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 42004 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 #80 on: July 23, 2007, 02:52:51 am »
Quote
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.

Well sorry buddy but it is.   You seem to also dance around the fact that those extra inches can distort the original intent.    Especially when the correct software isn't used.    If it isn't even attempting to make up for the ratio...like say a default resolution setting, then you are comprosing in every way imaginable. 

But hey, because you say you have seen it, so it must be alright.  ::)   I have seen SFII cabs completely changed over to a Mortal Kombat display, it doesn't exactly make it correct.    True Mortal can be played on many different displays, but the odd resolution and refresh rates get totally ruined by a generic display.

Quote
Also I never said my display was perfect or had an uncompromised picture....

Ok now we are getting somewhere.   This is an opinion, but let me point out what FACTS are to you...read on.

Quote
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.

So by that rationale all music recordings should only be put on their original media and never be tranferred to a superior format???

Oh yeah, I am sure the reflection problems and color bleeding was something the programmers wanted.    Because oh no, it is so terrible to actually avoid the problems that mask something like....uh THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING.

What you don't understand is that these are FACTS.   UNDESPUTED FACTS.    It is a FACT that CRT's DISTORT THE PICTURE because of their tube display.   It is a FACT that reflections are a problem not inherent in LCD's.    It is a FACT if you do not have a monitor that is a 1:1 relationship in CRT form that you have compromised the original intent of the programmers.     It is a FACT that ANALOG also loses quality with every transmission.   

Now can we move on to my other points.   Have we got the first part agreed upon?

p.s.  Not a girly man, just not a person who would actively seek out a dangerous/heavy display if it could be avoided.     
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 02:56:58 am 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 #81 on: July 23, 2007, 07:12:46 am »
The arcade game consists of both hardware and software. That should be obvious.

Any differences from the real thing can be considered as distortions. The code is just the blueprint. The hardware does the performance. Compare it to music, which can also be written down. A more accurate performance of the music of Elvis, as it was written down, might be possible, but it would not be a more accurate performance of Elvis than his own performance.

It should also be obvious from some images whether the card can actually emulate both hardware and software.

Come on now and show us some pictures of that perfection. I'd like to see if the card is as good as you say it is. Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

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 #82 on: July 23, 2007, 10:49:05 am »
As bad as I want to capture the images, the points I am making are impossible to tell on a zoom.

This is the best that I can do to illustrate my point.   I did not doctor the pictures and I only zoomed in a congruent way.

800x600 resolution using Direct 3D





Now using Ultimarc VGA discreet 352x288 programming which utilizes the screen while keeping the natural aspect ratio using multiple pixel technology.




I wish I had better pictures, but the blur is obscene even with a newly bought tripod!!

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 #83 on: July 23, 2007, 11:06:40 am »
Again, I am comparing a arbitrary resolution like 640x480 to the Arcade VGA using direct draw that FILLS THE SCREEN.








By the way, my reflections are because of the protective case and not the LCD.   It was done elcheapo I admit it.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 11:10:04 am by genesim »

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 #84 on: July 23, 2007, 11:15:31 am »


Incidently here is my cab.   I have since modified it with an extra 8th button for cosole games, and I am currently still in progress on this. 

Who knows, if LCD's or Plasma get more affordable, someday I will have a bigger display, but to be honest I like it how it is.



A rough design, again I have since changed a few things.   Just had to show my baby.  ;D

For anyone wondering.   Happs Rotaries on 1st and 2nd joystick, not many want this, but I love it as a fighting joystick.    3rd  and 4th joysticks...Supers to better match the feel of the rotaries.   I prefer both over competition as well as happs perfect 360's.    Owned them all, and sold them all.    Qbert rotated 4 way in the middle.   8th button on player one and two(not shown in picture because it wasn't drilled yet).   

Top fire has good purpose where it is at.   Perfect spacing with the spinner for Tron as well as good for Doom 3 when paired with the roller ball!

