Main > Reviews

Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC

<< < (4/26) > >>

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!   :cheers:

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page