Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up Try the site in https mode Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC  (Read 41995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2007, 11:15:04 pm »
Ahofle,

Do you even know what planet you are on?   That last comment has got to be the most assinine thing you have said since this whole topic began.

Randy T(oops never did get that name right),

Please do concede.   It is obvious when faced with cold hard facts you haven't a defense.

You can continue to be ignorant or not only must you read...but you must comprehend.   It seems you have chose the former.

The only ridiculous part of this thread is some of the comments that were made trying delve into the inner minds of thousands of programmers...that and jackasses that have nothing to add but complete foolish behavior.

At least you Randy T show some signs of intelligence...even if a bit hard headed.  Over and out, lets move on shall we?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 11:17:45 pm by genesim »

NickG

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
  • Last login:September 26, 2022, 05:25:23 am
  • Dig.
    • My Projects Page
This is the internet.
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2007, 01:07:17 am »
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Naru

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
  • Last login:June 29, 2007, 12:01:34 am
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2007, 05:36:41 am »
that and jackasses that have nothing to add but complete foolish behavior.

Thanks for noticing.
Sometimes I feel invisible.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2007, 09:33:36 am »
You weren't invisible with me.   Your humor was at least intentional.

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2007, 01:10:04 am »
now that the smoke has cleared, I'll hop in!!!!!!!!!

I have an Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 machine with arcade monitor, it sits next to my MAME cab with a VGA monitor running 640x480 , across from that is my PC which has a 19" flat panel LCD.

Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 has the sharpest image on my LCD but its NOT "arcade accurate"  It has a good picture on MAME but again not "arcade accurate", and well its arcade perfect on my Arcade machine.  I can mess with the filters and stuff on the MAME cab and make it look almost exactly like the arcade machine (which Ive done when I MAME it up), same goes with my PC and LCD. so I dunno what the argument is.

I guess one person is saying LCD is better cause you see all the pixels and the other guy is saying its not better because artists took the limits of the CRT into consideration.  I'd go with the latter, Im sure if PacMan was made today it'd look alot different since technology has advanced so much but I guess the key thing is this:

Everyones Opinion is "right" there is no wrong opinion. Whats better is a comparison based on opinion so whats better to one wont always be better to someone else, so in a way they are both wrong and right at the same time.
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2007, 03:20:12 am »
NO.

I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.   

NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.   

You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.

You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code.   Accuracy first.   Interpretation later.



« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 03:22:56 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2007, 11:16:08 am »
NO.
I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.   
NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.   
You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.
You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code.   Accuracy first.   Interpretation later.

well in my opinion, the user should make the game how he wants it to look; its not about accuracy, its about enjoyment.

Much like RandyT  I'm done with this thread, your replies remind of an old adage......

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

krutknut

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
  • Last login:February 08, 2012, 01:17:50 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2007, 05:59:15 pm »
What does a pixel look like when there is no monitor to render it?

This is one of the ageless questions that he tibetan monks have meditated upon for hundreds of years.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2007, 12:33:50 am »
And my thing is don't put a player down because he wants it as accurate as possible with the added effect of playing new games without glare and with smooth response(4 MS!!!!).

If you look at the very beginning of the thread it wasn't me that said "you have a crappy monitor so what is the point".

Though to get it straight, it isn't an age old question.    Pixels are square, and the code is quite clear.

Monitors were capable at the time of rendering anything that programmers created.    The limitation as I said before were  in the chips, not the display.

Malenko, you call me an idiot...why?   Because I am right and you hate it?   Disprove what I say instead of personal attacks.     That was the problem with Randy T.    I pointed out how he was dead wrong on monitors capabilites so he skated and gave me no credit.   I pointed out he was dead wrong on the interpretation of the code because you must start with accuracy first.

I am not "making" anyone do anything.    You guys can't stand it because I don't stoop to the level of sacrificing accuracy to create a so called artisitic vision that no one can possibly know without being exactly into the programmers head.

Meanwhile one can have the filters on a bettered rendered picture to begin with!!  You can have it both ways.

The only thing that I did was post pictures of what the card was capable of, and furthermore defended an LCD monitor as a fine display.

But instead people like you call me names when I forced NOTHING on you guys.    You don't like it fine.    You don't care about accuracy fine.   Just don't put me down for it.

I like square pixels because that is exactly what was in the original code.   PERIOD.   

Now be done, because it is clear you like the others are incapable of being civilized.

I recently had a friend over and showed him the difference and while he wasn't blown away he did see it...especially on older games.    I do laugh because most people don't care that much about the difference.

I admit, I am not like most people.   Big deal.   I didn't put down anyone else for wanting their vision.   Why are so many putting me down for wanting mine?   Especially when using logic you gotta know that I am making sense.    Truth is truth.   You cannot twist it.   The code is the "DNA" of Arcades.     To argue anthing else is absurd.

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2007, 03:32:15 pm »
The code is the "DNA" of Arcades. 

First off, you argue about CRT vs LCD then bring in the irrelevant point of code being the "DNA" of arcades. 
arcade do not have Deoxyribonucleic Acid, so I don't get it. Also, some say that innovations in games and graphics; the social value, and the challenge is what made arcades great, and while you can say no one would have played any games without code, I can say no code would have been written if no one was playing the games.

Secondly, at no point did I call you an idiot. I am saying your "argument" is idiotic.  You don't seem to realize that unless you were the programmer ,you haven't the foggiest idea of what they wanted. The end result of their artistic vision was achieved with them full well knowing the limits of any and all technology at the time. You SCREAM code over and over and over without realizing the the CODE is being emulated perfectly on 90% of the games. you also claim monitors had no limits in what they can show..... I'm pretty sure there weren't any monitors in 1977  that could  display 2048*1536 in 32 bit color, is that your alleged chip limit or perhaps the technological limit of the cathode tubes at the time

You claim to not be putting anyone down, but saying that your point is the only valid one is quite insulting to all. Ive been on this forum a very long time and more often then not I was reading and not preaching my opinion as the word of the lord. Message boards are for the spreading and mixing of everyones ideas and ideals. I've read many replies of RandyT's over numerous threads and Ive come to respect his opinion a great deal; you how ever are far too pig headed and unwaivering in your opinion to validate further posting in this or any other thread concerning you and your alleged "opinion"

As for you being "right" (and subsequently me "hating it") scroll up a little and you'll see my answer to that, opinion is opinion and is never right nor wrong; so you are right in having that opinion you are wrong in thinking that opinion is fact when its not. Your opinion is yours, and while others may share it, its practically guaranteed others WONT.

The problem is no one even know what your point is. If you are saying LCD is a better display then a CRT tube; thats fine, and thats your opinion. But then whats the point of saying the programmer were limited to CRTs then say that CRTs can display anything, understand now why no one understands you?

More often then not I prefer to have my games arcade accurate but certain games like Mortal Kombat look better to me in MAME on my LCD  then on my arcade machine running the PCBs, does that mean everyone should like that? NO! because its what I prefer not what everyone else SHOULD prefer. I have no problem with for example, RandyT thinking Mortal Kombat should look arcade perfect if possible, its what he wants so he should go for it!

I feel like the level of redundancy of my text is staggering but I know you'll completely miss the point. And also, I only used RandyT's name as a reference point I have no idea what he thinks Mortal Kombat should look like, but I respect it :)


just for the heck of it, heres UMK3 running on
1) Arcade 25" monitor
2) MAME cab, 27" VGA monitor 640x480 resolution
3) my PC, running MAME, 512x384 on my DCL LCD 19" monitor

I admit UMK3 looks better to me on my LCD, but even though it looks "better" its not arcade accurate. I think PacMan looks weird running on my LCD, too sharp too crisp, but looks "perfect" to me on my MAME cab
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #50 on: July 15, 2007, 11:53:05 pm »
First of all, I appreciate your detailed response to the fullest extent.   There is no reason for any of us to get personal.   My apologies if I haven't followed the rules.

Now, you and I both know what was meant by the "DNA" comment.  In other words it is the basis.   Thats all I meant.   I hope you weren't being serious, arcades are quite mechanical.   Me being on a sequencing project at one time, I am can quite tell what is living and what is not.  METAPHOR

If one is going to play games with any kind of accuracy that should be done right.   That is getting the basic building block of the arcade projected in the best possible manner.

I do understand that I am not the programmer and I don't pretend to know what they wanted as far as final display...BUT I do know what they wanted when it comes to what was prorgrammed to begin with!

The code may be emulated perfectly, but my quam is how it is being displayed.   Even with arcade monitors distortion was happening from the word CRT.    Color bleeding, relection, edge distortion..etc.    LCD's have none of these problems because they are purely digital.   

I think you misunderstood my arguement about monitors.   Randy was saying that Pacman was programmed intentionaly "boxy" because of the limitations of displays at the time.   I am blowing the BS whistle from the word go.   Monitors weren't 1080p, but they also weren't limited to 252 resolution either!    It was obviously the limit of the chip.   This is undisputed.  Did you really think I needed to have it pointed out that there weren't such high resolution monitors?

