorrect to surmise that what was programmed was intended to be better than what resulted.  It is highly unlikely that any programmer would create a game using a display other than what would be used in reality.  The reason for this is that the programmer would be able to visualize the creation and modify as neccessary to arrive at the best product.  No doubt given a better monitor and a larger budget, more could have been done, but they would know this was a limitation and worked within the constraints.

RandyT if I missunderstood or missrepresented your statements...I apologize...

As far as DVD-A vs Analog, Genesim you are really showing your ignorance here.  Yes, DVD-A is far superior to CD.  Less information is compressed and more information encoded resulting in a far more accurate representation of the work.  However, the media is still made up of 1 and 0 and is missing everything in between.  Analog has far more information.  To analogize, think your integral example.  Where as DVD-A has many many squares to represent the area under curve and may be really close, the analog recording is the curve no approximation necessary.  Pops, scratches, and hiss that you've heard are do to the poor quality of your equipment.  A clean vinyl record, played on a quality turntable, with a quality needle will sound better.  DVD-A or any other digital medium is shrill and cold.  The problem is (and this is why only audiophiles tend to argue for analog) that you can get a good DVD-A player for under $2000 and good enough for most people's hearing under $300.  However, a quality turntable and needle will set you back over $10,000 (no a technics MK-1200 is not quality even if every DJ uses it...its a work horse not quality).  Sound is an analog media is it neither discrete nor unwaivering.  The exception here would be techno stuff and synth pop created entirely in the digital domain.  There digital would be more accurate,  but arguable it would still sound harsh and shrill.

Patent Doc

[genesim]

I have to admit that looking at some of the arguements that others have many of the things that what have been said are based more on a religion rather then what is actually true.   

Following a certain medium because of the love for it, over what is techincally superior.

Malenko,

I called Randy a dimwit because of putting me down over my experience with video games over my points that were being made.     Not only does he have no clue about my background and has made assumption after assumption in his history over mine....but the actual audacity to think that it even matters!

There are some MAME devs that I read about who didn't even own anything before a Nintendo.    It takes nothing away from their accomplishments and I wouldn't take anything away even if they never even saw a video game before.   Knowledge comes from the NOW.    Some pick up things faster than others, and I said before, experience does not dictate achievement....it just merely helps in some cases.     

I just had a girl in my field who came up with a fingerprinting technology who knew absolutely nothing about the work, but yet she was able to see the most simplistic observation that no one else found through over a century of study.     A dimwit is one who would personally attack someone rather then tackle the facts.    I admit that I am not immune, but if you take a look at what has been written, Randy took it to the lower depths more then anyone on here...as he has in the past.

Stay tuned...more personal attacks from him to follow...

Back in 1979/1980 when they were making Pac Man the programmers and artists made the pellets square with soft color changes so they'd appear round on the display, and they did it on purpose. Why? because it was the most logical way to do it, any change in the hardware such as more memory, faster CPU, higher resolution display; ANYTHING like that; would have increased the production costs and put a hit on the profit line. You seem to think round over square was the most important thing to them when in fact the most important thing was money.

And I still call BS.   I repeat over and over.   Why would anyone purposely in this example make a OCTAGON(made up of squares) over a circle if they were able to make a circle?   Other then making the pellets bigger so they can be seen, there is no way that anyone would PURPOSELY do it.    The display was the easy part.    Hence the odd screen size.     The display catered to the code... not the other way around.

But hey, I will concede.   You got it people.   You are all right.   So what does that have to do again with creating an accurate display FIRST over effects later?     Even if you use an arcade monitor at 640x480 what exactly is the benefit again?     Unless you have the original monitor design, aren't you going to have the same kind of losses that you are spending so much money to achieve?

Arcades in 1970-80s should have used LCD displays

I never said that or even implied it.   LCD's were not affordable, and not technically advanced.   Only recently in the last couple of years have LCD displays been really affordable without ghosting.   Back then it would make no sense.    Now if you have todays LCD displays.   ABSOLUTELY!

As for home displays.   If cost is such an issue, stick to your butts on the floor or the run down CRT monitors.   But I am not trying to force anyone to do anything.   

As for TV with S-Video, that is laughable at best.    TV's may be more then enough for some games, but you cannot get away from the signal lost by going analog with comb filters etc...   The cost of TV's that would do any good are better left toward getting an LCD display, but hey to those that like to throw money away, go for it.     To some it doesn't matter.   Many of those same people enjoy VCR tapes.   More power to them.   

We would have enjoyed video games more if stuff was round and not square:

No actually people enjoyed Pacman quite a bit in all its squareness with the ILLUSION that it was round.   I too want that as well.   Difference is that I am starting from the ground up and with every bit of technolgy, the truth will get even closer....without the hernia inducing CRT displays.

Programmers and artists wanted to make square stuff

I never said that.   I said it is what they did!   It is in the code, and the fact that so many have tried to argue otherwise is laughable.    Everytime I hear someone say it is "too blocky" it says to me that they don't understand that the original code was written that way.

Now if that means they want to have the ILLUSION that it was smoother...I am there with them.   BUT the difference with me, is that I will choose effects after I have first got the display right.    640x480 on Pacman is attrocious.    352x288 is much closer(the extra pixels on the horizontal are dedicated to black screen) to the original vision.   

As for me being right.   Yes I do believe that I am, and it would be nice if you actually disproved any of my observations above instead of repeating the same things Randy T has said.

My point with him has always been...you cannot get inside the programmers mind, so he cannot know.   But what is without a doubt provable is who the original code was written, and using a one to one DIGITAL display is putting exactly what was written up on the screen.    The rest of the crap like scan lines can be easily made artificially.

with that out of the way I'll say this, eventually arcade makers thought like you and started dumping a lot of money into games and while they didn't use LCDs for displays they started making higher resolution games that used expensive CPUs and stereo sound, high polygon counts and hard drives; know what happened then?  yeah thats right, arcades died. profit > LCDs

And I am glad they did.   Otherwise we all would still be in the arcades at 50.  I actually prefer the advancements and enjoy playing games online(arcade or otherwise) without having to meet someone to get good gameplay.

Arcades were fun and I wouldn't change it for the world.    Spending literally my paycheck was a blast, and I actually lost one girlfriend to a buddy that was watching....but in the end, I cherish the experience more then the girl.    There have been many of those...but only one high score!   

Patent Doc,

I will revert you back to what I have written to others but a few points:

With respect to the monitor, realising they had a crappy display to work with..

Again, this isn't true.   The "crappy" displays were enough to display much higher resolutions.   The problem is that todays technology with windows XP etc have locked in displays and most people have to sacrfice to get the game at all.

LCD's by design have the advantage with a locked on display.    Software changes alot of the problems before.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to surmise that what was programmed was intended to be better than what resulted.  It is highly unlikely that any programmer would create a game using a display other than what would be used in reality.  The reason for this is that the programmer would be able to visualize the creation and modify as neccessary to arrive at the best product.  No doubt given a better monitor and a larger budget, more could have been done, but they would know this was a limitation and worked within the constraints.

Thats the problem.   So many on here absolutely believe this fodder.   The truth is that the display was made for the limitations of the chips.    The technology of better displays was already out there.    As you will see in later years.   Displays didn't get any better, yet chipsizes changed drastically.    Go through MAME history and see for yourself.   

I mean this in all sincerity.   It is foolishness to believe that programmers were inhibited by displays.    But I will say the same to you.

Who cares.    Lets say you are right.    Does it make sense to interpret the code wrong first???    Why would anyone choose 640x480 over 352x288 if they had a choice???

Finally the analog vs digital.

In theory superior.    In fact, no way to capture it.    Records are inferior in every way shape and form.   Cannot produce above 70db's effectively.    Cannot produce lowere then 30db's without getting hum from the motor being by revolutions other physical means.    Losing quality with every play no matter how much money you spend(physics 101).   

CD's at 24 bit over 144db.   Can represent almost the full range without degradation.   Sampling rates way beyond what the human ear can hear.    Do not degradade like records.    Each and every CD is pressed the same by design because it is all one's and zero's.    No two records can ever be the same because of how they are pressed.

DVD AUDIO and SACD.   Redundant.   More improvements that even further put the nail in the coffin.

The "warm" sound is an urban legend from people that have no understanding of the technology.   The first cd's were taken from masters used for vinyl.   The "harsh/shrill" is for deadheads that are used to listening to muffled records that have been degraded over time with their "10,000" dollar equipment.   Physics...you cannot escape this.  Enuff said.

No matter how good the equipment is.   The pops and hisses are there.    It is on the master and no stylus can change this fact.  It may mask it better, but it doesn't change what is there...hmmm much like this whole code arguement.     CRTS are the new Records of the future. 

A 100 dollar DVD-Audio player(from your computer) can nix any arguement over any analog source used to this day.   The "losses" you talk about on the approximation of a sound curve using digital are beyond what the human ear can hear(matter of fact...dogs too!).    If anyone can hear the difference on a 100 khz sample is either A.  BSing.   Or B.   Is feeling and that is a phenomenon that most often cannot be reproduced.

Perception is one thing.   Actually processing it consistently through your brain is something else.     One is much more likely to notice the physical limitations of a record and its lack of depth in most every category.

[ahofle]

I have to admit that looking at some of the arguements that others have many of the things that what have been said are based more on a religion rather then what is actually true.   

Nope.  Most people around here are simply trying to reproduce as accurately as possible exactly what they saw in the arcades of the day, while you seem to be after some fictitious, nonsensical blocky version of it that was never ever viewed by anyone in the 80s -- not even the game programmers themselves!!! 

The display was the easy part.    Hence the odd screen size.     

Odd?  It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"! 

Everytime I hear someone say it is "too blocky" it says to me that they don't understand that the original code was written that way.

But what is without a doubt provable is who the original code was written, and using a one to one DIGITAL display is putting exactly what was written up on the screen.

You seem to base all your arguments on your incorrect definition of a pixel (and your obvious lack of programming experience).  A pixel is just a point or dot, not a 'square' like your horrible LCD scaling algorithms produce.  Arcade display devices in the 80s rendered a pixel as a soft dot, not a square.  Fact: your blocky LCD version of Pacman is not authentic -- end of story.  You may prefer it that way, but please refrain from claiming your incorrectly-scaled, blocky version of Mortal Kombat is more accurate than running on the exact same display device as used in the arcades.

The rest of the crap like scan lines can be easily made artificially.

Utter nonsense.  Even the mamedevs will tell you the effects are at best a meager approximation of the display of an analog CGA CRT.

Thats the problem.   So many on here absolutely believe this fodder.   The truth is that the display was made for the limitations of the chips.    The technology of better displays was already out there.    As you will see in later years.   Displays didn't get any better, yet chipsizes changed drastically.    Go through MAME history and see for yourself.   