Always hated how the Asteroids buttons were spaced, and is the only thing that makes me unhappy about my control panel design.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 11:39:01 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:30 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 #85 on: July 23, 2007, 12:01:07 pm »
You seem to also dance around the fact that those extra inches can distort the original intent.


OMG I actually agree with you there! But heres what you don't consider:
25" reunion cabs have a huge display for the sake of having a huge display,not for accuracy. Its basically there to both draw you in and blend/compete with every other 25" arcade game. My first thought when I saw em was "holy sh!t galaga on a huge screen!"


But hey, because you say you have seen it, so it must be alright.  ::)   I have seen SFII cabs completely changed over to a Mortal Kombat display, it doesn't exactly make it correct.    True Mortal can be played on many different displays, but the odd resolution and refresh rates get totally ruined by a generic display.
Im not sure of this point, because I had a generic Jamma cab and played pit fighter, street fighter, mk, and a few other random titles and the screen was filled up very well (19" monitor, cant tell you the brand, its been too  long) thought sometimes minor tweaking was needed.

So by that rationale all music recordings should only be put on their original media and never be tranferred to a superior format???
Please dont bring in the audio format discussion. By your rational with it a concert will sound better on a CD then being there live because they'll remaster it and remove the mosquito that was hovering around eddie vedder's head.  Honestly I could care less about audio formats.

Oh yeah, I am sure the reflection problems and color bleeding was something the programmers wanted.    Because oh no, it is so terrible to actually avoid the problems that mask something like....uh THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING.

What you don't understand is that these are FACTS.   UNDESPUTED FACTS.    It is a FACT that CRT's DISTORT THE PICTURE because of their tube display.   It is a FACT that reflections are a problem not inherent in LCD's.    It is a FACT if you do not have a monitor that is a 1:1 relationship in CRT form that you have compromised the original intent of the programmers.     It is a FACT that ANALOG also loses quality with every transmission.   

Now can we move on to my other points.   Have we got the first part agreed upon?
 
"Wanting the problems" and "knowing they are there and working around them" are not the same thing. The one FACT you cant seem to remember is programmers knew the limits of the monitor and made the games accordingly.

believe it or not this:

is what they were going for! There was no way to actually  display this:


back in the day. Can you understand that, that the lattter wasnt even an option?



as I was posting this you posted the pix of your cab and panel. That is one beastly frankenpanel. If you would have build a smaller panel you prolly could have snagged up a a bigger LCD.  Ive attached a pic of my cheaply covered control panel (im still working on the art for MAME Marquees) Also pictured is a side by side of My MKII cab running UMK3 (400x254 @53.2) side by side with MAME running UMK3 (640x480 @60Hz) All I can say is even up close they look VERY similar, you saw the pic of UMK3 on my LCD, doesn't look anything like it. Now I can admit I think UMK3 looks better on my LCD but with the kinds of games I play I PREFER the CRT. I when I have a joesing for UMK3 I either fire up the arcade game, or fire up my XBOX360 and play it on Live! arcade on my 61" TV    I downloaded galaga as well, but I cant find an option to run galaga with a 90* screen roation, I think it'd look neat on such a giant display.

If you prefer a smaller LCD to a larger CRT thats perfectly fine, its your cabinet do what you like with it, frankenpanel and all.
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 #86 on: July 23, 2007, 06:31:36 pm »




It is up to you to decide what is closer to the original intent(again, before scanlines and what not are added).
But hey, I give up.   See what you want.

As for my arcade panel of which you put down as well, let me ask you.     How else do I play a 3 player game(If I want to include my wife on NBA Jam series which are probably the only game she really loves to play)?    Or how else do I have 2 grown men playing a fighting game without being on top of each other?    How do you play Ikari Warriors(another one of my favorite games of all time)??