Now as for my "preaching", quite the contrary.  I am defending my points.    I too have been reading Randy T for a long time and I am simply challenging his falicies that have come to full bloom on this very thread.

You say that I am unwaivering in my opinion.  No what I am saying is fact.   Disprove, and then go from there.   The thing is even Randy T agrees with me on the basics, it is his opinions on how programmers felt where we diverge(or maybe not).   I just don't pretend to know.   

As for LCD's looking better.   Yes I do support this, but I can't make people like them. 

BUT it wasn't just the LCD, it was it paired with the Arcade VGA card!   The "boxy" look was how the original look before the crappy monitors "fixed" this.    I have said it before and I will say it again.    If you want scan lines an LCD can draw those too.   If you want any other effects that mask the original code, then go for it.    Just don't tell me it is more accurate before even interpretting correctly.

Multiple pixels representing(using smart software) will give better results then just simply upscaling.   It has always made no sense to me how a monitor with better resolution is a bad thing???

It is only a bad thing when not utilized to its full extent.    Good software can actually be superior to the old CRT monitors because of the numerous reasons I have laid out before....that and you don't have to kill yourself putting one into your arcade.

Most things that have been said to be drawbacks to LCD's are either A. Myths to begin with, or B. Rectified with technology.

You can lead a horse to water....

Incidently, your pictures are fantastic, but not exactly the discrete resolution of a the 401x256 specialized resolution put out by the arcade VGA.   I still wish I knew how they got there, but the picture is wonderful.

What is the best way to take pictures without blur??   I have a 7.2 megapixel camera, do you know of the best option??
   
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 12:55:42 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2007, 01:44:54 am »
I still am not sure what the argument is.....

If you are wondering why people dont use LCD's in their MAME cabs Im pretty sure its the cost of a 20"+ LCD monitor; nothing more nothing less. If I could put a 27" LCD in my MAME cab and it only cost the $85 or so my CRT did, it'd be an LCD instead.

As for pictures being taken without blur, your best bet is a tripod or holding really still. On my camera using the flash seems to help, but I didn't use the flash on the pix above.

I still say Pac-Man looks silly on my LCD without any effects to "mask the original code"
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #52 on: July 16, 2007, 02:57:19 am »
Prices getting cheaper all the time...

As for Pacman looking silly...of course it will when upscaled to your numbers!

I cannot say enough how the video card I stated a thousand times before, fixes the problems using multiple pixels.   

Seeing is believing.   Pacman looks 100% improved and comparing it with the arcade, I definetly give it the edge.   

Thanks for the advice.   I need a tripod anyway.   

How many megapixel do you have??

Incidently, my critique of the pics above.   The only thing making the arcade screen "apear" ok is the scanlines masking the effect.    A illusion.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 03:00:30 am by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6882
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 03:33:28 pm
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #53 on: July 16, 2007, 09:00:29 am »
I think you misunderstood my arguement about monitors.   Randy was saying that Pacman was programmed intentionaly "boxy" because of the limitations of displays at the time.   I am blowing the BS whistle from the word go.   Monitors weren't 1080p, but they also weren't limited to 252 resolution either!    It was obviously the limit of the chip.   This is undisputed.  Did you really think I needed to have it pointed out that there weren't such high resolution monitors?

No, this is NOT what I have been saying at all, and if you believe otherwise, your reading comprehension abilities are in need of attention.

My posts on the matter speak for themselves and I'll thank you not to continue to put words in my mouth.

RandyT

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #54 on: July 16, 2007, 06:37:01 pm »
Lets take a look at some of your comments.

Quote
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.

This statment makes absolutely no sense.   You are implying that artists purposely created square pixels???

Why on earth would anyone INTENTIONALLY program like crap??   Do you honestly think that someone would program the dots in pacm in anything but round if they could!!

Quote
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.

How else can one interpret this comment?  Now which is it Randy, are the chips the bottle neck or the monitors?

Quote
Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.

Here is more of those gems.

So again, the implication that the monitor was the bottle neck and programmers were held back from the lack of a good display.   LMFAO!

All that 700+ of interlaced video kept the programmers from producing mind blowing graphics!   So that is why a specialized 224x288 display was used???    Again, nothing to do with the limitations of the chip. 

Oh and I suppose Atari games looked so "blocky" because of the limitations of the "bad" home displays as well.   :laugh2:

Nothing to do with 4kb worth of game there.

For more evidence of the logic, look at the picture pointed out as "proof".    It was all because of those crappy displays.   ::)


Each to their own....

But lets get to the whole point of the thread that I have said numerous times.

Ok, lets say for instance that the desired effect is to be filtered/round etc.

DOES IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A DISPLAY SHOWN CORRECTLY IN THE FIRST PLACE????

Whether you are using CRT or LCD or Plasma etc...

You must have an accurate ratio.    Starting with a stock resolution of 1024x768 or 640x480 or 800x600 is aproximation as opposed to using DISCRETELY programmed resolution like the 401x256 for Mortal Kombat SPECIFICALLY with the Arcade VGA!!

Utilizing all pixels possible by using multiple pixels to represent one is much more accurate and effecient especially using good "smart" software which knows when to double and when not too as opposed to the stock resolutions mentioned above.    Randy doesn't think so.

Forget the card, how about the simple concept that I outlined above??

Even an arcade monitor approximates because of the crap way that it displays.    All the flaws you speak of mar the picture and hurt the original accuracy.     Even with scan lines...larger dot pitch, it is robbing paul to pay mary.

At least with an LCD all the physical problems are eliminated and what is left is a pure DIGITAL picture that displays the code correctly before special effects like crap scanlines/reflection etc tear down the picture.....even if Randy says that it is in a "good way".






« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 06:53:27 pm by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6882
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 03:33:28 pm
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #55 on: July 16, 2007, 11:23:52 pm »
As I wrote before, maybe there were very specialized displays with greater resolution (I don't really know for sure as I'm going from what you stated, even though you've provided no references to back it up).  I'm sure there were more powerful processors and lots of (very low density) memory, but those things were far too expensive to be put into a machine that had to pay for itself 25 miserable cents at a time.  So regardless of what was technically achievable, they were not always practical, making the consideration of what you think "could have been" quite moot.  There were all kinds of limitations that had nothing to do with technology, rather sound business principles and with what was cost effective.  However, the programmers / artists of the day still had to do the best they could with what they had to work with and that is exactly what they did, whether you wish to believe it or not.

Furthermore, that's precisely why your Atari 2600 (assuming you actually ever owned one) didn't have spectacular graphics as well.  Cheap processor, little memory and an RF connection to a fuzzy TV set.  But don't think for one moment that the programmers and artists didn't work night and day to try to make the best looking and best playing game they could given all of those limitations.  Every nuance of that machine was exploited, including bugs and undocumented features to do things that the original hardware designers would have said were impossible.  If you think for a moment that they didn't try to arrange the pixels in such a way to take advantage of a fuzzy TV display, then I don't know what else to say.  And if you want to see something really ugly, take a look at a 2600 game, in full-screen,  on an LCD display.  I'd rather have a TV (or an effect that approximated one ) to soften the display of those big blocks, just as the game designers expected the TV to do when the code was written.

From what you have written, it is my opinion that you've never written a single line of machine code in your entire life and that you probably weren't even alive in the 80's, let alone ever designed graphics for older machines and displays.  You also don't seem to have even the most basic grasp on the things that are done in business to make a marketable product.  What is it exactly about who you are, your occupation, your past experiences, etc. that makes you feel so qualified to interpret for others what I write, or makes you expect others to take your words as definitive?  Please don't answer with more of that "Rainman-style special in-bred skillz" stuff, just something (anything) substantive.  The fact that you have yet to offer this type of information, you constantly dodge direct questions that might lead to meaningful technical discussion and  that the post that began this thread was the first you made, makes it appear very much like you are here primarily as either a troll or a shill.

As with a good deal of other community members who participate in these forums, everything I write is based on experience, having "been there, done that and still doing it."  If what you have written is based on that premise as well, I am genuinely interested in knowing how you have managed to deviate so profoundly from the views others have here as this topic is concerned.

Once again, please stop trying to interpret for others what I write.  It doesn't need interpreting and you have yet to do it correctly. 

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 11:26:38 pm by RandyT »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2007, 03:10:33 am »
Now this is getting really funny.

So now you are saying that the big "blocks" were done to bypass the interlaced effect.

NO Einstein.   4kb is 4kb and there wasn't a television around that could not handle anything and everything that an Atari 2600 put out.

Incidently, yes I did own the machine as I stated before, as well as Pong, a Colecovision, a Vic 20, a Commodore 64(of which I copied more then a few "arcade close" games), Apple, Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, Game Boy, N64, Playstation, Dreamcast, and finally PS2.

Not to mention the standup arcade I built to relive my memories of the thousands of dollars in quarters I spent.   