Hmm you say displays were made for the limitations of the "chips", and then say that displays never changed despite improvements in the "chips" over the years.  You just completely contradicted yourself.

I only wish you posted this in a more frequented forum so other regulars could enjoy your "abstract thinking". 

[Patent Doc]

Genesim

Lets say you are right.    Does it make sense to interpret the code wrong first???    Why would anyone choose 640x480 over 352x288 if they had a choice???

OK, again...I will preface my comments by saying that I am so not qualified to know the reality here, but I think what everyone else has been saying is that the entire equation affected the display.  Sure a programmer would have designed for VGA rather than CGA given the choice, but that's just it...they likely didn't have a choice.  Making the code for VGA has to be more expensive than CGA (I'm guessing...I don't know Pascal, Fortran, or any other language of the day), which would be one reason the programmer would create a lesser design.  Additionally, there may have been monitor capable of 640x480, but those were expensive and not the ones being used.  The programmers would use the monitor that would be destined for the game and that choice would have been driven by economics as much as anything.  No one is saying that if a VGA monitor was going to be used the code would be written to display a lower resolution.  They are saying that CGA monitors were being used and those monitors are limited to what 352 x 288.  So the programmers would have taken this into account.  Chips may have been expensive and processign power a factor, but OMG CRT's were expensive back then ...particulalry color ones (remember early games were balck and white and if they had color achieved it by a colored display on the front (see Space Invaders)).  The monitor was easily the most expensive part of the cab and a company wanting to make a profit would use the cheapest possible monitor to maximize profits.

Regarding the analog v DVD, FYI pops are caused by static and hiss is due to overamplifying poor signal (i.e., total harmonic distortion).  Neither are experienced with good equipment which as I stated earlier takes in excess of $10K.  The hiss and popes are not part of the record nor the recording.  Good equipment does not mask anything.  Poor equipment will not have the ability to reproduce the frequency nor dynamic range of its high priced cousin without derious distortion.  Remember, the discussion is the medium not the equipment.  Yes records due degrade, friction is a ---smurfette---...but that's why the comparison is with a new record.  Scratches will also cause a problem, but the quality of sound argument is not about the fragility of the medium but its ability, when operating optimumly, to produce the recording.  Regarding the dynamic range and the hum to which you speak, this is more a factor of your equipment than the media.  Dynamic range refers to the differences in volume levels noticeable not the quality of the sound.  Due to how records are displayed, they do have less dynamic range because the background noise is higher.  The better the turntable the lower the noise and better the range.  Admittedly, even the best record with the best turntable will not have the dynamic range of a CD or DVD but that doesn't speak to the harmonics missed by the digital media.  By the way, the approximations that occur in digital media occur over the entire frequency range not just at 100kHz which is about 80KHz above human hearing and in isn't even within the capabilities of the microphones used to record to pick up.  By the way, I have experience as a studio musician and know how things are recorded. Rather than speak without experiencing just give me a fair test.  go to a audiophile equipment store and try a blind study.  You may be suprised.  I say may be suprised, because not everyone can hear the difference....you may not.  However, I bet that you won't say records are worse...you may not say better, but it won't be worse.  And for the record, the warm sound isn't an urban legend...I can hear the difference...and I used warm to explain it ...its like incadescent lights and fluorescent lights....its hard to explain, but the difference is noticeable...you just have to experience it.

Anyway, I've spent to much time rambling.  

[genesim]

ahofle,

Nope.  Most people around here are simply trying to reproduce as accurately as possible exactly what they saw in the arcades of the day, while you seem to be after some fictitious, nonsensical blocky version of it that was never ever viewed by anyone in the 80s -- not even the game programmers themselves!!! 

What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.     Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.   

It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"! 

I have perfect understanding, and what you don't seem to get is that the display was made specifically for the game.   If you think that monitors were limited by 300 lines it shows even more ignorance on your part.    The tall and narrow display was a manufacturing choice not a hardware limitation.   

You say that LCD's have a horrible algorithm.   Do you know how idiotic that sounds?   It displays what is put in from the source.    Even CRTS aproximate because of the fixed resolution(provided by windows and the limtations of refresh rates being able to display the low resolution...i.e. with out good software it would draw the screen so fast that the refresh rate has to be out of the world to display it!).    The difference is that good software rectifies the inherent problems.   The difference with LCD's is all the other flaws that I mentioned are not paired with it.      Your little fantasy that LCD's are somehow inferior comes from a fundamental lack of knowledge that can be seen directly from your post.    There isn't any lacking, rather it is too good!   That is why as I said a hundred times, good software that doesn't use simple upscaling, but real pixel interpretation can fix this....it isn't rocket science.

You may prefer it that way, but please refrain from claiming your incorrectly-scaled, blocky version of Mortal Kombat is more accurate than running on the exact same display device as used in the arcades.

Have I ever disputed this?    The problem....who the hell wants to use a 400x256 monitor taht is utterly useless for anything but Mortal Kombat if you care about quality.    BUT on the Arcade VGA they actualy have a close resolution of 401x256 which is a hell of alot better then windows defaulty.    That and, I don't like scan lines.   It isn't part of the original hardware, and while Pacman could have a point, I absolutely don't believe the Midway creators preferred it!   Having MK be my favorite games, I can even hold up for this even more.   

Utter nonsense.  Even the mamedevs will tell you the effects are at best a meager approximation of the display of an analog CGA CRT.

Again, it is lack of software rather then ability.    Meager....that is a good one though.    Shows more of your limit.

The only thing "meager" is using default 640x480  to represent a resolution of 224x288.   The very same things that many on here claim are a limitation to the LCD are even further a problem for any monitor that is not an exact 1:1 ratio.     

Hmm you say displays were made for the limitations of the "chips", and then say that displays never changed despite improvements in the "chips" over the years.  You just completely contradicted yourself.

In what universe is this a contraction??   My point was displays didn't change(until later years) in that they were capable from the word go, but chips had to catch up to the capablities of displays that were used back in the 50's.   You know why TV's are somewhat good(despite the fact that an S video is used which defeats all gains) monitors, because they were almost exactly the same ones used 10 years later!!!     The chips were the bottleneck.   I cannot say this enough.     The displays could be made inferior as a cost cutting measure because all the extra resolution was not needed!    Why on earth would anyone use a display with over 500 lines of resolution(which again was readily available long before there ever was a Pacaman) when the chip set would not benefit from it.     

Patent Doc,

Making the code for VGA has to be more expensive than CGA (I'm guessing...I don't know Pascal, Fortran, or any other language of the day), which would be one reason the programmer would create a lesser design.  Additionally, there may have been monitor capable of 640x480, but those were expensive and not the ones being used.  The programmers would use the monitor that would be destined for the game and that choice would have been driven by economics as much as anything.  No one is saying that if a VGA monitor was going to be used the code would be written to display a lower resolution.  They are saying that CGA monitors were being used and those monitors are limited to what 352 x 288.  So the programmers would have taken this into account.

First of all, this is totally untrue.   Just revert back to what I said to ahofle.

Also you missed the meaning of my quote.    When I said if people have a choice I was referring to NOW.   The video card makes a discrete display by using multiple pixels to create a set of resolution that is more closely related to the old one.    i.e.  352 x 288 to represent 224x288 of Pacman.    The extra pixels is the black bars on the sides.    So many on here are spouting that 640x480 is being used for their arcade display(which of course is windows default) so in esense you are getting that much more approximation.    I don't care how many pixels are being used to achieve the 352x288 as long as the ratio is staying congruent, then the resulting display will be more accurate to the original vison!    The reason the games look so "blocky" is because that is exactly what they were.    Now Randy says they were never meant to be displayed that way.   Well this is a point of arguement, but I counter that they were never meant to be displayed at 640x480.    What he is referring to is in regards to pretty much one thing.  SCANLINES.    That is what smooths out the resolution...that and the fact that you have a crappy analog connection which blurs the image anyway...and of course the nature of a CRT that distorts the sides and gives a camera lense effect.    Even with a flat screen you cannot get away from the fact that the nature the tube makes every pixel unequal.   Oh yeah..can I mention color bleeding yet again.

The digital image shows everything that is there in its ugly glory.    Many on here do not like this.   That is fine, but like records it is nostalgia over reality.  In this case there is even more on my side because the original code is of course DIGITAL, so you cannot say that anything is lost in the traslation.

But still if you want the "effects" you can have that too.   Good artificial scanline implemenation can produce the same result.   That part is easier.   Why...because you are only dealing with the virticle.   You get the aproximation of how wide they are, it is the same as masking your display with just about anything.   But rest assured, it was still an effect, and it was NOT part of the original code.    Again, get that part represented right first and then you can build up from there.

Oh yeah, the records.   Yes some pops are static, and alot of them are SCRATCHES(as well as debris).    They are inherent on the record from the physics of a piece of metal having contiued contact with the surface.   With every play you lose quality.   That is why analog cannot be captured correctly.

Admittedly, even the best record with the best turntable will not have the dynamic range of a CD or DVD but that doesn't speak to the harmonics missed by the digital media.  By the way, the approximations that occur in digital media occur over the entire frequency range not just at 100kHz which is about 80KHz above human hearing and in isn't even within the capabilities of the microphones used to record to pick up.

Your right on the first part, but you fail to see that even over the entire range it is all covered....more then enough(like 64 times).

I appreciate your discussion, but I hate the Randy approach.   You being a musician has nothing to do with it.   We all have experience, but it isn't really pertinent to the discussion. 

Harmonic range is not even an issue when convered in numbers we are speaking of.    Like I said, the fact that Records don't even capture all of what is in hearing range(i.e. low bass as well as high pitch sounds), but because of the hundreds of other problems, you lose hearing what is range because of physical problems.   

Scratches can be heard on any player and you and I both know it.    If you can hear the scratches logic should tell you that you are losing part of the sound curve.   A loss that FAR out does what is in theory lost from a digital sample.   A human cannot hear 24 bit sampling limitations on the harmonic range.   

[RandyT]

What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.     Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.   

I guess I need to dispute that then.  Here's what I wrote earlier:

The images stored within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display and were never intended to be seen block for block.  I pushed plenty of pixels in the 80's and that is the first thing I learned.

I probably could have worded that better, but I didn't.  I have the benefit of knowing that graphics for early arcade games were created on graph paper.  In fact, I even referred to that context when I wrote the following just a couple sentences later in the same post:

You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.

Those graph paper images were what the programmers used as a reference to calculate bit values for the graphics and modified those values once they saw how they were represented on the actual CRT.  In my mind, I too equate that pattern of 1's and 0's with a graph paper matrix, mainly because I actually used it to create graphics in those days. However, the fact is that there was no square grid in reality.  It was just data arranged in  "X,Y" co-ordinate fashion inside a memory chip.  Each 1 or 0 didn't need to be represented as a square. It was just convenient to do so.  It could just as easily have been associated with a grid of circles, or diamonds or even fuzzy little kittens.  The square was not what was important, it was the grid.

