Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
genesim:
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.
--- End quote ---
Its called Arcade VGA and the new way of showing lower resolutions is fantastic!
Malenko:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 17, 2007, 03:10:33 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.
--- End quote ---
So much for no name calling eh?
--- Quote from: genesim on July 17, 2007, 03:10:33 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
Patent Doc:
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
genesim:
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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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:
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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..
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End 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.
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.
ahofle:
--- Quote from: genesim 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.
--- End 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!!!
--- Quote ---The display was the easy part. Hence the odd screen size.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End 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.
--- 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.
--- End 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.
I only wish you posted this in a more frequented forum so other regulars could enjoy your "abstract thinking". :laugh2:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version