Now do I need to further dig out my family pictures to show you the first Christmas that I got an Atari as a tyke?    DIMWIT.

I am very aware of the RF outputs and the millions of switch boxes that I went through the years.   I am also very aware that the games looked very boxy then, and the "fuzzy" TV was absolutely ZERO hinderance on the graphics.   Do you understand that an RF unit at WORST is able to put out well over 200 lines of resolution.

But hey, you bring up a great point...not only was the processor limited, but so was the frickin signal that gets there.    Again, so this translates as bad for a monitor that can draw that many more pixels representing just one??

I brought up Calculus because it is a fundamental theorem for integrals.    Pick an integral and fill it up with rectangles.  You do understand that the more rectangles used, the closer you are going to get to the original shape right?   For example...like in a sine curve...minimum or maximum.

You claim to have so much expertise, yet you have no concept of anything that I have written.   Do I understand that programmers took SOME advantage of their limitations.   Absolutely.   Do I believe that they would purposely make anything more blocky...HELL NO.

You see the difference?    Don't think for a moment that anything was kept from being a circle to keep some kind of artistic standpoint...don't be absurd.

Even with scanlines...bad signal...color bleeding...etc.   A CIRCLE is going to look better then a BLOCK.   Get this through Randy, and listen good.   IF THEY COULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE!

Now looking at your last post, I do believe I have pushed a button, even to the point of you calling me every name in the book without knowing a single thing about me.   You claim you know so much about how an artist/programmer thinks, yet you are making the same assumptions about me as a person, even down to my very life experience at video games and having more then enough experience to be able to make the most simplistic observations.

The difference between you and me is that I have used what you have written, and you have taken a holier then thou approach and even personally attacked everything that is me!

Only a fool would keep repeating that you have to be this kind of person or that kind of person...as if it holds more weight.   

Look at what is written, and not what you "feel".    As I said before,  the greatest minds in the world had little concept of the subject matter that they excelled in....yet they were able to make conclusions that even the most experienced scientists..inventors...mechanics etc...could not see!

Though I must stress...I am hardly a rookie.    Its just irrelevant to this conversation.   As it should be on your end.   Have some class.

Incidently, what questions have I dodged?  What "PROOF" have you brought to the table.   You don't even know that a pixel is SQUARE!

How is anything I have said so "profoundly different" then everyone else?   I even fail to see how you come to the conclusion that I have somehow deviated from popular view.   Quite the contrary...most of what I have said can be easily looked up.    Matter of fact, you know it too.

So I challenge you...please tell me.  WHERE AM I WRONG.   I have pointed out your mistakes and you dodge...dodge...dodge.   It is all there plain as day.   

Hell I didn't even intrepret that much...I just quoted you and stated the obvious.

Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them.    Randy is wrong.   

« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 03:22:18 am by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6882
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 03:33:28 pm
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2007, 03:26:27 am »
Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them.    Randy is wrong.   

It's official.

 :troll:

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #58 on: July 17, 2007, 03:28:44 am »
 :laugh2:

When you have nothing to add, you resort to more name calling.   I knew people like you once.   Go back to the playground.   


Singapura

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
  • Last login:April 24, 2015, 08:43:05 pm
  • I, for one welcome our new insect overlords!
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #59 on: July 17, 2007, 03:56:28 am »
Guys, you've made my day. I haven't read a spirited discussion like this since the days of vinyl vs CD (I'm a regular at audio fora). I know this is my first post on this forum but I'm not a newcomer to the arcade scene. Can I add a little bit to the discussion? IMHO it's not only the pixel size or native resolution that gives dedicated CRT monitors the edge over LCD screens. The curve of the screen as well gives a whole other look and feel to the game. Even the way outside light reflects on the screen adds to the arcade "feel"  Is there a software way to recreate this for LCD monitors? If computers can recreate Optimus Prime, they should be able to do the same for "imperfections" that give Mame games that "authentic" touch.
Wish list: Galaga, Pacman, Pooyan, Star Wars cockpit, Gauntlet, Tron

And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #60 on: July 17, 2007, 04:38:00 am »
I know I know, and those scratches in records give such a nostalgic feel....

Yep been there too..

Though I think the old debate was Vinyl vs CD....now its DVD-A, which there is no comparison!

I swear there are analog people that still claim they can tell the difference...I should have seen the pitfall on this one.   Thx for pointing it out though.    It is so hard not to step in crap when it is spread around like landmines.  :D

p.s. 
Quote
If computers can recreate Optimus Prime, they should be able to do the same for "imperfections" that give Mame games that "authentic" touch.

Its called Arcade VGA and the new way of showing lower resolutions is fantastic!
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 04:40:22 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2007, 10:21:49 am »
NO Einstein.   4kb is 4kb and there wasn't a television around that could not handle anything and everything that an Atari 2600 put out.

Now do I need to further dig out my family pictures to show you the first Christmas that I got an Atari as a tyke?    DIMWIT.

So much for no name calling eh?

You claim to have so much expertise, yet you have no concept of anything that I have written.   Do I understand that programmers took SOME advantage of their limitations.   Absolutely.   Do I believe that they would purposely make anything more blocky...HELL NO.

So I challenge you...please tell me.  WHERE AM I WRONG.   I have pointed out your mistakes and you dodge...dodge...dodge.   It is all there plain as day.   

I'll tell you where you were wrong.  Back in 1979/1980 when they were making Pac Man the programmers and artists made the pellets square with soft color changes so they'd appear round on the display, and they did it on purpose. Why? because it was the most logical way to do it, any change in the hardware such as more memory, faster CPU, higher resolution display; ANYTHING like that; would have increased the production costs and put a hit on the profit line. You seem to think round over square was the most important thing to them when in fact the most important thing was money.


I read back through the entire post and I still cant figure out exactly what your point is. so heres some guesses:

Arcades in 1970-80s should have used LCD displays:
not feasible by any stretch of the imagination

MAME cab builders should use LCDs instead of CRTs:
I'm sure many would if the price wasn't so high. If you can look me in the eye and say its worth $700 for a 28" LCD ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116084 ) instead of gutting a $150 27" TV then you're just insane and theres no point in even posting.

We would have enjoyed video games more if stuff was round and not square:
thats opinion again, I think everything looked stunning considering when it was made and the fact stuff was blocky had little to no effect on me or the millions of others that played in arcades.

Programmers and artists wanted to make square stuff:
its not that they wanted to, its that they needed to in order to get the game made with their budget.

You are right:
no. You have your opinion and I have mine, neither is right or wrong.

RandyT is a dimwit:
umm no, hes awesome sauce and he runs groovy game gear and I'm saving up to buy a turbo twist 2 spinner from him, because simply put , it looks amazing

with that out of the way I'll say this, eventually arcade makers thought like you and started dumping a lot of money into games and while they didn't use LCDs for displays they started making higher resolution games that used expensive CPUs and stereo sound, high polygon counts and hard drives; know what happened then?  yeah thats right, arcades died. profit > LCDs
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

Patent Doc

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • Last login:March 25, 2021, 12:07:33 pm
  • My wife says I'm the fastest man alive :(
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2007, 11:05:23 am »
OK, I have to enter into this one...and not because I know anything about displays or programming...cause we all know I don't, but because I do understand language, arguments, and I'm unbiased.  However Genesim, I think you are still misunderstanding RandyT.  My take on what RandyT is saying is that the programmers for Arcade games and the home gaming systems were well aware of the limitations before them when creating these games be they economically induced or technological.  With respect to the monitor, realising they had a crappy display to work with, they took advantage of the drawbacks to turn turn the bad into good (you know make lemons into lemonade).  They would tweek the pixels to take advantage of the image was displayed to make the image look as much like they wanted as possible.  If this meant they made something more blocky because when displayed it would look smoother due to the shortcomings of the display, then they did it.  If what they wanted to represent didn't need such tweeking then they would do this.  In some cases, the display wasn't the limit, but other factors such as budget or the computer hardware.  That said the programmers were always making the best product possible given the constraints.  It is guess work and opinion to suppose what they wanted beyond what was displayed.  Furthermore, it is incorrect to surmise that what was programmed was intended to be better than what resulted.  It is highly unlikely that any programmer would create a game using a display other than what would be used in reality.  The reason for this is that the programmer would be able to visualize the creation and modify as neccessary to arrive at the best product.  No doubt given a better monitor and a larger budget, more could have been done, but they would know this was a limitation and worked within the constraints.

RandyT if I missunderstood or missrepresented your statements...I apologize...

