Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
RandyT:
--- Quote from: genesim on June 26, 2007, 09:14:25 am ---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:
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT. "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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???
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---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...
--- End quote ---
So you admit that they were programmed that way....next, are we now trying to delve into the mind of all the programmers??
--- Quote ---No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT. "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.
--- End quote ---
That side effect is blurred crap. Though I don't get your last part. Pixels were square PERIOD.
--- Quote ---You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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??
--- Quote ---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)
--- End quote ---
So the alternative direct 3D upscale is better where it upscales ALL of them??
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
But of course the image isn't smaller on the arcade VGA so that point is moot.
--- Quote ---In this case it would be 704x576 assuming proper aspect ratios.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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??
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
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.... :dunno
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version