Those 0's and 1's were just data until they were transmitted to the CRTs that would be seen by millions at their local game rooms.  Each 1 in data was not a square on those screens.  It could not have been.  Research what a coarse dot pitch, dot-triad picture mask looked like, scale it appropriately and superimpose it over a scanline. Then cut a chunk out of it and add some fuzziness.  That was a pixel. 

I just know that you won't address this question, but if you would, you would know why even if the displays of the day could show a true square, there's no way all pixels could have been square (all sides roughly equal.)  Take a look at how many arcade resolutions there are for the same monitor in the same orientation.  All of those resolutions filled the screens, yet each resolution had varying pixel counts.  How could this be?  The screens didn't get larger or smaller based on the resolutions, so only one thing is possible;  the pixels could not always have the same vertical and horizontal dimensions. 

A horizontally oriented arcade monitor screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio, so to fill it with "square" pixels one would need the resolution to be in the same proportions.  Therefore, a 320x240 resolution would be based on pixels that had roughly equal vertical and horizontal dimensions.  The aspect ratio would be as follows (320 / X) : (240 / X) which comes out to 4:3.  Now lets look at what happens when we use a different resolution, say 256 x 224?  Using the same calculation method, this gives us a 4:3.5 pixel ratio, which means that the pixels would need to be wider than they are tall to fit all of them in the same screen space.  Given that visually perfect rectangles were an impossibility on the displays used, these pixels looked like little horizontally oriented oval blobs. 

RandyT

[genesim]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Maybe I should have prefaced better as well with PROGRAMMED pixels.

But we still have to look at a few things you are saying.

First of all, the one thing that programmers back then cared about(and now as well), cost, speed, memory.

The reason why they didn't draw "kittens" is because it took too much thinking to do so.    They could have given a rats ass as to a circular pixel looking better then square because it was too much money/programming, over getting the product out on the shelves.    I can understand that.

What I don't understand is the silly concept that they purposely drew the pixels that way to make them look better on a CRT display!    For crying out loud.    Displays like that could show movies at full resolution.    The "Splash" screen on many video games looked a hell of a lot better then the moving picture.    That was the bottle neck, not the display.

If one would believe what you are saying, it is kind of like saying that Doom 3 looks a certiain way on the regular game, so it is obviously the limation of the display....YET one ignores the fact that the full motion video that serves as a intro often look better on most any game.    Why....because that doesn't have to be programmed like the in game...it is just played as a movie.     

I do believe they made the square pixels in Pacman on purpose because of easy coordinates to work with.    i.e.   Maybe Pacman himself took about 8x8 pixels to move around(I don't know for sure, this is a guess).    When drawn out on graph paper this was a nice number to program with accounting for dots and pathways etc.

That was the reason why it looked "blocky" and not because of programming to a supposed meager monitor which was WAY more capable then anything the programmers produced at that time or years to come.

Randy, why do you even debate this when you know all I am saying is true?    You guys keep attacking LCD displays when yet the same is true for a CRT display that is at a higher resolution.

The facts are that I do know that the LCD being displayed with multiple pixels declaring one, is an approximation...BUT it is a very good one.    Boxy is absolutely what the programmers meant to do, because it is what they had to work with....given chip limitations, coordinates...money....laziness....time...whatever!

I repeat, if resolution could have been better given those limitations......THEY WOULD HAVE because the displays at the time blew away anything that was put into them!    This isn't that hard to grasp.   This is what was true at the time, and still true now(looking back that is).     Only until recent HD times have chips finally surpassed what a display can produce.   This was absolutely not true back then, and any bit of normal reasoning would tell you what is true.....or I guess I wasn't watching movies when I was younger after all.   Perhaps they were all just blocky displays because that was all that could be shown. 

The arcade vga rectifies the one problem with drawing low displays....not out of this world refresh rate because every pixel of the native resolution is being used to the best advantage to the original vision.   As opposed to the default MAME of given a black border when there is direct draw, or the smudgy upscaling(that of course many on here like because of the ILLUSION of better picture) of direct 3D.

The facts are that I want my resolution as close as possible to the original vision.   And as sorry as it is, BLOCKY is the way it was meant to be seen, because that is what was programmed.   When all the fuzzyness of an ANALOG connection and the scan lines are eliminated, this is what you get.   

This isn't the LCD somehow magically making it appear like ahofle thinks.    Geez dude, do you believe in the Easter Bunny as well??    Maybe there is are little gnomes that actually intercept the code and magically makes it appear blocky just for pacmans and donkey kongs.   But donkey kong uninhibited was fully rendered CGI quality that would make even the real Kong faint from the realness of the graphics.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Randy, I do appreciate your civilized post, and I am not trying to avoid anything you have written.   I actually find some of it to be quite facinating.   But seriously, you and I know both know that displays could have been better given an unlimited chip size/capability.     The splash screens as I mentioned earlier, would often dissapoint me on some games because like in E.T. on the ATARI you would get this cool picture...then when you got to the moving game it was so much worse.     Now do you honestly in your reasoning going to tell me that is why E.T. looked blocky because of the frickin' display limitations given the splash screen I mentioned???!!!!!!!!   Or another time you actually blamed the RF connection.

This is real number evidence as opposed to the graphics on the side of the arcade that you used as an example.

[RandyT]

The reason why they didn't draw "kittens" is because it took too much thinking to do so.    They could have given a rats ass as to a circular pixel looking better then square because it was too much money/programming, over getting the product out on the shelves.    I can understand that.

You still missed the point, so I'm going back to the pictures.  First, a reminder of what I stated in my last post so things stay in context:

Those graph paper images were what the programmers used as a reference to calculate bit values for the graphics and modified those values once they saw how they were represented on the actual CRT.  In my mind, I too equate that pattern of 1's and 0's with a graph paper matrix, mainly because I actually used it to create graphics in those days. However, the fact is that there was no square grid in reality.  It was just data arranged in  "X,Y" co-ordinate fashion inside a memory chip.  Each 1 or 0 didn't need to be represented as a square. It was just convenient to do so.  It could just as easily have been associated with a grid of circles, or diamonds or even fuzzy little kittens.  The square was not what was important, it was the grid.

Here is the data for a 7x10 pixel arrow graphic in an 8-bit system:

8, 28, 62,127,28,28,28,28,28,28

This is all that exists in code for a bitmapped image.  Kind of hard to see what it's supposed to be, yes?  So lets fix it:


0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0


Hmm...that still doesn't tell us much, but we can at least start to see where the pixels are.  Next step:


7 x 10 Binary Data Grid =

Not bad.  We can start to see the shape of the arrow based on our data.  While not the best visual representation, it is the most accurate in terms of our code.  So now lets see what the same data looks like on graph paper, and what it would look like on any display using purely rectangular pixels:

7 x 10 Graph Paper / LCD Grid =

Well, we can certainly see the pattern more clearly, but to say that it distinctly resembles an arrow would require a fair stretch of the imagination.  Regardless, it too is a perfectly accurate rendering of the data.  Speaking of perfectly accurate renderings of the data, let's talk about fuzzy kittens.  Remember when I said it didn't matter what shapes were used as reference when laying out the data?

7 x 10 "Fuzzy Kitten" Grid =

Awww, aren't they cute?  Once again, perfectly valid references for that line of code above.  If there existed "Kitten graph paper" where a designer could leave the kittens representing 1's and erase those representing 0's, he may have used this tool while coding (especially if he really liked kittens!)  Interestingly enough, due to their shape, they actually create a nicer looking representation of an arrow than the normal graph paper does.

And speaking of better representations, the "coup de grace":

7 x 10 CRT Scanline Grid =

This is the most accurate visual and numeric representation of the code shown above.  It was this representation of the data that was ultimately tweaked to make the best looking images possible on those displays.  See how very different this one appears as opposed to the graph paper, with the very same data?  When they modified the data to better the appearance of an image portrayed in this fashion, it might (and often does) look quite poor on graph paper / LCD / High-resolution monitors with enlarged rectangular pixels.

If this were not so, there would not be special graphics cards or  programs like this one designed to allow these graphics to be viewed as intended.  The MAME devs would also not have spent so much time adding effects that attempt to approximate that appearance.

But as others have stated before me, if playing games as they would appear on graph paper is your bag, that's fine too.  But it's not "authentic" and you don't need a special video card to experience it.  The photos I posted of my LCD panel being driven by a low-end motherboard video chipset is the proof I have offered.  And I didn't even use the recommended method of applying the "prescale" options in MAME when I did it.  Just plain old hardware stretch.

RandyT

[genesim]

And what you don't understand is



Can never be



On a CRT that is 640x480 because



is not possible AND filling up the screen because it is not in the correct resolution, so it can never be



BUT with the Arcade VGA which again uses multiple pixels comes closer to



so therefore with scan lines enabled



or something alot closer can happen!!!!

Do your pictures help you as well?

[Malenko]

that made no sense. The more you reply, genesim, the more foolish you appear. At no time have I even figured out what point you are trying to make. Please, in ONE SENTENCE, state what you are trying to say. Don't use big words, don't use pictures, none of that, just break out some plain old english and state it. I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. The more you type the more I want to punch a baby in the face.

[genesim]

I have many times.

Pixels are smeared with a 640x480 display with no software rendering.     The picture that the Arcade VGA gives is the "blocky" one that is first demonstrated.     Maybe that was two sentences, but pictures,words...smoke signals won't ever get the point across to people that absolutely don't want to see.  It really isn't that hard.

[tetsu96]

Dang - this thread has been a great laugh, but it hurts my head trying to keep up with everything here.  I've almost posted one or 2 times but I try not to feed the trolls (no offense).  Can't hold my tongue any more I guess.

It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"!

I have perfect understanding, and what you don't seem to get is that the display was made specifically for the game.   If you think that monitors were limited by 300 lines it shows even more ignorance on your part.    The tall and narrow display was a manufacturing choice not a hardware limitation.

Maybe afhole was a bit too subtle here (or if your reply was a joke, it was real deadpan cause I missed it) - all arcade CRTs up until very recently were 4x3.  All displayed graphics by drawing left to right and top to bottom (except vector but we're not talking about those).  There is no "tall and narrow" display.  Any arcade monitor you've seen that is tall and narrow is a 4x3 that is mounted at a 90 degree rotation.

Seriously - you can see mounting brackets that allow both rotations in generic cabinets just for that purpose.

Made specifically for the game?  Not really - there's differences in quality and components to be sure, but 15KHz monitors are pretty bread and butter as far as what they do.  JAMMA boards and arcade conversions wouldn't be as popular if monitors were really made "for the game".

