Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
genesim:
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:
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.
genesim:
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:
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"!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: genesim 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?
--- End quote ---
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:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version