Lastly, how the hell do you get along without a rollerball??????   My frankenpanel works for me.   And the differenence between you and me is that I don't start by criticizing someone else's choice till they have put me down.   My control panel is my proudest part of my arcade.    And I have no regrets for the money I have paid, and the time I put into it.     Hell you put me down for my display, and you can't even get old games played with the right equipment.    Its obvious to me that "good enough" is your forte.    Keep playing those 4-way games in your 8 way config.  :applaud:

To the rest that requested, I posted the pictures, it is up you guys in the end to decide what you want. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXx

By the way, if you don't mind me asking...where did you get your Mortal Kombat pieces that are under the joysticks?  I actually like that part.   Cool idea.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 06:46:23 pm by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:30 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 #87 on: July 23, 2007, 06:44:05 pm »
The first picture was not the original programmers intent.

But hey, I give up.   See what you want.

As for my arcade panel of which you put down as well, let me ask you.     How else do I play a 3 player game(If I want to include my wife on NBA Jam series which are probably the only game she really loves to play)?    Or how else do I have 2 grown men playing a fighting game without being on top of each other?    How do you play Ikari Warriors(another one of my favorite games of all time)??

Lastly, how the hell do you get along without a rollerball??????   My frankenpanel works for me.   And the differenence between you and me is that I don't start by criticizing someone else's choice till they have put me down.   My control panel is my proudest part of my arcade.    And I have no regrets for the money I have paid, and the time I put into it.     Hell you put me down for my display, and you can't even get old games played with the right equipment.    Its obvious to me that "good enough" is your forte.    Keep playing those 4-way games in your 8 way config.  :applaud:

To the rest that requested, I posted the pictures, it is up you guys in the end to decide what you want. 

do tell where I put down your machine? Its a very common slang to refer to that type of panel as a frankenpanel. I never said "man that looks like sh!t!" or anything remotely derogatory at all. I merely stated that its fine for that to be your preference in panel and not mine, in an attempt to draw a parallel that not everyones preferences are the same.

As for cost, I believe my point was you spent alot of money in buttons and controllers and if you had a simpler panel a larger display would have been an option. A great attempt at passively putting down my cab with a lack of "rollerball" but I don't play games that require trackballs to play enough to warrant the cost. I am layout my options for adding a GGG spinner but odds are I'll make a second interchangable panel and put a bunch of specialty controls on it , like a trackball, 4 way, spinner,etc.

My cab is designed for 2 players but occassionally my 4 nephews wanna play NBA Jam or NHL Open Ice so I just plug in a couple of XBOX 360 controllers and let em have at it.
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 #88 on: July 23, 2007, 06:48:13 pm »
Well it soundede deragotory to me.   Gee a compliment would have been nice.   Even at my effort of taking a bunch of pictures to show you the result.

I edited my post while you were posting so please take a look if you don't mind.

I got the smaller display out of choice.   I could have afforded whatever I wanted, but the deal was that I wanted speed, and 4ms was the fastest display at the time.    I wanted to build it NOW, so I compromised.   I have never regretted that decision, and I can always change it out with ease....well maybe not exactly that, but close.   I would have to build another frame.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 06:51:46 pm by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:30 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 #89 on: July 24, 2007, 12:43:55 am »
they are the round stickers from the UMK3 conversion kit adhered to a dust shield, I might actually be pulling them off since I'm changing the theme of my cab, if I do I'll get your address and mail them to you if you'd like.  Did you notice the start buttons on my MK cab? you can see the extra overlay stickers sitting on the bezel ? The member named Pongo made them for me, but I might end up not using them on the MAME cab since I'm prolly changing themes.

its 1am , I'll take some pix tomorrow. kinda cool we had a 2 page long discussion about nothing :)
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 #90 on: July 24, 2007, 11:39:18 am »
I appreciate the offer, but just wondering about the details.

So those stickers fit perfectly to the dust covers?

I would be very interested, but I still wonder where I could just buy a whole bunch more.

xxxxxxxxxxxx\

By the way, I just can't help it.     You act as if the Pinky picture produced was manufactured.    It is only displaying what the original code is directing.