What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!   Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.

LCD pixels are square (or at least have square corners, I never checked to be honest).  Graph paper is square as a rule too.  CRTs don't use square pixels - they don't even really have such a thing as a pixel.  Randy gave you the best thing to look up for a better understanding with RGB triad / coarse dot pitch as something to google for further understanding (and really, there's 3 beams instead of just one which is why you'll possibly read about convergence and other stuff, but you don't have to worry about it with LCDs).

There's a link to a site in a few threads here that really go into that which was posted in the last good argument about screen technology.  I forget if it was Randy or Andy who posted it, but it went into how screen draws work on CRTs and is worth reading or at least glancing at.

I've read some of your replies and I have a hard time really understanding what you think is happening.

And what you don't understand is



Can never be



On a CRT that is 640x480 because



is not possible AND filling up the screen because it is not in the correct resolution, so it can never be



BUT with the Arcade VGA which again uses multiple pixels comes closer to



so therefore with scan lines enabled



or something alot closer can happen!!!!

Do your pictures help you as well?

Help me out - you don't really think 640x480 is the output that arcade CRTs use, do you?  I don't know what "multiple pixels" means in your context, but the whole point of the AVGA is to output the original 15KHz resolutions.  You're not upscaling with the card in your case, that's the LCD which is doing it.  If the AVGA was connected to a CRT, the linedraws should be the correct height and width.  Depending on the sharpness / focus / dot pitch of the CRT it was hooked up to, you may or may not see scanlines.

Just to clarify - MAME running at 640x480 will distort regardless of LCD vs CRT.  A CRT may be more pleasing because of it's softness, or an LCD because of it's sharpness, but either way it's off.  The fundamental difference of the technologies is that CRTs don't necessarily have a fixed resolution, which allows you to dial in exactly what the original games used (or some multiple as PC monitors don't typically go that low).  LCDs do, and that means unless the game is designed for that resolution in mind, you're scaling.  And unless you scale evenly, you will artifact in some way.

I'm probably just spoiled - been using AdvanceMAME for over 3 years now and all the games I play look "pixel perfect" on coarse dot pitch multisync monitors.  But that's me, and who cares what I think about my setup - if you like yours, then go with it.  Nobody has a problem with you liking your AVGA on your rig, the only objection was spreading misinformation in your review and then further postings.  Having a preference on what's best = subjective opinion.  How CRTs and LCDs work = not so subjective opinion.  What looks most accurate - depends on definition of accurate I suppose, but not that subjective if you're trying to replicate the arcade experience 100%.  More subjective if you only need 80% fidelity or less.

[MrQuan]

genesim,

Go use your LCD, all the best, I'm glad you found your preference.

Can I try to explain something to you though? Not my argument I know, but this is a public forum after all. The way an arcade monitor back in the day displays an image is very different to the way an LCD does.  The programmers worked on arcade monitors, developed their games on them, tested and released their games on them, that was their intened result! How can you interpret this any other way?! Displaying old games on an LCD changes how the game looks.  I have a 22" Samsung LCD on my desk here with 2ms refresh and 3000:1 contrast, looks great for my windows PC - you know documents and high-res games etc., but I would never use this in my cab.  I have a 29" arcade monitor for this.  It's how I remember the games and how they were intended to look.

Use your LCD, that's cool, whatever.  But dude, you're arguements are not making much sense to me.

[genesim]

What makes no sense is that the game developers never used a 640x480 resolution monitor???  You have a 29 inch monitor that has many differences from the Pacman arcade that is displaying at incorrect resolution...yet that is ok(barring this only applys if you don't have the card-LCD wasn't possible till recently)??   

Most every single one of you are speaking from absolute ignorance because you do not have the new card that uses the multiple pixel calculations that gives a closer result over a multi-sync monitor that only has a set number of prefixed displays.

Thats right I will continue to use my NON DISTORTED, CLOSER TO ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, WITH NO REFLECTION PROBLEM, WITH NO BURN IN, WITH NO HERNIA, and finally WITH NO RELIGIOUS LIKE DEVOTION.

Unlike many of you guys, I do not continue to embrace an old technology without an open minded approach to the fact that CRT's are archaic and are becoming just as obsolete as old records.   

Blind devotion, that is all it is.    The fact that many of you cannot get the most absolute simple point makes me believe that you aren't seeing, because you do not want to see.

I answered your questions now any of you answer this.

Yes or no.    Did monitors display property that was able to outdo anything that a vintage game back then was capable of?

Do you really seriously take it all a step further and believe that a monitor back then was only able to display 16 colors???

There is a distinct difference between PROGRAMMED display vs real world displays that are used in the arcade.   The problem with most of you is you don't understand the fundamental difference that you are only as authentic as your weakest link.

Most of you have not even bothered to read what I have wrote.   You are too busy witch hunting over actually digesting my simple point that I have never waivered from the get go.   It remind me of tools that get a big screen display and yet don't bother to use the most simple connection to hook up their vision....like say a purely digital HDMI over a composite cable??!!

If you even got my point from the beginning, I am not even arguing just for LCD, it is just what I have.    Though you cannot get away from the fact that you lose quality (as the original programmers wouldn't have wanted if they would have been given an affordable choice) by using an ANALOG connection over a digital one.

You guys wanna keep playing blind, go walk with the shepherd.

[krutknut]

Genesim, how about some pictures of your screen running pacman with that arcade vga card?
So that we can see what you are talking about.

[Malenko]

Unlike many of you guys, I do not continue to embrace an old technology without an open minded approach to the fact that CRT's are archaic and are becoming just as obsolete as old records.   

Blind devotion, that is all it is.    The fact that many of you cannot get the most absolute simple point makes me believe that you aren't seeing, because you do not want to see.

Its not blind devotion, most of us are simply stating we prefer the same hardware they used in arcade for our cabinets, something you cant seem to grasp.  No one is saying that for modern day applications CRTs are better then LCDs.

I answered your questions now any of you answer this.
Yes or no.    Did monitors display property that was able to outdo anything that a vintage game back then was capable of?

Can you repeat that in english?

Do you really seriously take it all a step further and believe that a monitor back then was only able to display 16 colors???

No one said that, or anything even close to that. What was said was that programmers did what they could with what they had given the limits of technology and cost.

Most of you have not even bothered to read what I have wrote. It remind me of tools that get a big screen display and yet don't bother to use the most simple connection to hook up their vision....like say a purely digital HDMI over a composite cable??!!

We just cant figure out what the f#cK youre trying to say, if english is not your native tongue I can understand, but you seem to either wanna talk like yoda or have thesaurus.com open in a second tab in firefox.

As for tool who use component over HDMI , not eveything has an HDMI out, Im a tool with a 61" Samsung projection LCD and I was stuck using component until they release the XBOX 360 Elite because my regular XBOX 360 didnt have HDMI.

If you even got my point from the beginning, I am not even arguing just for LCD, it is just what I have.    Though you cannot get away from the fact that you lose quality (as the original programmers wouldn't have wanted if they would have been given an affordable choice) by using an ANALOG connection over a digital one.

You guys wanna keep playing blind, go walk with the shepherd.

god i wish I knew what the h3ll you were saying, I might be able to answer!  if you are saying that programmers back in 82 wanted better and more complex hardware and displays, well then no sh!t who wouldnt?

Is that some sort of religious comment? if you wanna bring that junk up post in that section, if not then just do the world a favor and shut up?

[genesim]

Its not blind devotion, most of us are simply stating we prefer the same hardware they used in arcade for our cabinets, something you cant seem to grasp.

See first.   STOP RIGHT THERE.    I have said it a hundred posts back.   If you are using a CRT monitor that has  different display properties then the original pacman.   i.e.   take out your frickin' ruler and measure the size of the screen....    Then the result is that anything that is not being used to display(without proper software) is compromising the scope of the picture.   I am speaking about YOUR monitor now.   Switch gears and read slowly.

Furthermore, the original arcade being based on a CRT has more inherent problems that I mentioned above.  I will repeat for further clarity..read on.

Go back to the original arrow pointing at the picture that Randy made.    THIS was referring to the picture that Randy says is being made BEFORE the problems like scan lines, reflections, color bleeding, side distortion happen from the CRT.

Is there anything Yoda about what I have just said.    Tell me any part that you do not understand.  Any part at all, and I will gladly say it another way.    Don't put me down.   Acknowledge the statements I have made.

[Malenko]

See first.   STOP RIGHT THERE.    I have said it a hundred posts back.   If you are using a CRT monitor that has  different display properties then the original pacman.   i.e.   take out your frickin' ruler and measure the size of the screen....    Then the result is that anything that is not being used to display(without proper software) is compromising the scope of the picture.   I am speaking about YOUR monitor now.   Switch gears and read slowly.

Thats the first thing I don't get. I've seen Pac-man on 15" monitors and 25" monitors (reunion cabs) so inherent monitor size shouldn't be a factor. Rather then debate anything else with you I'll try to summarize the point everyone in the world other then you is trying to make:

"CRTs can more easily show what arcade games looked like back in the day because back in the day its what was in an arcade machine."

  Also I never said my display was perfect or had an uncompromised picture, I merely said MAME "looks more arcade like to ME on my 27" CRT then my 19" LCD". I'm not a little girly man so it wasn't a huge deal to pick up a 80 lb CRT and mount it in my cab, and while I agree an LCD of that size would have been exponentially lighter it just wouldn't look as good to me while MAMEing and buying the CRT meant I could afford to actually finish my cab.

Furthermore, the original arcade being based on a CRT has more inherent problems that I mentioned above.  I will repeat for further clarity..read on.

now I will repeat, the "inherent problems" of the CRTs were taken into consideration when games were being made and the people who made it took advantage of the flaws. For you to think the programmers didn't care about what the end game would look like is a very daft assumption and to think they wouldn't make it better if they could is an ever more obscene assumption.

Is there anything Yoda about what I have just said.    Tell me any part that you do not understand.  Any part at all, and I will gladly say it another way.    Don't put me down.   Acknowledge the statements I have made.

I don't understand why you keep posting. I've acknowledged that you've made statements that favor opinion over fact. Also, Opinion does NOT equal fact.


Is there anything YOU don't understand?

[genesim]

Thats the first thing I don't get. I've seen Pac-man on 15" monitors and 25" monitors (reunion cabs) so inherent monitor size shouldn't be a factor.

Well sorry buddy but it is.   You seem to also dance around the fact that those extra inches can distort the original intent.    Especially when the correct software isn't used.    If it isn't even attempting to make up for the ratio...like say a default resolution setting, then you are comprosing in every way imaginable. 

