Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
RandyT:
--- Quote from: genesim on June 26, 2007, 12:30:33 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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( :laugh:) 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version