As far as DVD-A vs Analog, Genesim you are really showing your ignorance here.  Yes, DVD-A is far superior to CD.  Less information is compressed and more information encoded resulting in a far more accurate representation of the work.  However, the media is still made up of 1 and 0 and is missing everything in between.  Analog has far more information.  To analogize, think your integral example.  Where as DVD-A has many many squares to represent the area under curve and may be really close, the analog recording is the curve no approximation necessary.  Pops, scratches, and hiss that you've heard are do to the poor quality of your equipment.  A clean vinyl record, played on a quality turntable, with a quality needle will sound better.  DVD-A or any other digital medium is shrill and cold.  The problem is (and this is why only audiophiles tend to argue for analog) that you can get a good DVD-A player for under $2000 and good enough for most people's hearing under $300.  However, a quality turntable and needle will set you back over $10,000 (no a technics MK-1200 is not quality even if every DJ uses it...its a work horse not quality).  Sound is an analog media is it neither discrete nor unwaivering.  The exception here would be techno stuff and synth pop created entirely in the digital domain.  There digital would be more accurate,  but arguable it would still sound harsh and shrill.

Patent Doc
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 11:34:29 am by Patent Doc »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2007, 01:19:22 pm »
I have to admit that looking at some of the arguements that others have many of the things that what have been said are based more on a religion rather then what is actually true.   

Following a certain medium because of the love for it, over what is techincally superior.

Malenko,

I called Randy a dimwit because of putting me down over my experience with video games over my points that were being made.     Not only does he have no clue about my background and has made assumption after assumption in his history over mine....but the actual audacity to think that it even matters!

There are some MAME devs that I read about who didn't even own anything before a Nintendo.    It takes nothing away from their accomplishments and I wouldn't take anything away even if they never even saw a video game before.   Knowledge comes from the NOW.    Some pick up things faster than others, and I said before, experience does not dictate achievement....it just merely helps in some cases.     

I just had a girl in my field who came up with a fingerprinting technology who knew absolutely nothing about the work, but yet she was able to see the most simplistic observation that no one else found through over a century of study.     A dimwit is one who would personally attack someone rather then tackle the facts.    I admit that I am not immune, but if you take a look at what has been written, Randy took it to the lower depths more then anyone on here...as he has in the past.

Stay tuned...more personal attacks from him to follow...

Quote
Back in 1979/1980 when they were making Pac Man the programmers and artists made the pellets square with soft color changes so they'd appear round on the display, and they did it on purpose. Why? because it was the most logical way to do it, any change in the hardware such as more memory, faster CPU, higher resolution display; ANYTHING like that; would have increased the production costs and put a hit on the profit line. You seem to think round over square was the most important thing to them when in fact the most important thing was money.

And I still call BS.   I repeat over and over.   Why would anyone purposely in this example make a OCTAGON(made up of squares) over a circle if they were able to make a circle?   Other then making the pellets bigger so they can be seen, there is no way that anyone would PURPOSELY do it.    The display was the easy part.    Hence the odd screen size.     The display catered to the code... not the other way around.

But hey, I will concede.   You got it people.   You are all right.   So what does that have to do again with creating an accurate display FIRST over effects later?     Even if you use an arcade monitor at 640x480 what exactly is the benefit again?     Unless you have the original monitor design, aren't you going to have the same kind of losses that you are spending so much money to achieve?


Quote
Arcades in 1970-80s should have used LCD displays

I never said that or even implied it.   LCD's were not affordable, and not technically advanced.   Only recently in the last couple of years have LCD displays been really affordable without ghosting.   Back then it would make no sense.    Now if you have todays LCD displays.   ABSOLUTELY!

As for home displays.   If cost is such an issue, stick to your butts on the floor or the run down CRT monitors.   But I am not trying to force anyone to do anything.   

As for TV with S-Video, that is laughable at best.    TV's may be more then enough for some games, but you cannot get away from the signal lost by going analog with comb filters etc...   The cost of TV's that would do any good are better left toward getting an LCD display, but hey to those that like to throw money away, go for it.     To some it doesn't matter.   Many of those same people enjoy VCR tapes.   More power to them.   

Quote
We would have enjoyed video games more if stuff was round and not square:

No actually people enjoyed Pacman quite a bit in all its squareness with the ILLUSION that it was round.   I too want that as well.   Difference is that I am starting from the ground up and with every bit of technolgy, the truth will get even closer....without the hernia inducing CRT displays.


Quote
Programmers and artists wanted to make square stuff

I never said that.   I said it is what they did!   It is in the code, and the fact that so many have tried to argue otherwise is laughable.    Everytime I hear someone say it is "too blocky" it says to me that they don't understand that the original code was written that way.

Now if that means they want to have the ILLUSION that it was smoother...I am there with them.   BUT the difference with me, is that I will choose effects after I have first got the display right.    640x480 on Pacman is attrocious.    352x288 is much closer(the extra pixels on the horizontal are dedicated to black screen) to the original vision.   

As for me being right.   Yes I do believe that I am, and it would be nice if you actually disproved any of my observations above instead of repeating the same things Randy T has said.

My point with him has always been...you cannot get inside the programmers mind, so he cannot know.   But what is without a doubt provable is who the original code was written, and using a one to one DIGITAL display is putting exactly what was written up on the screen.    The rest of the crap like scan lines can be easily made artificially.

Quote
with that out of the way I'll say this, eventually arcade makers thought like you and started dumping a lot of money into games and while they didn't use LCDs for displays they started making higher resolution games that used expensive CPUs and stereo sound, high polygon counts and hard drives; know what happened then?  yeah thats right, arcades died. profit > LCDs

And I am glad they did.   Otherwise we all would still be in the arcades at 50.  I actually prefer the advancements and enjoy playing games online(arcade or otherwise) without having to meet someone to get good gameplay.

Arcades were fun and I wouldn't change it for the world.    Spending literally my paycheck was a blast, and I actually lost one girlfriend to a buddy that was watching....but in the end, I cherish the experience more then the girl.    There have been many of those...but only one high score!   :dizzy:

Patent Doc,

I will revert you back to what I have written to others but a few points:

Quote
With respect to the monitor, realising they had a crappy display to work with..

Again, this isn't true.   The "crappy" displays were enough to display much higher resolutions.   The problem is that todays technology with windows XP etc have locked in displays and most people have to sacrfice to get the game at all.

LCD's by design have the advantage with a locked on display.    Software changes alot of the problems before.

Quote
Furthermore, it is incorrect to surmise that what was programmed was intended to be better than what resulted.  It is highly unlikely that any programmer would create a game using a display other than what would be used in reality.  The reason for this is that the programmer would be able to visualize the creation and modify as neccessary to arrive at the best product.  No doubt given a better monitor and a larger budget, more could have been done, but they would know this was a limitation and worked within the constraints.

Thats the problem.   So many on here absolutely believe this fodder.   The truth is that the display was made for the limitations of the chips.    The technology of better displays was already out there.    As you will see in later years.   Displays didn't get any better, yet chipsizes changed drastically.    Go through MAME history and see for yourself.   

I mean this in all sincerity.   It is foolishness to believe that programmers were inhibited by displays.    But I will say the same to you.

Who cares.    Lets say you are right.    Does it make sense to interpret the code wrong first???    Why would anyone choose 640x480 over 352x288 if they had a choice???

Finally the analog vs digital.

In theory superior.    In fact, no way to capture it.    Records are inferior in every way shape and form.   Cannot produce above 70db's effectively.    Cannot produce lowere then 30db's without getting hum from the motor being by revolutions other physical means.    Losing quality with every play no matter how much money you spend(physics 101).   

CD's at 24 bit over 144db.   Can represent almost the full range without degradation.   Sampling rates way beyond what the human ear can hear.    Do not degradade like records.    Each and every CD is pressed the same by design because it is all one's and zero's.    No two records can ever be the same because of how they are pressed.

DVD AUDIO and SACD.   Redundant.   More improvements that even further put the nail in the coffin.

The "warm" sound is an urban legend from people that have no understanding of the technology.   The first cd's were taken from masters used for vinyl.   The "harsh/shrill" is for deadheads that are used to listening to muffled records that have been degraded over time with their "10,000" dollar equipment.   Physics...you cannot escape this.  Enuff said.

No matter how good the equipment is.   The pops and hisses are there.    It is on the master and no stylus can change this fact.  It may mask it better, but it doesn't change what is there...hmmm much like this whole code arguement.     CRTS are the new Records of the future.  :laugh2:

A 100 dollar DVD-Audio player(from your computer) can nix any arguement over any analog source used to this day.   The "losses" you talk about on the approximation of a sound curve using digital are beyond what the human ear can hear(matter of fact...dogs too!).    If anyone can hear the difference on a 100 khz sample is either A.  BSing.   Or B.   Is feeling and that is a phenomenon that most often cannot be reproduced.

Perception is one thing.   Actually processing it consistently through your brain is something else.     One is much more likely to notice the physical limitations of a record and its lack of depth in most every category.



« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 01:22:47 pm by genesim »

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4544
  • Last login:August 30, 2023, 05:10:22 pm
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2007, 03:10:55 pm »
I have to admit that looking at some of the arguements that others have many of the things that what have been said are based more on a religion rather then what is actually true.   