But hey, because you say you have seen it, so it must be alright.     I have seen SFII cabs completely changed over to a Mortal Kombat display, it doesn't exactly make it correct.    True Mortal can be played on many different displays, but the odd resolution and refresh rates get totally ruined by a generic display.

Also I never said my display was perfect or had an uncompromised picture....

Ok now we are getting somewhere.   This is an opinion, but let me point out what FACTS are to you...read on.

now I will repeat, the "inherent problems" of the CRTs were taken into consideration when games were being made and the people who made it took advantage of the flaws.

So by that rationale all music recordings should only be put on their original media and never be tranferred to a superior format???

Oh yeah, I am sure the reflection problems and color bleeding was something the programmers wanted.    Because oh no, it is so terrible to actually avoid the problems that mask something like....uh THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING.

What you don't understand is that these are FACTS.   UNDESPUTED FACTS.    It is a FACT that CRT's DISTORT THE PICTURE because of their tube display.   It is a FACT that reflections are a problem not inherent in LCD's.    It is a FACT if you do not have a monitor that is a 1:1 relationship in CRT form that you have compromised the original intent of the programmers.     It is a FACT that ANALOG also loses quality with every transmission.   

Now can we move on to my other points.   Have we got the first part agreed upon?

p.s.  Not a girly man, just not a person who would actively seek out a dangerous/heavy display if it could be avoided.     

[krutknut]

The arcade game consists of both hardware and software. That should be obvious.

Any differences from the real thing can be considered as distortions. The code is just the blueprint. The hardware does the performance. Compare it to music, which can also be written down. A more accurate performance of the music of Elvis, as it was written down, might be possible, but it would not be a more accurate performance of Elvis than his own performance.

It should also be obvious from some images whether the card can actually emulate both hardware and software.

Come on now and show us some pictures of that perfection. I'd like to see if the card is as good as you say it is. Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[genesim]

As bad as I want to capture the images, the points I am making are impossible to tell on a zoom.

This is the best that I can do to illustrate my point.   I did not doctor the pictures and I only zoomed in a congruent way.

800x600 resolution using Direct 3D





Now using Ultimarc VGA discreet 352x288 programming which utilizes the screen while keeping the natural aspect ratio using multiple pixel technology.




I wish I had better pictures, but the blur is obscene even with a newly bought tripod!!

[genesim]

Again, I am comparing a arbitrary resolution like 640x480 to the Arcade VGA using direct draw that FILLS THE SCREEN.








By the way, my reflections are because of the protective case and not the LCD.   It was done elcheapo I admit it.

[genesim]

Incidently here is my cab.   I have since modified it with an extra 8th button for cosole games, and I am currently still in progress on this. 

Who knows, if LCD's or Plasma get more affordable, someday I will have a bigger display, but to be honest I like it how it is.



A rough design, again I have since changed a few things.   Just had to show my baby. 

For anyone wondering.   Happs Rotaries on 1st and 2nd joystick, not many want this, but I love it as a fighting joystick.    3rd  and 4th joysticks...Supers to better match the feel of the rotaries.   I prefer both over competition as well as happs perfect 360's.    Owned them all, and sold them all.    Qbert rotated 4 way in the middle.   8th button on player one and two(not shown in picture because it wasn't drilled yet).   

Top fire has good purpose where it is at.   Perfect spacing with the spinner for Tron as well as good for Doom 3 when paired with the roller ball!

Always hated how the Asteroids buttons were spaced, and is the only thing that makes me unhappy about my control panel design.

[Malenko]

You seem to also dance around the fact that those extra inches can distort the original intent.

OMG I actually agree with you there! But heres what you don't consider:
25" reunion cabs have a huge display for the sake of having a huge display,not for accuracy. Its basically there to both draw you in and blend/compete with every other 25" arcade game. My first thought when I saw em was "holy sh!t galaga on a huge screen!"

But hey, because you say you have seen it, so it must be alright.     I have seen SFII cabs completely changed over to a Mortal Kombat display, it doesn't exactly make it correct.    True Mortal can be played on many different displays, but the odd resolution and refresh rates get totally ruined by a generic display.

Im not sure of this point, because I had a generic Jamma cab and played pit fighter, street fighter, mk, and a few other random titles and the screen was filled up very well (19" monitor, cant tell you the brand, its been too  long) thought sometimes minor tweaking was needed.

So by that rationale all music recordings should only be put on their original media and never be tranferred to a superior format???

Please dont bring in the audio format discussion. By your rational with it a concert will sound better on a CD then being there live because they'll remaster it and remove the mosquito that was hovering around eddie vedder's head.  Honestly I could care less about audio formats.

Oh yeah, I am sure the reflection problems and color bleeding was something the programmers wanted.    Because oh no, it is so terrible to actually avoid the problems that mask something like....uh THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING.

What you don't understand is that these are FACTS.   UNDESPUTED FACTS.    It is a FACT that CRT's DISTORT THE PICTURE because of their tube display.   It is a FACT that reflections are a problem not inherent in LCD's.    It is a FACT if you do not have a monitor that is a 1:1 relationship in CRT form that you have compromised the original intent of the programmers.     It is a FACT that ANALOG also loses quality with every transmission.   

Now can we move on to my other points.   Have we got the first part agreed upon?

 
"Wanting the problems" and "knowing they are there and working around them" are not the same thing. The one FACT you cant seem to remember is programmers knew the limits of the monitor and made the games accordingly.

believe it or not this:

is what they were going for! There was no way to actually  display this:


back in the day. Can you understand that, that the lattter wasnt even an option?



as I was posting this you posted the pix of your cab and panel. That is one beastly frankenpanel. If you would have build a smaller panel you prolly could have snagged up a a bigger LCD.  Ive attached a pic of my cheaply covered control panel (im still working on the art for MAME Marquees) Also pictured is a side by side of My MKII cab running UMK3 (400x254 @53.2) side by side with MAME running UMK3 (640x480 @60Hz) All I can say is even up close they look VERY similar, you saw the pic of UMK3 on my LCD, doesn't look anything like it. Now I can admit I think UMK3 looks better on my LCD but with the kinds of games I play I PREFER the CRT. I when I have a joesing for UMK3 I either fire up the arcade game, or fire up my XBOX360 and play it on Live! arcade on my 61" TV    I downloaded galaga as well, but I cant find an option to run galaga with a 90* screen roation, I think it'd look neat on such a giant display.

If you prefer a smaller LCD to a larger CRT thats perfectly fine, its your cabinet do what you like with it, frankenpanel and all.

[genesim]

It is up to you to decide what is closer to the original intent(again, before scanlines and what not are added).
But hey, I give up.   See what you want.

As for my arcade panel of which you put down as well, let me ask you.     How else do I play a 3 player game(If I want to include my wife on NBA Jam series which are probably the only game she really loves to play)?    Or how else do I have 2 grown men playing a fighting game without being on top of each other?    How do you play Ikari Warriors(another one of my favorite games of all time)??

Lastly, how the hell do you get along without a rollerball???   My frankenpanel works for me.   And the differenence between you and me is that I don't start by criticizing someone else's choice till they have put me down.   My control panel is my proudest part of my arcade.    And I have no regrets for the money I have paid, and the time I put into it.     Hell you put me down for my display, and you can't even get old games played with the right equipment.    Its obvious to me that "good enough" is your forte.    Keep playing those 4-way games in your 8 way config. 

To the rest that requested, I posted the pictures, it is up you guys in the end to decide what you want. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXx

By the way, if you don't mind me asking...where did you get your Mortal Kombat pieces that are under the joysticks?  I actually like that part.   Cool idea.

[Malenko]

The first picture was not the original programmers intent.

But hey, I give up.   See what you want.

As for my arcade panel of which you put down as well, let me ask you.     How else do I play a 3 player game(If I want to include my wife on NBA Jam series which are probably the only game she really loves to play)?    Or how else do I have 2 grown men playing a fighting game without being on top of each other?    How do you play Ikari Warriors(another one of my favorite games of all time)??

Lastly, how the hell do you get along without a rollerball???   My frankenpanel works for me.   And the differenence between you and me is that I don't start by criticizing someone else's choice till they have put me down.   My control panel is my proudest part of my arcade.    And I have no regrets for the money I have paid, and the time I put into it.     Hell you put me down for my display, and you can't even get old games played with the right equipment.    Its obvious to me that "good enough" is your forte.    Keep playing those 4-way games in your 8 way config. 

To the rest that requested, I posted the pictures, it is up you guys in the end to decide what you want. 

do tell where I put down your machine? Its a very common slang to refer to that type of panel as a frankenpanel. I never said "man that looks like sh!t!" or anything remotely derogatory at all. I merely stated that its fine for that to be your preference in panel and not mine, in an attempt to draw a parallel that not everyones preferences are the same.

As for cost, I believe my point was you spent alot of money in buttons and controllers and if you had a simpler panel a larger display would have been an option. A great attempt at passively putting down my cab with a lack of "rollerball" but I don't play games that require trackballs to play enough to warrant the cost. I am layout my options for adding a GGG spinner but odds are I'll make a second interchangable panel and put a bunch of specialty controls on it , like a trackball, 4 way, spinner,etc.

My cab is designed for 2 players but occassionally my 4 nephews wanna play NBA Jam or NHL Open Ice so I just plug in a couple of XBOX 360 controllers and let em have at it.

[genesim]

Well it soundede deragotory to me.   Gee a compliment would have been nice.   Even at my effort of taking a bunch of pictures to show you the result.

I edited my post while you were posting so please take a look if you don't mind.

I got the smaller display out of choice.   I could have afforded whatever I wanted, but the deal was that I wanted speed, and 4ms was the fastest display at the time.    I wanted to build it NOW, so I compromised.   I have never regretted that decision, and I can always change it out with ease....well maybe not exactly that, but close.   I would have to build another frame.

[Malenko]

they are the round stickers from the UMK3 conversion kit adhered to a dust shield, I might actually be pulling them off since I'm changing the theme of my cab, if I do I'll get your address and mail them to you if you'd like.  Did you notice the start buttons on my MK cab? you can see the extra overlay stickers sitting on the bezel ? The member named Pongo made them for me, but I might end up not using them on the MAME cab since I'm prolly changing themes.

its 1am , I'll take some pix tomorrow. kinda cool we had a 2 page long discussion about nothing

[genesim]

I appreciate the offer, but just wondering about the details.

So those stickers fit perfectly to the dust covers?

I would be very interested, but I still wonder where I could just buy a whole bunch more.

xxxxxxxxxxxx\

By the way, I just can't help it.     You act as if the Pinky picture produced was manufactured.    It is only displaying what the original code is directing.

I just want to know, do you or do you not understand that the pixels being displayed accurately first is more important and scanlines can be administrated later if needed?   Don't you think it is alot better then starting with a stretched picture like using Windows default options which twists the original intent all out of proportion?

