Main > Reviews
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version