Nope.  Most people around here are simply trying to reproduce as accurately as possible exactly what they saw in the arcades of the day, while you seem to be after some fictitious, nonsensical blocky version of it that was never ever viewed by anyone in the 80s -- not even the game programmers themselves!!! 

Quote
The display was the easy part.    Hence the odd screen size.     

Odd?  It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"!  ;)

Quote
Everytime I hear someone say it is "too blocky" it says to me that they don't understand that the original code was written that way.

Quote
But what is without a doubt provable is who the original code was written, and using a one to one DIGITAL display is putting exactly what was written up on the screen.


You seem to base all your arguments on your incorrect definition of a pixel (and your obvious lack of programming experience).  A pixel is just a point or dot, not a 'square' like your horrible LCD scaling algorithms produce.  Arcade display devices in the 80s rendered a pixel as a soft dot, not a square.  Fact: your blocky LCD version of Pacman is not authentic -- end of story.  You may prefer it that way, but please refrain from claiming your incorrectly-scaled, blocky version of Mortal Kombat is more accurate than running on the exact same display device as used in the arcades.

Quote
The rest of the crap like scan lines can be easily made artificially.

Utter nonsense.  Even the mamedevs will tell you the effects are at best a meager approximation of the display of an analog CGA CRT.

Quote
Thats the problem.   So many on here absolutely believe this fodder.   The truth is that the display was made for the limitations of the chips.    The technology of better displays was already out there.    As you will see in later years.   Displays didn't get any better, yet chipsizes changed drastically.    Go through MAME history and see for yourself.   

Hmm you say displays were made for the limitations of the "chips", and then say that displays never changed despite improvements in the "chips" over the years.  You just completely contradicted yourself.

I only wish you posted this in a more frequented forum so other regulars could enjoy your "abstract thinking".  :laugh2:

Patent Doc

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
  • Last login:March 25, 2021, 12:07:33 pm
  • My wife says I'm the fastest man alive :(
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2007, 03:26:52 pm »
Genesim

Quote
Lets say you are right.    Does it make sense to interpret the code wrong first???    Why would anyone choose 640x480 over 352x288 if they had a choice???

OK, again...I will preface my comments by saying that I am so not qualified to know the reality here, but I think what everyone else has been saying is that the entire equation affected the display.  Sure a programmer would have designed for VGA rather than CGA given the choice, but that's just it...they likely didn't have a choice.  Making the code for VGA has to be more expensive than CGA (I'm guessing...I don't know Pascal, Fortran, or any other language of the day), which would be one reason the programmer would create a lesser design.  Additionally, there may have been monitor capable of 640x480, but those were expensive and not the ones being used.  The programmers would use the monitor that would be destined for the game and that choice would have been driven by economics as much as anything.  No one is saying that if a VGA monitor was going to be used the code would be written to display a lower resolution.  They are saying that CGA monitors were being used and those monitors are limited to what 352 x 288.  So the programmers would have taken this into account.  Chips may have been expensive and processign power a factor, but OMG CRT's were expensive back then ...particulalry color ones (remember early games were balck and white and if they had color achieved it by a colored display on the front (see Space Invaders)).  The monitor was easily the most expensive part of the cab and a company wanting to make a profit would use the cheapest possible monitor to maximize profits.

Regarding the analog v DVD, FYI pops are caused by static and hiss is due to overamplifying poor signal (i.e., total harmonic distortion).  Neither are experienced with good equipment which as I stated earlier takes in excess of $10K.  The hiss and popes are not part of the record nor the recording.  Good equipment does not mask anything.  Poor equipment will not have the ability to reproduce the frequency nor dynamic range of its high priced cousin without derious distortion.  Remember, the discussion is the medium not the equipment.  Yes records due degrade, friction is a ---smurfette---...but that's why the comparison is with a new record.  Scratches will also cause a problem, but the quality of sound argument is not about the fragility of the medium but its ability, when operating optimumly, to produce the recording.  Regarding the dynamic range and the hum to which you speak, this is more a factor of your equipment than the media.  Dynamic range refers to the differences in volume levels noticeable not the quality of the sound.  Due to how records are displayed, they do have less dynamic range because the background noise is higher.  The better the turntable the lower the noise and better the range.  Admittedly, even the best record with the best turntable will not have the dynamic range of a CD or DVD but that doesn't speak to the harmonics missed by the digital media.  By the way, the approximations that occur in digital media occur over the entire frequency range not just at 100kHz which is about 80KHz above human hearing and in isn't even within the capabilities of the microphones used to record to pick up.  By the way, I have experience as a studio musician and know how things are recorded. Rather than speak without experiencing just give me a fair test.  go to a audiophile equipment store and try a blind study.  You may be suprised.  I say may be suprised, because not everyone can hear the difference....you may not.  However, I bet that you won't say records are worse...you may not say better, but it won't be worse.  And for the record, the warm sound isn't an urban legend...I can hear the difference...and I used warm to explain it ...its like incadescent lights and fluorescent lights....its hard to explain, but the difference is noticeable...you just have to experience it.

Anyway, I've spent to much time rambling.  

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #66 on: July 20, 2007, 08:43:14 pm »
ahofle,

Quote
Nope.  Most people around here are simply trying to reproduce as accurately as possible exactly what they saw in the arcades of the day, while you seem to be after some fictitious, nonsensical blocky version of it that was never ever viewed by anyone in the 80s -- not even the game programmers themselves!!! 

What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.  :laugh2:   Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.   

Quote
It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"! 

I have perfect understanding, and what you don't seem to get is that the display was made specifically for the game.   If you think that monitors were limited by 300 lines it shows even more ignorance on your part.    The tall and narrow display was a manufacturing choice not a hardware limitation.   

You say that LCD's have a horrible algorithm.   Do you know how idiotic that sounds?   It displays what is put in from the source.    Even CRTS aproximate because of the fixed resolution(provided by windows and the limtations of refresh rates being able to display the low resolution...i.e. with out good software it would draw the screen so fast that the refresh rate has to be out of the world to display it!).    The difference is that good software rectifies the inherent problems.   The difference with LCD's is all the other flaws that I mentioned are not paired with it.      Your little fantasy that LCD's are somehow inferior comes from a fundamental lack of knowledge that can be seen directly from your post.    There isn't any lacking, rather it is too good!   That is why as I said a hundred times, good software that doesn't use simple upscaling, but real pixel interpretation can fix this....it isn't rocket science.

Quote
You may prefer it that way, but please refrain from claiming your incorrectly-scaled, blocky version of Mortal Kombat is more accurate than running on the exact same display device as used in the arcades.

Have I ever disputed this?    The problem....who the hell wants to use a 400x256 monitor taht is utterly useless for anything but Mortal Kombat if you care about quality.    BUT on the Arcade VGA they actualy have a close resolution of 401x256 which is a hell of alot better then windows defaulty.    That and, I don't like scan lines.   It isn't part of the original hardware, and while Pacman could have a point, I absolutely don't believe the Midway creators preferred it!   Having MK be my favorite games, I can even hold up for this even more.   

Quote
Utter nonsense.  Even the mamedevs will tell you the effects are at best a meager approximation of the display of an analog CGA CRT.

Again, it is lack of software rather then ability.    Meager....that is a good one though.    Shows more of your limit.

The only thing "meager" is using default 640x480  to represent a resolution of 224x288.   The very same things that many on here claim are a limitation to the LCD are even further a problem for any monitor that is not an exact 1:1 ratio.     

Quote
Hmm you say displays were made for the limitations of the "chips", and then say that displays never changed despite improvements in the "chips" over the years.  You just completely contradicted yourself.

In what universe is this a contraction??   My point was displays didn't change(until later years) in that they were capable from the word go, but chips had to catch up to the capablities of displays that were used back in the 50's.   You know why TV's are somewhat good(despite the fact that an S video is used which defeats all gains) monitors, because they were almost exactly the same ones used 10 years later!!!     The chips were the bottleneck.   I cannot say this enough.     The displays could be made inferior as a cost cutting measure because all the extra resolution was not needed!    Why on earth would anyone use a display with over 500 lines of resolution(which again was readily available long before there ever was a Pacaman) when the chip set would not benefit from it.     

Patent Doc,

Quote
Making the code for VGA has to be more expensive than CGA (I'm guessing...I don't know Pascal, Fortran, or any other language of the day), which would be one reason the programmer would create a lesser design.  Additionally, there may have been monitor capable of 640x480, but those were expensive and not the ones being used.  The programmers would use the monitor that would be destined for the game and that choice would have been driven by economics as much as anything.  No one is saying that if a VGA monitor was going to be used the code would be written to display a lower resolution.  They are saying that CGA monitors were being used and those monitors are limited to what 352 x 288.  So the programmers would have taken this into account.

First of all, this is totally untrue.   Just revert back to what I said to ahofle.