I also look at your post about a concert, and I think you miss the point there too.    A better comparison would be the numskulls that hate a multichannel DVD Audio that approximates how the concert would sound.     So many say that stereo should be kept because that is what the original producers wanted....yet ignore the fact that the sound is fantastic and that the original producers would have used the technology if given the chance.

To build a great house, one must first start with a great foundation.

Representing Pacman in all its blocky glory is the foundation.     What happens afterwards is anyone's opinion.

Myself, I can't help it.   I admit that I like the picture looking sharp and having better color.     LCD's are a godsend.

[Malenko]

just using pacman as a reference.

there is a pacman machine at the movie theater, an original 1983 (yr?) machine with what I believe is the original monitor(judging by the screen burn) . MAME running on my CRT even at a different resolution looks much more like that display then MAME running on my LCD. I completely understand your preference of LCD its a much more modern display and while games like Pacman look better, to you, on it I prefer the less stellar CRT display because it appears more authentic , to me. Im sure if I MAMEd my MKII machine with my arcade monitor and a arcade VGA2 the display would be practically perfect


As for the MK logo shields , other then the MK3/UMK3 kits I dunno whered you get em, Im sure they could be replicated by some printers or something. The logos werent an exact fit, needed some trimming.

[RandyT]

By the way, I just can't help it.     You act as if the Pinky picture produced was manufactured.    It is only displaying what the original code is directing.

Me either    The "close up" pictures you showed were not close up shots of the game display, rather photos of a magnified MAME screen capture (unless you want us to believe that your mouse cursor is really that tiny, or that your LCD panel lacks the tiny grids inherent to all cell based display technologies )  So they don't really show the detail of the output of the card at game time. 

BTW, you should really look into the -prescale option that has existed in the last 7+ versions of MAME.  Prescale does exactly what you want with just about any video card.  The value you give the option is the multiplier used to scale the pixels before it is handed off to any further processing or effects.  IOW, with a -prescale value of 2, each native game pixel becomes a 2x2 pixel array for a total of 4 on-screen pixels.  A value of three becomes a 3x3 array for 9 on-screen pixels and so on.  From that point, you can either add effects, stretching, etc...or not, if that's your preference.

I'll see if I can take a picture of this setup when I find a few minutes, then we can compare.

RandyT

[genesim]

Randy,

If you notice that is why I left the cursor in BOTH pictures.   Nothing sly here.   

You cannot blow up the pictures with any real comparison(my camera just can't do it), but the results are the same.   All you have to do is just crop the pictures I have posted and you will still see the difference.

But hey, just keep putting the card down, and I will continue to use it.   I see with my own eyes, and this display is superior.

I have been tempted to go to my arcade to further show the difference.    I will probably post more pictures later.

[RandyT]

You cannot blow up the pictures with any real comparison(my camera just can't do it), but the results are the same.   All you have to do is just crop the pictures I have posted and you will still see the difference.

Not really.  In order to get the true feel for the display, comparisons of actual detail are necessary.  Otherwise, why should anyone assume that there is any difference between the results I achieved (and posted photos of) on my LCD and what you are claiming is the case with yours?

But hey, just keep putting the card down, and I will continue to use it.   I see with my own eyes, and this display is superior.

I'm not putting the card down.  Just waiting for you to show something in the way of actual output that is over and above what can be achieved with virtually any DirectDraw capable display device when the proper options are set in MAME.


RandyT

[genesim]

Zoom in yourself by simpy cropping the picture.

You will get the same results.   

I am not speaking about Direct Draw.   They are 1:1 with one exception.   IT CANNOT FILL THE FRICKIN SCREEN!   That is the advantage.

The rest of the pictures are from my LCD using the card, and not using the card.   So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that I am not showing output.   The difference is obvious.

Direct 3D approximates in a much more detrimental way when blown up to default windows displays.   This is fact. 

[genesim]

Randy,

Just out of curiousity.  Could you please explain to me how the MAME screen shot(which wasn't used for the majority of the pictures that I posted), is not an accurate representation of what is being diplayed?

When you zoom in on the pictures I have posted, the similarity is astounding.   Do I need to waste my time doing this too?   Do you not understand that the camera has limitations when showing pictures of that detail.

LCD being a digital display, I thought the relationship was one to one.   Just please clarify how it is somehow miles different from a screen shot.

I used the same camera and I captured it exactly how it is.   How do you think you are going to get something better?   

First you criticize the "blockyness" now you are implying that it is fabricated.   Which is it?

[genesim]

I got the best idea of all.

Ok so you are familiar with A=B and B=C so therefore A=C.

In that capacity.   If I take the image that is taken from a MAME snapshot at the correct ratio.   i.e.   Mortal Kombat at 400x256(like I did before) and I display it on my computer and snap a picture, then I take a picture of of the actual game playing at the exact same resolution...according to you they will somehow look different?

But if they look the same then isn't it reasonable to deduce that the pictures I posted are a 1:1 relationship because the LCD display is a DIGITAL connection with no loss!

So here is what I am going to do.   I will remove my screen cover to eliminate reflection and take the pictures and see just how much MAME snapshots are not accurate. 

To me, it is pointless because common sense tells you that the resolution captured is an exact screenshot of what is sent to the video card and sent DIGITALLY to your display.    If we were talking about a CRT display then there may be SLIGHT difference because it is analog for most people here, but with this, and using my eyes, I know for a fact that what I have posted is highly accurate to what is displayed.   Especially after looking at the other pictures posted without using the MAME screen shots.   If I didn't know it was, I wouldn't have posted it that way to begin with.   A camera after the fact loses quality and does not tell the whole story.

I was asking you the question, but actually your opinion doesn't prove anything.   Obviously to some, seeing is believing, and I think this smackdown is necessary to put an end to this whole idea that my original pictures posted were somehow sacrificing the image that was being put out by my display.    It was and still is a 1:1 relationship and it shows the inherent problems of Direct 3D which stretches the picture.    You continually say....well use Direct Draw, but you miss the most obvious point of all....THE WHOLE SCREEN ISN'T BEING UTILIZED TO FULL EFFECT!    Multiple pixel assignment is absolutely necessary to get the most of any monitor, especially an LCD.   Without that, then you have distortion of the original vision.   

Pics to follow as soon as I get home and set up my tripod.   Though if one uses their brain you can already see the relationship from what I have posted already.   

DirectDraw capable display device when the proper options are set in MAME.

Randy do you even understand what that means?   Unless pixels are somehow multiplied it isn't that simple.   Even then without software that is written directly for the monitor resolution you are not going to get congruent upscaling, like you preach many times.   Pixel interpolation can be just as bad when the foundation pixel ratio isn't set up correctly.   It is just errors compounded upon error.

By the way, prescaling is too generic.   Its all good if you have an even number, but what about odd ratios that cannot display properly?    Wouldn't it make much more sense to assign say a odd number display to an area like the black bars on the side of pacman which don't need to be correct anyway?    You can get the same effect without ever seeing the difference.   I can see for myself that part of the Pacman display was cut off to achieve the 352x288 ratio that I have posted.   The end result is something I don't really care about anyway.    Pacman being 224x288 means that something had to be changed with a square display.   It is a mathmatical necessity.

Now how they got to that number, I do not know, nor do I care.   The end results are astounding(as I have posted) and that is what matters to me.

[RandyT]

I am not speaking about Direct Draw.   They are 1:1 with one exception.   IT CANNOT FILL THE FRICKIN SCREEN!   That is the advantage.

If your screen is filled, there are extra pixels (not Pac-Man "pixels" but display pixels) being added or subtracted from the image, also known as "artifacting."  It is not possible to fill the screen any other way when the native resolution of the game does not go evenly into the native screen resolution of your LCD.  We went through this before and you said you understood that, yet you refuse to press the menu button on your display so you can tell us what resolution the monitor is running at.

If you want to "fill the screen" in DirectDraw, use the -hwstretch command.  You'll get the same effect.  However, if you want the image to be as large as it can be in a 1:1 correlation, don't.

Direct 3D approximates in a much more detrimental way when blown up to default windows displays.   This is fact. 

Tell the guy who is twisting your arm to use it to "stop"   DirectDraw is faster anyway.  If you want to get rid of the bi-linear filtering in D3D mode, use the -noflt switch.

Just out of curiousity.  Could you please explain to me how the MAME screen shot(which wasn't used for the majority of the pictures that I posted), is not an accurate representation of what is being diplayed?

When you zoom in on the pictures I have posted, the similarity is astounding.   Do I need to waste my time doing this too?   Do you not understand that the camera has limitations when showing pictures of that detail.

It's an accurate example of what is being sent to the LCD, but not what it looks like at pixel level.  If you are trying to show a difference between the result on my screen and yours, then show it.  All I get when I zoom i is JPEG artifacting.

I was asking you the question, but actually your opinion doesn't prove anything.   Obviously to some, seeing is believing, and I think this smackdown is necessary to put an end to this whole idea that my original pictures posted were somehow sacrificing the image that was being put out by my display.    It was and still is a 1:1 relationship and it shows the inherent problems of Direct 3D which stretches the picture.    You continually say....well use Direct Draw, but you miss the most obvious point of all....THE WHOLE SCREEN ISN'T BEING UTILIZED TO FULL EFFECT!    Multiple pixel assignment is absolutely necessary to get the most of any monitor, especially an LCD.   Without that, then you have distortion of the original vision.   

Pics to follow as soon as I get home and set up my tripod.   Though if one uses their brain you can already see the relationship from what I have posted already.   

Actually "if one were using their brain" one would know that LCD's have fixed pixel counts and one would know that you can't magically shuffle them around without the creation of image artifacting you claim doesn't exist.

By the way, prescaling is too generic.   Its all good if you have an even number, but what about odd ratios that cannot display properly?    Wouldn't it make much more sense to assign say a odd number display to an area like the black bars on the side of pacman which don't need to be correct anyway?    You can get the same effect without ever seeing the difference.   I can see for myself that part of the Pacman display was cut off to achieve the 352x288 ratio that I have posted.   The end result is something I don't really care about anyway.    Pacman being 224x288 means that something had to be changed with a square display.   It is a mathmatical necessity.

Pac-Man is a vertical game.  The scaling of the blank areas on the sides don't do a hoot.  The vertical resolution is the only important number and it must go evenly into the vertical resolution of your display, or be cropped, or be disproportionately scaled.  Period.

BTW, you never did say what the native resolution of your monitor was.  How about some numbers to back up all of these things you have been saying?  It's simple math, not magic, but without the numbers you don't wish for some reason to provide, this is all a bunch of meaningless jabber.

Now how they got to that number, I do not know, nor do I care.   The end results are astounding(as I have posted) and that is what matters to me.

