Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
genesim:
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??
Malenko:
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"
genesim:
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.
RandyT:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 15, 2007, 11:53:05 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version