I just want to know, do you or do you not understand that the pixels being displayed accurately first is more important and scanlines can be administrated later if needed?   Don't you think it is alot better then starting with a stretched picture like using Windows default options which twists the original intent all out of proportion?

I also look at your post about a concert, and I think you miss the point there too.    A better comparison would be the numskulls that hate a multichannel DVD Audio that approximates how the concert would sound.     So many say that stereo should be kept because that is what the original producers wanted....yet ignore the fact that the sound is fantastic and that the original producers would have used the technology if given the chance.

To build a great house, one must first start with a great foundation.

Representing Pacman in all its blocky glory is the foundation.     What happens afterwards is anyone's opinion.

Myself, I can't help it.   I admit that I like the picture looking sharp and having better color.     LCD's are a godsend.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 11:49:59 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:30 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 #91 on: July 24, 2007, 12:18:09 pm »
just using pacman as a reference.

there is a pacman machine at the movie theater, an original 1983 (yr?) machine with what I believe is the original monitor(judging by the screen burn) . MAME running on my CRT even at a different resolution looks much more like that display then MAME running on my LCD. I completely understand your preference of LCD its a much more modern display and while games like Pacman look better, to you, on it I prefer the less stellar CRT display because it appears more authentic , to me. Im sure if I MAMEd my MKII machine with my arcade monitor and a arcade VGA2 the display would be practically perfect


As for the MK logo shields , other then the MK3/UMK3 kits I dunno whered you get em, Im sure they could be replicated by some printers or something. The logos werent an exact fit, needed some trimming.
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.

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 #92 on: July 24, 2007, 12:28:20 pm »
By the way, I just can't help it.     You act as if the Pinky picture produced was manufactured.    It is only displaying what the original code is directing.

Me either  ;D  The "close up" pictures you showed were not close up shots of the game display, rather photos of a magnified MAME screen capture (unless you want us to believe that your mouse cursor is really that tiny, or that your LCD panel lacks the tiny grids inherent to all cell based display technologies ;) )  So they don't really show the detail of the output of the card at game time. 

BTW, you should really look into the -prescale option that has existed in the last 7+ versions of MAME.  Prescale does exactly what you want with just about any video card.  The value you give the option is the multiplier used to scale the pixels before it is handed off to any further processing or effects.  IOW, with a -prescale value of 2, each native game pixel becomes a 2x2 pixel array for a total of 4 on-screen pixels.  A value of three becomes a 3x3 array for 9 on-screen pixels and so on.  From that point, you can either add effects, stretching, etc...or not, if that's your preference.

I'll see if I can take a picture of this setup when I find a few minutes, then we can compare.

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 #93 on: July 24, 2007, 07:26:33 pm »
Randy,

If you notice that is why I left the cursor in BOTH pictures.   Nothing sly here.   

You cannot blow up the pictures with any real comparison(my camera just can't do it), but the results are the same.   All you have to do is just crop the pictures I have posted and you will still see the difference.

But hey, just keep putting the card down, and I will continue to use it.   I see with my own eyes, and this display is superior.

I have been tempted to go to my arcade to further show the difference.    I will probably post more pictures later.

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 #94 on: July 24, 2007, 09:43:26 pm »
You cannot blow up the pictures with any real comparison(my camera just can't do it), but the results are the same.   All you have to do is just crop the pictures I have posted and you will still see the difference.

Not really.  In order to get the true feel for the display, comparisons of actual detail are necessary.  Otherwise, why should anyone assume that there is any difference between the results I achieved (and posted photos of) on my LCD and what you are claiming is the case with yours?

Quote
But hey, just keep putting the card down, and I will continue to use it.   I see with my own eyes, and this display is superior.

I'm not putting the card down.  Just waiting for you to show something in the way of actual output that is over and above what can be achieved with virtually any DirectDraw capable display device when the proper options are set in MAME.