Great! Continue to be astounded.  Just stop trying to convince people of something that is technically not possible.

RandyT

[krutknut]

Genesim, thanks for your effort with the screenshots.

However, with bitmap-prescaling set to 4 or 5 in MAME, the image on my LCD screen looks quite a lot like the arcade VGA screen you presented. Is the arcade VGA really that much better than what I get with bitmap-prescaling? Could you post a picture comparing that as well?

Without bitmap-prescaling, I get a nice anti-aliased version of PacMan which also looks much more like the PacMan drawing on the bezel, than a jagged bitmap does.

So, can the Arcade VGA card also do anti-aliasing, creating a round pacman rather than a jagged one? Does it do a better job on anti-aliasing than a normal card does?

[genesim]

Randy,

Direct draw with hardware stretch is putrid just like Direct 3D.   Here are some pics.   Judge for yourself.    My native setting is 1280x1024 on my LCD.    Now the fact that I can pick all the other resolutions beats me.   Me guesses it is algorithms to achieve this.    The black border is still there, so no what I meant about the screen being filled up was in response to RATIO as in the bottom and top is filled up.    Here are some screen shots to clarify.

Direct 3D at 1280x1024



Direct Draw at 1280x1024



Direct Draw with hardware stretch 1280x1024



Direct Draw using the Arcaded VGA special setting of 352x288



Conclusion...Direct Draw and Arcade VGA are very much even...the difference.   Arcade VGA fills up the screen!!

Direct Draw full size



Arcade VGA full size



Gee, now why wouldn't I want to use Direct Draw in its regualr form, when I can get better results with arcade vga.

krutknut,

I use MAME 32 Plus.   Is bitmap-prescaling used with that?   Where is the option to put it on?

[RandyT]

Better.  Now, if you would, take a better picture of DirectDraw w/ Hardware stretch, as well as a full-screen shot at this setting.  If you are still getting D3D filtering on a DirectDraw, then you don't have something set correctly.  Also, turn off Bi-linear filtering on D3D and the fuzzy will go away.

The only reason the DirectDraw with hardware scaling looks worse is because the picture is worse.

RandyT

[krutknut]

Just right-click on pac-man, in MAME32FX, then Properties, then Display.

[genesim]

Randy,

It is without filtering, and hardware stretch...uh STRETCHES the picture that is why it looks worse.

My camera hasn't moved.   The difference is quite apparent.   You go take a picture.   I put alot of time into getting these pictures right, and you won't face facts that the proof is right there in front of your eyes.

It wouldn't matter what you saw.   You will stay prejudice.   I know what my eyes are seeing, and the pictures are as accurate as they can be considering the limitations. 

Incidently, how am I getting Direct 3D filtering on a direct draw?   The regular non-stretched version looks exactly the same!   LEARN TO READ CAPTIONS because that is the exact settings those are on.

If you think it looks fuzzier on the Direct Draw image it is because it is SMALLER.   I have no filters set PERIOD.

krutknut,

I will get back to you on this.    Got off night shift and I took alot of time just trying to get MAME32 regular reconfigured only to find out that you can't set discrete resolutions!

A quick glance at MAME32FX shows the same problem.

To me, if you want it fuzzy and round, then you have to blur it with effects or get scanlines covering the image to make it appear rounder.   To me, this takes away from the whole purpose of the card.

[RandyT]

It is without filtering, and hardware stretch...uh STRETCHES the picture that is why it looks worse.

The -prescale switch has been mentioned at least 5 times in this thread.  Use a prescale of 3 and you will be amazed at the difference.  Post a picture of this output in both closeup and full-screen (-hwstretch) with DirectDraw.  The output will pretty much be the same if you use D3D with the same prescale and the -nofilter switch to turn off the bi-linear filtering.

It wouldn't matter what you saw.   You will stay prejudice.   I know what my eyes are seeing, and the pictures are as accurate as they can be considering the limitations. 

I think that goes both ways.  Except there have been several individuals telling you pretty much the same thing.  You just haven't set MAME up properly yet to see it for yourself.  However, there is one undeniable difference with the card and that is that the blocky looking output functionality you desire is achievable independent from software.  That means you should be able to see your NES or other emulators the same way, even if they don't specifically offer those options.

Incidently, how am I getting Direct 3D filtering on a direct draw?

Obviously you can't. There was obviously filtering on the output, just as with the D3D mode, and that was my point.

RandyT

[krutknut]

Gensim, just try it out as I suggested. You have to actually use that option to get the output I described.

[RandyT]

genesim,

Also, you really need to understand that even though the un-stretched DirectDraw image doesn't fill the screen, it is the only means of getting a true, clean 1:1 pixel ratio on an LCD monitor.  Scaling to fill an LCD screen resulting in anything other than exact multiples of the original game resolution results in some sort of artifacting, regardless of the method used.

Scaling exactly to full-screen often has an "accuracy" penalty on an LCD, and there are a number of factors that dictate how severe that penalty is.  There's just no way around it.

RandyT

[krutknut]

Anyway, at 1680*1050, pacman fills my screen from bottom to top, with a bit of black on the sides. The "pixels" also seem square to me, with a bitmap pre-scaling of 4. No anti-aliasing. (Of course, at 1680*1050, each pacman pixel use several actual pixels).

Can the Arcade VGA card really do any noticeable improvement over this? (If you like the pixels to be really distinct to begin with, that is).

A picture showing the difference might help, since I don't have an Arcade VGA card to compare with. (I don't even have my digital camera at home today.)

[genesim]

Randy,

Also, you really need to understand that even though the un-stretched DirectDraw image doesn't fill the screen, it is the only means of getting a true, clean 1:1 pixel ratio on an LCD monitor.

While what you say in theory is true, it doesn't mean that other applications can at least make the symptons less problematic.

As pixel count gets higher and higher, the differences will become more and more neglible using multiple pixel technology.

With the pictures I posted, I do notice that that the "dot" is slighly fatter.   This is likely because of the odd resolution of 352x288 representing 224x288.   While most of it does go to black, you cannot get away from the fact that the numbers don't mesh.   

BUT, I do standby that Direct Draw with hardware stretch shows the obvious problems that you preach against.   

Now that said, I did try the bitmap prescaling and I saw similarities.   Still, you cannot get away from the fact that the tricks are being used on Windows default settings as opposed to using a programmed fixed resolution through the hardware.

The resolution that is displayed is exactly what is being picked.....I just don't know how they got there.

From what I have seen, it doesn't appear like there is much to gain from the card over bitmap prescaling except for one thing.   EASE OF USE.    Hardware set to certain resolutions in some cases can give better displays.   Perhaps Mortal Kombat was a better example because of the resolution being closer to a full size monitor.   

Again, I don't pretend to know how they got there, but 400x256 is the fixed monitor display, and the results are exactly what I expect.    With scanlines, the image is very close to an arcade look alike.  Being my favorite game of all time and spending many years playing it, I do know what I am talking about(oh wait this is a qualifier that goes against my own pet peeve ).

I will still take some pictures, but I got to get more sleep, so it may be a bit.

Still, I think it is a waste of time at this point, because I concede that the results are going to be like the pictures above.    I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   That or another version of MAME would better achieve this.   By the way....ignorant/lazy for the dos version.   Tried it once...got it running, thought it was too much bother.   Nothing against people that do, but making little notepad commands just isn't my cup of tea...and yes I have done front ends too, I just prefer the windows interface.

I do know that if you are going to duplicate(or get really close) to the arcade, you cannot rely on Windows default and picking filters or stretching the display will only make the display "appear" better.    The best way is to get the pixels close to the original display AND fill the screen (which yes means that they are blocky) is to get the resolution correct and adminster scanlines to mask the jaggies(if that is what you want).

For me, I do prefer the "blocky" graphics because the picture is much clearer and the original code is represented even if there is speculation that the original author intended his code to be masked off.

But Randy, I have to say, are you still standing behind the fact that Direct Draw with hardware stretch is better then the Arcade VGA estimation?   It is there in the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone would prefer that crap.

I do submit to the bitmap prescaling, but I also am lazy.    352x288 gets damn close, but as you know there are a hundred other displays possible with the card and all one has to do is look at the original resolution and use the closest resolution.    Again...as opposed to using windows default or mucking with bitmap intrepretation.

p.s.   As for LCD as a display, not only do I think it is a great display for ALL games, it is absolutely necessary for new games because of the absence of scan lines.

Just how does one treat something like Marvel vs Capcom 2 or Capcom vs SNK2 with highly detailed background graphics if one is going to rely on a CRT with all its inherent problems.

Alot of the same arguements about graphics being blocky is due to the Capcom fighters being low res and thus showing all their "blocky" characteristics.

[ahofle]

I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   

I believe you have to select a 'screen' (other than 'auto') before you can manually select resolutions in MAME32.

[genesim]

So the probplem is like I thought.   You can't set any weird resolutions like 400x256 without the card.

Maybe more pictures will follow soon.     I would like to compare the bit map of a MK game against the local.

[RandyT]

As pixel count gets higher and higher, the differences will become more and more neglible using multiple pixel technology.

Correct, and I believe I said that already. 

BUT, I do standby that Direct Draw with hardware stretch shows the obvious problems that you preach against.   

Please refresh my memory.  I think the things I have preached against are sharp edged images.  Everything else are just facts.

Now that said, I did try the bitmap prescaling and I saw similarities.   Still, you cannot get away from the fact that the tricks are being used on Windows default settings as opposed to using a programmed fixed resolution through the hardware.

The resolution that is displayed is exactly what is being picked.....I just don't know how they got there.

I think that may be the crux of the issue.  The resolution is, in fact, not what the windows utility says is being displayed, rather what your LCD panel tells you it is receiving when you look at your LCD panels built in menu screens.  The "tricks" you are talking about exist across the board, with the exception in the case of MAME where they are not hidden from the user.  As for it occurring in "hardware", so is the DirectDraw and D3D scaling.  Again, no magic there.

From what I have seen, it doesn't appear like there is much to gain from the card over bitmap prescaling except for one thing.   EASE OF USE.  .   

I believe I stated this already as well.

Still, I think it is a waste of time at this point, because I concede that the results are going to be like the pictures above.    I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   That or another version of MAME would better achieve this.   By the way....ignorant/lazy for the dos version.   Tried it once...got it running, thought it was too much bother.   Nothing against people that do, but making little notepad commands just isn't my cup of tea...and yes I have done front ends too, I just prefer the windows interface.

If you concede that there is no difference between the output using the methods outlined here and that of the card, then absolutely there is no need for further pictures.  They were as much to allow you to see that fact as others who might be following along

Not wanting to deal with command line options is valid, but doing so with an LCD panel is far less complex compared to a standard CRT.  With LCD there is pretty much one setting (your LCD native resolution) along with the options outlined in this thread. After that, it pretty much does things automatically for you.