Also you missed the meaning of my quote.    When I said if people have a choice I was referring to NOW.   The video card makes a discrete display by using multiple pixels to create a set of resolution that is more closely related to the old one.    i.e.  352 x 288 to represent 224x288 of Pacman.    The extra pixels is the black bars on the sides.    So many on here are spouting that 640x480 is being used for their arcade display(which of course is windows default) so in esense you are getting that much more approximation.    I don't care how many pixels are being used to achieve the 352x288 as long as the ratio is staying congruent, then the resulting display will be more accurate to the original vison!    The reason the games look so "blocky" is because that is exactly what they were.    Now Randy says they were never meant to be displayed that way.   Well this is a point of arguement, but I counter that they were never meant to be displayed at 640x480.    What he is referring to is in regards to pretty much one thing.  SCANLINES.    That is what smooths out the resolution...that and the fact that you have a crappy analog connection which blurs the image anyway...and of course the nature of a CRT that distorts the sides and gives a camera lense effect.    Even with a flat screen you cannot get away from the fact that the nature the tube makes every pixel unequal.   Oh yeah..can I mention color bleeding yet again.

The digital image shows everything that is there in its ugly glory.    Many on here do not like this.   That is fine, but like records it is nostalgia over reality.  In this case there is even more on my side because the original code is of course DIGITAL, so you cannot say that anything is lost in the traslation.

But still if you want the "effects" you can have that too.   Good artificial scanline implemenation can produce the same result.   That part is easier.   Why...because you are only dealing with the virticle.   You get the aproximation of how wide they are, it is the same as masking your display with just about anything.   But rest assured, it was still an effect, and it was NOT part of the original code.    Again, get that part represented right first and then you can build up from there.

Oh yeah, the records.   Yes some pops are static, and alot of them are SCRATCHES(as well as debris).    They are inherent on the record from the physics of a piece of metal having contiued contact with the surface.   With every play you lose quality.   That is why analog cannot be captured correctly.

Quote
Admittedly, even the best record with the best turntable will not have the dynamic range of a CD or DVD but that doesn't speak to the harmonics missed by the digital media.  By the way, the approximations that occur in digital media occur over the entire frequency range not just at 100kHz which is about 80KHz above human hearing and in isn't even within the capabilities of the microphones used to record to pick up.

Your right on the first part, but you fail to see that even over the entire range it is all covered....more then enough(like 64 times).

I appreciate your discussion, but I hate the Randy approach.   You being a musician has nothing to do with it.   We all have experience, but it isn't really pertinent to the discussion. 

Harmonic range is not even an issue when convered in numbers we are speaking of.    Like I said, the fact that Records don't even capture all of what is in hearing range(i.e. low bass as well as high pitch sounds), but because of the hundreds of other problems, you lose hearing what is range because of physical problems.   

Scratches can be heard on any player and you and I both know it.    If you can hear the scratches logic should tell you that you are losing part of the sound curve.   A loss that FAR out does what is in theory lost from a digital sample.   A human cannot hear 24 bit sampling limitations on the harmonic range.   





« Last Edit: July 20, 2007, 09:05:35 pm by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6882
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 03:33:28 pm
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #67 on: July 21, 2007, 12:38:00 am »
What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.  :laugh2:   Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.   

I guess I need to dispute that then.  Here's what I wrote earlier:

Quote from: RandyT
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.

I probably could have worded that better, but I didn't.  I have the benefit of knowing that graphics for early arcade games were created on graph paper.  In fact, I even referred to that context when I wrote the following just a couple sentences later in the same post:

Quote from: RandyT
You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.

Those graph paper images were what the programmers used as a reference to calculate bit values for the graphics and modified those values once they saw how they were represented on the actual CRT.  In my mind, I too equate that pattern of 1's and 0's with a graph paper matrix, mainly because I actually used it to create graphics in those days. However, the fact is that there was no square grid in reality.  It was just data arranged in  "X,Y" co-ordinate fashion inside a memory chip.  Each 1 or 0 didn't need to be represented as a square. It was just convenient to do so.  It could just as easily have been associated with a grid of circles, or diamonds or even fuzzy little kittens.  The square was not what was important, it was the grid.

Those 0's and 1's were just data until they were transmitted to the CRTs that would be seen by millions at their local game rooms.  Each 1 in data was not a square on those screens.  It could not have been.  Research what a coarse dot pitch, dot-triad picture mask looked like, scale it appropriately and superimpose it over a scanline. Then cut a chunk out of it and add some fuzziness.  That was a pixel. 

I just know that you won't address this question, but if you would, you would know why even if the displays of the day could show a true square, there's no way all pixels could have been square (all sides roughly equal.)  Take a look at how many arcade resolutions there are for the same monitor in the same orientation.  All of those resolutions filled the screens, yet each resolution had varying pixel counts.  How could this be?  The screens didn't get larger or smaller based on the resolutions, so only one thing is possible;  the pixels could not always have the same vertical and horizontal dimensions. 

A horizontally oriented arcade monitor screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio, so to fill it with "square" pixels one would need the resolution to be in the same proportions.  Therefore, a 320x240 resolution would be based on pixels that had roughly equal vertical and horizontal dimensions.  The aspect ratio would be as follows (320 / X) : (240 / X) which comes out to 4:3.  Now lets look at what happens when we use a different resolution, say 256 x 224?  Using the same calculation method, this gives us a 4:3.5 pixel ratio, which means that the pixels would need to be wider than they are tall to fit all of them in the same screen space.  Given that visually perfect rectangles were an impossibility on the displays used, these pixels looked like little horizontally oriented oval blobs. 

RandyT

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #68 on: July 21, 2007, 11:56:15 am »
Now we are getting somewhere.

Maybe I should have prefaced better as well with PROGRAMMED pixels.

But we still have to look at a few things you are saying.

First of all, the one thing that programmers back then cared about(and now as well), cost, speed, memory.

The reason why they didn't draw "kittens" is because it took too much thinking to do so.    They could have given a rats ass as to a circular pixel looking better then square because it was too much money/programming, over getting the product out on the shelves.    I can understand that.

What I don't understand is the silly concept that they purposely drew the pixels that way to make them look better on a CRT display!    For crying out loud.    Displays like that could show movies at full resolution.    The "Splash" screen on many video games looked a hell of a lot better then the moving picture.    That was the bottle neck, not the display.

If one would believe what you are saying, it is kind of like saying that Doom 3 looks a certiain way on the regular game, so it is obviously the limation of the display....YET one ignores the fact that the full motion video that serves as a intro often look better on most any game.    Why....because that doesn't have to be programmed like the in game...it is just played as a movie.     

I do believe they made the square pixels in Pacman on purpose because of easy coordinates to work with.    i.e.   Maybe Pacman himself took about 8x8 pixels to move around(I don't know for sure, this is a guess).    When drawn out on graph paper this was a nice number to program with accounting for dots and pathways etc.

That was the reason why it looked "blocky" and not because of programming to a supposed meager monitor which was WAY more capable then anything the programmers produced at that time or years to come.

Randy, why do you even debate this when you know all I am saying is true?    You guys keep attacking LCD displays when yet the same is true for a CRT display that is at a higher resolution.

The facts are that I do know that the LCD being displayed with multiple pixels declaring one, is an approximation...BUT it is a very good one.    Boxy is absolutely what the programmers meant to do, because it is what they had to work with....given chip limitations, coordinates...money....laziness....time...whatever!

I repeat, if resolution could have been better given those limitations......THEY WOULD HAVE because the displays at the time blew away anything that was put into them!    This isn't that hard to grasp.   This is what was true at the time, and still true now(looking back that is).     Only until recent HD times have chips finally surpassed what a display can produce.   This was absolutely not true back then, and any bit of normal reasoning would tell you what is true.....or I guess I wasn't watching movies when I was younger after all.   Perhaps they were all just blocky displays because that was all that could be shown.  :laugh2:

The arcade vga rectifies the one problem with drawing low displays....not out of this world refresh rate because every pixel of the native resolution is being used to the best advantage to the original vision.   As opposed to the default MAME of given a black border when there is direct draw, or the smudgy upscaling(that of course many on here like because of the ILLUSION of better picture) of direct 3D.

The facts are that I want my resolution as close as possible to the original vision.   And as sorry as it is, BLOCKY is the way it was meant to be seen, because that is what was programmed.   When all the fuzzyness of an ANALOG connection and the scan lines are eliminated, this is what you get.   

This isn't the LCD somehow magically making it appear like ahofle thinks.    Geez dude, do you believe in the Easter Bunny as well??    Maybe there is are little gnomes that actually intercept the code and magically makes it appear blocky just for pacmans and donkey kongs.   But donkey kong uninhibited was fully rendered CGI quality that would make even the real Kong faint from the realness of the graphics. ::)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Randy, I do appreciate your civilized post, and I am not trying to avoid anything you have written.   I actually find some of it to be quite facinating.   But seriously, you and I know both know that displays could have been better given an unlimited chip size/capability.     The splash screens as I mentioned earlier, would often dissapoint me on some games because like in E.T. on the ATARI you would get this cool picture...then when you got to the moving game it was so much worse.     Now do you honestly in your reasoning going to tell me that is why E.T. looked blocky because of the frickin' display limitations given the splash screen I mentioned?????????!!!!!!!!   Or another time you actually blamed the RF connection.

