Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
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:
--- Quote from: genesim on June 22, 2007, 09:41:33 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version