But Randy, I have to say, are you still standing behind the fact that Direct Draw with hardware stretch is better then the Arcade VGA estimation?   It is there in the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone would prefer that crap.

I never made that assertion.  I said the two could be made equal with the proper settings in MAME.  But I honestly think that it is a difficult proposition to get a good looking classic arcade game representation on an LCD panel.  It's my opinion that neither really do the game justice.  However, using a prescale of 2 with Direct3D's bi-linear filtering enabled (as Aaron recommended in the documentation) does make LCD display more palatable.  This also works with DirectDraw using the same pre-scale and -hwstretch.  What this does is add a very subtle softness to the edge of the graphics.  So it's much of what you like with a just the right amount of softness to reduce the hard edged look.  The ability to do this, in my opinion, trumps a fixed pseudo-mode that has only the hard edged option.

RandyT

[genesim]

Randy,

Correct, and I believe I said that already.

You do understand that I am referring to the fact that as pixels get higher on LCD's this occurs..just checking.

Please refresh my memory.  I think the things I have preached against are sharp edged images.  Everything else are just facts.

You stated that Hardware stretch with Direct draw is just as good.   I don't agree.   One mars the original code, the other doesn't(at leas as much).

As for it occurring in "hardware", so is the DirectDraw and D3D scaling.  Again, no magic there.

The card has set resolutions.   Direct Draw or D3D scaling are independent of that.    One is pre, one is post.   Not the same thing.

I believe I stated this already as well.

There have been so many posts, that I don't remember that.   Still, who cares.   I saw for myself, no big deal.   Though I will say this.  I didn't say it, because I was arguing against Direct 3D and Direct Draw stretched.   I didn't even know much about bitmap prescaling.   I admit it, but I wasn't arguing against it either.

They were as much to allow you to see that fact as others who might be following along.

Uhh except for the fact that I was never referring to bitmap anything.

But I honestly think that it is a difficult proposition to get a good looking classic arcade game representation on an LCD panel.  It's my opinion that neither really do the game justice.

Well that is certaintly your opinion, but I have never liked scanlines.   Even if the authors intended it.   It doesn't mean that the original code isn't being accurately drawn, it just isn't impaired(intended or otherwise), by inferior analog connections etc. etc.

The end result is LCD's do alot and you don't get the downfalls of a CRT in the process.

Though you didn't answer my question.   How exactly is the best way to show something like Marvel Vs Capcom 2 which uses both low res and high res images??    If you look at the pictures you can see that the images are pretty spot on.    All that "distortion" just isn't there is it?    Gee LCD's are so terrible.   A few effects can give very similar results and yet you continually say how LCD displays are a bad choice.    The differences are minimal, and you ignoring the other obvious pitfalls shows where your mindset is at.    You lose picture with Analog, bottom line.    If you want to get into a few pixels, I can come back with ALL the pixels being distorted on a CRT display.   How about adressing those problems that do not exist on an LCD.   

A little software can fix the LCD display, NOTHING will fix the CRT.

Arcade VGA does a wonderful job of rectifying alot of the problems as that can be seen by the pictures.    True bitmap gives you SIMILAR results, but takes alot more experimentation.   Doesn't mean that the card is any less for it.    There are alot of things that get the job done, and Ultimarcs is one of the ways.

But hey, I can see how a competitor would be jumping all over this.   Showing Ultimarc as having a good product is not exactly your first priority.   I can understand that.

Incidently, I will compare bitmap to arcade vga on one standing that I found to be true.   MAME default resolutions are a problem.    On weird resolutions, I am very curious to see the result(of which with Mortal Kombat I already know).

You can't polish a turd, and if resolutions aren't set properly then there are even more artifacts that are present which are at least approximated on a set multiple pixel out put.

You act as if there is no difference.

[RandyT]

But hey, I can see how a competitor would be jumping all over this.   Showing Ultimarc as having a good product is not exactly your first priority.   I can understand that.

My first priority as a member of the community is to keep the facts straight and assuage BS.  If you have to use tactics like this to draw attention away from the hole you dug for yourself and now find yourself peering out of,  then we have no more to discuss.

I'm glad you could finally experience what everyone has been telling you about since the first page of this thread.

RandyT

[genesim]

You know, in looking what I wrote.   I feel bad.   I apologize for several reasons, but mainly because it is jumping to a conclusion that I cannot possibly know if its true.

I hope you accept that.

Can you be fair and at least admit that you haven't been the coolest with me either?

I was looking over your website, and it is a very nice set up.    Hopefully someday I may even be a customer.   

XXXXXXXXXX

As for what I have been told....LCD's are a crap monitor.   I disagree and still do.

Just because Bitmap prescaling gives a similar result, doesn't make the video card any less of a good tool for approximating the original displays.    It would be nice if you would adress my points and well as the CRT limitations instead of completely drumming how "bad" an LCD monitor is for retro gaming.   Not only is this completely untrue, but your opinion is no better then mine.

I have always kept the facts straight, and it is all there to be had.   Your implications haven't exactly made me happy either.   

[genesim]

Randy,

You know what, lets cut out all the BS.

The supposed hole I dug myself in can be referenced here.

I stated that getting the pixel representation correct FIRST was the place to start in achieving the display most closely matched to the original.

Are the two pictures congruent or at least pretty damn close in reference to Direct Draw(no stretch) vs Arcade VGA.  Referencing your original Arrow.

Then isn't the second step getting the scanlines correct to finish it off??

Hardware stretching is not accurate, and Direct Draw with Hardware Stretch, while giving an illusion, is not correct.

[krutknut]

Genesim, when you run PacMan on the Arcade VGA card, and push the button on the monitor that displays the actual resolution, then what does it display?

[genesim]

I haven't tried it for Pacman, but for Mortal Kombat it shows it displaying exactly 400x256.   The screen shot I first posted was an exact snapshot of the resolution selected.   If you are referring to the physical monitor it is always on highest settings.    That is the way it should be.    The hardware is doing the work, but it is making it think that the monitor is running in full mode, but it is really using multiple pixels to display the low res.   That is how bitrate prescaling looks similar because it is basically doing the same design.    The problem is that it is using MAME defaults over closer approximations provided by the Arcade VGA. 

I think I can find a way around this though.   Just haven't had time at home to do it.

Also the frame rate was 53 fps.    I don't know how this was possible being at best the LCD can only display 75hz.

I admit I don't understand it completely.   I am curious myself though on how Pacman will show.   

I got alot of testing, and I am anxious to see how this turns out.

I also am going to take some screen shots of bitrate at high res vs arcade vga settings at 352x288.     Then I want to try to show scanlines as well. 

MAME32 PLUS for some reason shows the scanlines vertical wich makes no sense.    I might just have to go back to MAME32 if I get good results.

[Malenko]

when you run pacman, are you rotating the monitor 90 degrees like they did in the actual arcade machines?

[krutknut]

Right... it's the resolution of the monitor I'd like to know, for the PacMan screenshots.
Since the Arcade VGA uses multiple pixels, other programs can of course do that as well, achieving exactly the same results. But to compare, the same monitor resolution should be used.

[esaelectrionics]

This thread is very funny indeed

 

[JoeB]

WOW!  This is one of the most heated debates I've ***EVER*** seen on this forum!

For once, I'm glad the moderators didn't close this thread early, but rather all the involved parties sorted out their differences. 

genesim:  I'm glad you like your LCD setup and ArcadeVGA card.  But just because it makes you 100% satisfied, it doesn't mean it's the solution for everyone.

I too have an ArcadeVGA card (Actually, it's the first generation one.  I purchased it when it was first announced).  But unlike you, I got it connected to a real arcade monitor.  I know my picture isn't as sharp as yours, and I know the colors aren't as vivid.  Yes, I do have some burn marks, and shadows, and the 20 year old monitor makes a funky buzzing sound, and I got scan lines all over the picture.  But you know what, that's EXACTLY what I wanted!!!  It's exactly the same way as I remember it back when I was a kid.

I guess the point is, to each their own.  Some people want perfect sharpness and color (like you) and others want it to be as true to the original experience as possible (scan lines, buzzing round tubes that aren't as sharp at the corners, etc.)  I guess some people want to hide the fact that it's a PC!  (why else would they go to such extends in making their coin mechs work, and bring 20 year monitors back from the dead???)

When it comes to a discussion of tastes, no one wins at the end.

Enjoy your setup!

[genesim]

Recently I got the Arcade VGA PCI Express upgrade.

I have been having problems with the Vista drivers, but I will update when that is sorted out.

As for the rest, I never fault someone for a preference...just like I hope others wouldn't for me.    My point from the very first page was to show the differences between what the card can do on an LCD versus not having one.   The old Arcade VGA didn't adhere to the people who want the resolutions with current PC monitors.  I have liked the results tremendously...now if I could just get the *&%$#@%#$ Open GL to work with Doom 3, I will be set.

An LCD is far from "arcade perfect" because of a smaller dot pitch and the absence of scanlines....or in your case..burn marks.     Still, you can't blame a person for wanting the best of both worlds.   High resolution gaming is really not such a bad thing.   Seeing the new Mortal Kombat Armegeddon in HD is breathtaking.    Using arcade controls with it is icing on the cake.

But still, its all cool.   Just remember...they are all PC's in the end.     They were just more primitive back then...and uh not so "personal".

JoeB thanks for the kind words and good luck with your setup as well.

[genesim]

Just a small update.    Got the drivers working on the PCI Express version with Windows Vista.

It took a download from the Official site and then when I reinstalled the beta vista drivers from the Ultimarc site it worked fine with Doom 3.

The end result is that it is a nice midrange card that produces great effect for the people that want an interpretation of the original arcade resolution on a PC monitor.

As I have said many times before, the card is wonderful and I have no regrets.

[retrometro]

I can't believe I read this entire thread... 

I read the first part on my LCD displays:



I then read the second part of the posts on my cabinet's CRT:



I have to say that I felt like I had a more authentic experience reading the posts on my CRT.  It's as if I knew what the writers meant when they flamed each other back and forth.  Don't get me wrong, I mean, the writers knew full well the limitations of arguing in a turn based manner using letters and pictures.  But I bet if they had the technology, it would have been in the octagon and in real time.

[Patent Doc]

  Now that was funny.

 

you are a smart --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- of great caliber....I salute you


Patent Doc

[retrometro]

Now that was funny.

 

you are a smart --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- of great caliber....I salute you

Patent Doc

I aim to please.   

[Malenko]

Now that was funny.

 

you are a smart --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- of great caliber....I salute you

Patent Doc

I aim to please.   

unfortunately this thread is back up top. Hilarious joke but lets allow this thread to fade away 

BTW love the LCD set up /rice