This is real number evidence as opposed to the graphics on the side of the arcade that you used as an example.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 12:25:35 pm by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6882
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 03:33:28 pm
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #69 on: July 21, 2007, 02:50:42 pm »
The reason why they didn't draw "kittens" is because it took too much thinking to do so.    They could have given a rats ass as to a circular pixel looking better then square because it was too much money/programming, over getting the product out on the shelves.    I can understand that.

You still missed the point, so I'm going back to the pictures.  First, a reminder of what I stated in my last post so things stay in context:

Quote from: RandyT
Those graph paper images were what the programmers used as a reference to calculate bit values for the graphics and modified those values once they saw how they were represented on the actual CRT.  In my mind, I too equate that pattern of 1's and 0's with a graph paper matrix, mainly because I actually used it to create graphics in those days. However, the fact is that there was no square grid in reality.  It was just data arranged in  "X,Y" co-ordinate fashion inside a memory chip.  Each 1 or 0 didn't need to be represented as a square. It was just convenient to do so.  It could just as easily have been associated with a grid of circles, or diamonds or even fuzzy little kittens.  The square was not what was important, it was the grid.

Here is the data for a 7x10 pixel arrow graphic in an 8-bit system:

8, 28, 62,127,28,28,28,28,28,28

This is all that exists in code for a bitmapped image.  Kind of hard to see what it's supposed to be, yes?  So lets fix it:


0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0


Hmm...that still doesn't tell us much, but we can at least start to see where the pixels are.  Next step:


7 x 10 Binary Data Grid =

Not bad.  We can start to see the shape of the arrow based on our data.  While not the best visual representation, it is the most accurate in terms of our code.  So now lets see what the same data looks like on graph paper, and what it would look like on any display using purely rectangular pixels:

7 x 10 Graph Paper / LCD Grid =

Well, we can certainly see the pattern more clearly, but to say that it distinctly resembles an arrow would require a fair stretch of the imagination.  Regardless, it too is a perfectly accurate rendering of the data.  Speaking of perfectly accurate renderings of the data, let's talk about fuzzy kittens.  Remember when I said it didn't matter what shapes were used as reference when laying out the data?

7 x 10 "Fuzzy Kitten" Grid =

Awww, aren't they cute?  Once again, perfectly valid references for that line of code above.  If there existed "Kitten graph paper" where a designer could leave the kittens representing 1's and erase those representing 0's, he may have used this tool while coding (especially if he really liked kittens!)  Interestingly enough, due to their shape, they actually create a nicer looking representation of an arrow than the normal graph paper does.

And speaking of better representations, the "coup de grace":

7 x 10 CRT Scanline Grid =

This is the most accurate visual and numeric representation of the code shown above.  It was this representation of the data that was ultimately tweaked to make the best looking images possible on those displays.  See how very different this one appears as opposed to the graph paper, with the very same data?  When they modified the data to better the appearance of an image portrayed in this fashion, it might (and often does) look quite poor on graph paper / LCD / High-resolution monitors with enlarged rectangular pixels.

If this were not so, there would not be special graphics cards or  programs like this one designed to allow these graphics to be viewed as intended.  The MAME devs would also not have spent so much time adding effects that attempt to approximate that appearance.

But as others have stated before me, if playing games as they would appear on graph paper is your bag, that's fine too.  But it's not "authentic" and you don't need a special video card to experience it.  The photos I posted of my LCD panel being driven by a low-end motherboard video chipset is the proof I have offered.  And I didn't even use the recommended method of applying the "prescale" options in MAME when I did it.  Just plain old hardware stretch.

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 04:50:54 pm by RandyT »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #70 on: July 21, 2007, 08:31:10 pm »
And what you don't understand is



Can never be



On a CRT that is 640x480 because



is not possible AND filling up the screen because it is not in the correct resolution, so it can never be



BUT with the Arcade VGA which again uses multiple pixels comes closer to



so therefore with scan lines enabled



or something alot closer can happen!!!!

Do your pictures help you as well?

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #71 on: July 21, 2007, 08:36:05 pm »
that made no sense. The more you reply, genesim, the more foolish you appear. At no time have I even figured out what point you are trying to make. Please, in ONE SENTENCE, state what you are trying to say. Don't use big words, don't use pictures, none of that, just break out some plain old english and state it. I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. The more you type the more I want to punch a baby in the face.
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #72 on: July 21, 2007, 09:35:07 pm »
I have many times.

Pixels are smeared with a 640x480 display with no software rendering.     The picture that the Arcade VGA gives is the "blocky" one that is first demonstrated.     Maybe that was two sentences, but pictures,words...smoke signals won't ever get the point across to people that absolutely don't want to see.  It really isn't that hard.

tetsu96

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Last login:August 11, 2009, 10:53:24 pm
  • MAME On...
    • My Old Cabinet / MAME32 build site
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #73 on: July 22, 2007, 02:47:02 am »
Dang - this thread has been a great laugh, but it hurts my head trying to keep up with everything here.  I've almost posted one or 2 times but I try not to feed the trolls (no offense).  Can't hold my tongue any more I guess.

Quote
Quote
It's very obvious from your posts (and your lack of understanding my joke earlier) that you don't have a clue about CGA CRT monitors (maximum of 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution).  Hint, if you turn them 90 degrees, then they become "tall and narrow"!

I have perfect understanding, and what you don't seem to get is that the display was made specifically for the game.   If you think that monitors were limited by 300 lines it shows even more ignorance on your part.    The tall and narrow display was a manufacturing choice not a hardware limitation.

Maybe afhole was a bit too subtle here (or if your reply was a joke, it was real deadpan cause I missed it) - all arcade CRTs up until very recently were 4x3.  All displayed graphics by drawing left to right and top to bottom (except vector but we're not talking about those).  There is no "tall and narrow" display.  Any arcade monitor you've seen that is tall and narrow is a 4x3 that is mounted at a 90 degree rotation.

Seriously - you can see mounting brackets that allow both rotations in generic cabinets just for that purpose.

Made specifically for the game?  Not really - there's differences in quality and components to be sure, but 15KHz monitors are pretty bread and butter as far as what they do.  JAMMA boards and arcade conversions wouldn't be as popular if monitors were really made "for the game".

Quote
What do you think is happening...LCD's are picking up something that isn't there.  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!   Any "blocky" pixels, are an accurate representation of the original code.    I doubt I will ever get this through to you.   But yes, PIXELS ARE SQUARE!!!   They are not little round "dots" as you think they are.    Truth is truth, and your ignorance of this is astounding.   Even Randy doesn't dispute this.   It is all how they are handled after being presented is what is being debated here.

LCD pixels are square (or at least have square corners, I never checked to be honest).  Graph paper is square as a rule too.  CRTs don't use square pixels - they don't even really have such a thing as a pixel.  Randy gave you the best thing to look up for a better understanding with RGB triad / coarse dot pitch as something to google for further understanding (and really, there's 3 beams instead of just one which is why you'll possibly read about convergence and other stuff, but you don't have to worry about it with LCDs).

There's a link to a site in a few threads here that really go into that which was posted in the last good argument about screen technology.  I forget if it was Randy or Andy who posted it, but it went into how screen draws work on CRTs and is worth reading or at least glancing at.

I've read some of your replies and I have a hard time really understanding what you think is happening.

And what you don't understand is



Can never be



On a CRT that is 640x480 because



is not possible AND filling up the screen because it is not in the correct resolution, so it can never be



BUT with the Arcade VGA which again uses multiple pixels comes closer to



so therefore with scan lines enabled



or something alot closer can happen!!!!

Do your pictures help you as well?

Help me out - you don't really think 640x480 is the output that arcade CRTs use, do you?  I don't know what "multiple pixels" means in your context, but the whole point of the AVGA is to output the original 15KHz resolutions.  You're not upscaling with the card in your case, that's the LCD which is doing it.  If the AVGA was connected to a CRT, the linedraws should be the correct height and width.  Depending on the sharpness / focus / dot pitch of the CRT it was hooked up to, you may or may not see scanlines.

Just to clarify - MAME running at 640x480 will distort regardless of LCD vs CRT.  A CRT may be more pleasing because of it's softness, or an LCD because of it's sharpness, but either way it's off.  The fundamental difference of the technologies is that CRTs don't necessarily have a fixed resolution, which allows you to dial in exactly what the original games used (or some multiple as PC monitors don't typically go that low).  LCDs do, and that means unless the game is designed for that resolution in mind, you're scaling.  And unless you scale evenly, you will artifact in some way.

I'm probably just spoiled - been using AdvanceMAME for over 3 years now and all the games I play look "pixel perfect" on coarse dot pitch multisync monitors.  But that's me, and who cares what I think about my setup - if you like yours, then go with it.  Nobody has a problem with you liking your AVGA on your rig, the only objection was spreading misinformation in your review and then further postings.  Having a preference on what's best = subjective opinion.  How CRTs and LCDs work = not so subjective opinion.  What looks most accurate - depends on definition of accurate I suppose, but not that subjective if you're trying to replicate the arcade experience 100%.  More subjective if you only need 80% fidelity or less.

MrQuan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Last login:October 30, 2008, 03:47:14 am
  • Well, at least you threw a punch...
    • Tilt Arcade - Check it out!
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #74 on: July 22, 2007, 03:53:25 am »
genesim,

Go use your LCD, all the best, I'm glad you found your preference. :applaud:

Can I try to explain something to you though? Not my argument I know, but this is a public forum after all. :) The way an arcade monitor back in the day displays an image is very different to the way an LCD does.  The programmers worked on arcade monitors, developed their games on them, tested and released their games on them, that was their intened result! How can you interpret this any other way?! Displaying old games on an LCD changes how the game looks.  I have a 22" Samsung LCD on my desk here with 2ms refresh and 3000:1 contrast, looks great for my windows PC - you know documents and high-res games etc., but I would never use this in my cab.  I have a 29" arcade monitor for this.  It's how I remember the games and how they were intended to look.

Use your LCD, that's cool, whatever.  But dude, you're arguements are not making much sense to me.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #75 on: July 22, 2007, 02:02:14 pm »
What makes no sense is that the game developers never used a 640x480 resolution monitor??????  You have a 29 inch monitor that has many differences from the Pacman arcade that is displaying at incorrect resolution...yet that is ok(barring this only applys if you don't have the card-LCD wasn't possible till recently)??   

Most every single one of you are speaking from absolute ignorance because you do not have the new card that uses the multiple pixel calculations that gives a closer result over a multi-sync monitor that only has a set number of prefixed displays.

Thats right I will continue to use my NON DISTORTED, CLOSER TO ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, WITH NO REFLECTION PROBLEM, WITH NO BURN IN, WITH NO HERNIA, and finally WITH NO RELIGIOUS LIKE DEVOTION.

Unlike many of you guys, I do not continue to embrace an old technology without an open minded approach to the fact that CRT's are archaic and are becoming just as obsolete as old records.   

Blind devotion, that is all it is.    The fact that many of you cannot get the most absolute simple point makes me believe that you aren't seeing, because you do not want to see.

I answered your questions now any of you answer this.

Yes or no.    Did monitors display property that was able to outdo anything that a vintage game back then was capable of?

Do you really seriously take it all a step further and believe that a monitor back then was only able to display 16 colors???

There is a distinct difference between PROGRAMMED display vs real world displays that are used in the arcade.   The problem with most of you is you don't understand the fundamental difference that you are only as authentic as your weakest link.

Most of you have not even bothered to read what I have wrote.   You are too busy witch hunting over actually digesting my simple point that I have never waivered from the get go.   It remind me of tools that get a big screen display and yet don't bother to use the most simple connection to hook up their vision....like say a purely digital HDMI over a composite cable??!!

If you even got my point from the beginning, I am not even arguing just for LCD, it is just what I have.    Though you cannot get away from the fact that you lose quality (as the original programmers wouldn't have wanted if they would have been given an affordable choice) by using an ANALOG connection over a digital one.

You guys wanna keep playing blind, go walk with the shepherd.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2007, 02:08:49 pm by genesim »

krutknut

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
  • Last login:February 08, 2012, 01:17:50 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #76 on: July 22, 2007, 02:43:23 pm »
Genesim, how about some pictures of your screen running pacman with that arcade vga card?
So that we can see what you are talking about.

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #77 on: July 22, 2007, 05:34:06 pm »
Unlike many of you guys, I do not continue to embrace an old technology without an open minded approach to the fact that CRT's are archaic and are becoming just as obsolete as old records.   

Blind devotion, that is all it is.    The fact that many of you cannot get the most absolute simple point makes me believe that you aren't seeing, because you do not want to see.

Its not blind devotion, most of us are simply stating we prefer the same hardware they used in arcade for our cabinets, something you cant seem to grasp.  No one is saying that for modern day applications CRTs are better then LCDs.

I answered your questions now any of you answer this.
Yes or no.    Did monitors display property that was able to outdo anything that a vintage game back then was capable of?

Can you repeat that in english?

Do you really seriously take it all a step further and believe that a monitor back then was only able to display 16 colors???

No one said that, or anything even close to that. What was said was that programmers did what they could with what they had given the limits of technology and cost.


Most of you have not even bothered to read what I have wrote. It remind me of tools that get a big screen display and yet don't bother to use the most simple connection to hook up their vision....like say a purely digital HDMI over a composite cable??!!

We just cant figure out what the f#cK youre trying to say, if english is not your native tongue I can understand, but you seem to either wanna talk like yoda or have thesaurus.com open in a second tab in firefox.

As for tool who use component over HDMI , not eveything has an HDMI out, Im a tool with a 61" Samsung projection LCD and I was stuck using component until they release the XBOX 360 Elite because my regular XBOX 360 didnt have HDMI.

If you even got my point from the beginning, I am not even arguing just for LCD, it is just what I have.    Though you cannot get away from the fact that you lose quality (as the original programmers wouldn't have wanted if they would have been given an affordable choice) by using an ANALOG connection over a digital one.

You guys wanna keep playing blind, go walk with the shepherd.

god i wish I knew what the h3ll you were saying, I might be able to answer!  if you are saying that programmers back in 82 wanted better and more complex hardware and displays, well then no sh!t who wouldnt?

Is that some sort of religious comment? if you wanna bring that junk up post in that section, if not then just do the world a favor and shut up?
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
  • Last login:April 12, 2010, 08:18:42 pm
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #78 on: July 22, 2007, 05:47:35 pm »
Quote
Its not blind devotion, most of us are simply stating we prefer the same hardware they used in arcade for our cabinets, something you cant seem to grasp.

See first.   STOP RIGHT THERE.    I have said it a hundred posts back.   If you are using a CRT monitor that has  different display properties then the original pacman.   i.e.   take out your frickin' ruler and measure the size of the screen....    Then the result is that anything that is not being used to display(without proper software) is compromising the scope of the picture.   I am speaking about YOUR monitor now.   Switch gears and read slowly.

Furthermore, the original arcade being based on a CRT has more inherent problems that I mentioned above.  I will repeat for further clarity..read on.

Go back to the original arrow pointing at the picture that Randy made.    THIS was referring to the picture that Randy says is being made BEFORE the problems like scan lines, reflections, color bleeding, side distortion happen from the CRT.

Is there anything Yoda about what I have just said.    Tell me any part that you do not understand.  Any part at all, and I will gladly say it another way.    Don't put me down.   Acknowledge the statements I have made.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2007, 05:51:25 pm by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:March 26, 2024, 07:29:48 pm
  • Have you played with my GingerBalls?
    • forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142404.msg1475162.html
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #79 on: July 23, 2007, 02:24:02 am »
See first.   STOP RIGHT THERE.    I have said it a hundred posts back.   If you are using a CRT monitor that has  different display properties then the original pacman.   i.e.   take out your frickin' ruler and measure the size of the screen....    Then the result is that anything that is not being used to display(without proper software) is compromising the scope of the picture.   I am speaking about YOUR monitor now.   Switch gears and read slowly.

Thats the first thing I don't get. I've seen Pac-man on 15" monitors and 25" monitors (reunion cabs) so inherent monitor size shouldn't be a factor. Rather then debate anything else with you I'll try to summarize the point everyone in the world other then you is trying to make:

"CRTs can more easily show what arcade games looked like back in the day because back in the day its what was in an arcade machine."

  Also I never said my display was perfect or had an uncompromised picture, I merely said MAME "looks more arcade like to ME on my 27" CRT then my 19" LCD". I'm not a little girly man so it wasn't a huge deal to pick up a 80 lb CRT and mount it in my cab, and while I agree an LCD of that size would have been exponentially lighter it just wouldn't look as good to me while MAMEing and buying the CRT meant I could afford to actually finish my cab.



Furthermore, the original arcade being based on a CRT has more inherent problems that I mentioned above.  I will repeat for further clarity..read on.

now I will repeat, the "inherent problems" of the CRTs were taken into consideration when games were being made and the people who made it took advantage of the flaws. For you to think the programmers didn't care about what the end game would look like is a very daft assumption and to think they wouldn't make it better if they could is an ever more obscene assumption.


Is there anything Yoda about what I have just said.    Tell me any part that you do not understand.  Any part at all, and I will gladly say it another way.    Don't put me down.   Acknowledge the statements I have made.
I don't understand why you keep posting. I've acknowledged that you've made statements that favor opinion over fact. Also, Opinion does NOT equal fact.


Is there anything YOU don't understand?
If you're replying to a troll you are part of the problem.
I also need to follow this advice. Ignore or report, don't reply.