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 #95 on: July 25, 2007, 12:44:40 am »
Zoom in yourself by simpy cropping the picture.

You will get the same results.   

I am not speaking about Direct Draw.   They are 1:1 with one exception.   IT CANNOT FILL THE FRICKIN SCREEN!   That is the advantage.

The rest of the pictures are from my LCD using the card, and not using the card.   So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that I am not showing output.   The difference is obvious.

Direct 3D approximates in a much more detrimental way when blown up to default windows displays.   This is fact. 

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 #96 on: July 25, 2007, 01:01:31 am »
Randy,

Just out of curiousity.  Could you please explain to me how the MAME screen shot(which wasn't used for the majority of the pictures that I posted), is not an accurate representation of what is being diplayed?

When you zoom in on the pictures I have posted, the similarity is astounding.   Do I need to waste my time doing this too?   Do you not understand that the camera has limitations when showing pictures of that detail.

LCD being a digital display, I thought the relationship was one to one.   Just please clarify how it is somehow miles different from a screen shot.

I used the same camera and I captured it exactly how it is.   How do you think you are going to get something better?   

First you criticize the "blockyness" now you are implying that it is fabricated.   Which is it?


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 #97 on: July 25, 2007, 02:49:39 am »
I got the best idea of all.

Ok so you are familiar with A=B and B=C so therefore A=C.

In that capacity.   If I take the image that is taken from a MAME snapshot at the correct ratio.   i.e.   Mortal Kombat at 400x256(like I did before) and I display it on my computer and snap a picture, then I take a picture of of the actual game playing at the exact same resolution...according to you they will somehow look different?

But if they look the same then isn't it reasonable to deduce that the pictures I posted are a 1:1 relationship because the LCD display is a DIGITAL connection with no loss!

So here is what I am going to do.   I will remove my screen cover to eliminate reflection and take the pictures and see just how much MAME snapshots are not accurate.  :laugh2:

To me, it is pointless because common sense tells you that the resolution captured is an exact screenshot of what is sent to the video card and sent DIGITALLY to your display.    If we were talking about a CRT display then there may be SLIGHT difference because it is analog for most people here, but with this, and using my eyes, I know for a fact that what I have posted is highly accurate to what is displayed.   Especially after looking at the other pictures posted without using the MAME screen shots.   If I didn't know it was, I wouldn't have posted it that way to begin with.   A camera after the fact loses quality and does not tell the whole story.

I was asking you the question, but actually your opinion doesn't prove anything.   Obviously to some, seeing is believing, and I think this smackdown is necessary to put an end to this whole idea that my original pictures posted were somehow sacrificing the image that was being put out by my display.    It was and still is a 1:1 relationship and it shows the inherent problems of Direct 3D which stretches the picture.    You continually say....well use Direct Draw, but you miss the most obvious point of all....THE WHOLE SCREEN ISN'T BEING UTILIZED TO FULL EFFECT!    Multiple pixel assignment is absolutely necessary to get the most of any monitor, especially an LCD.   Without that, then you have distortion of the original vision.   

Pics to follow as soon as I get home and set up my tripod.   Though if one uses their brain you can already see the relationship from what I have posted already.   

Quote
DirectDraw capable display device when the proper options are set in MAME.

Randy do you even understand what that means?   Unless pixels are somehow multiplied it isn't that simple.   Even then without software that is written directly for the monitor resolution you are not going to get congruent upscaling, like you preach many times.   Pixel interpolation can be just as bad when the foundation pixel ratio isn't set up correctly.   It is just errors compounded upon error.

By the way, prescaling is too generic.   Its all good if you have an even number, but what about odd ratios that cannot display properly?    Wouldn't it make much more sense to assign say a odd number display to an area like the black bars on the side of pacman which don't need to be correct anyway?    You can get the same effect without ever seeing the difference.   I can see for myself that part of the Pacman display was cut off to achieve the 352x288 ratio that I have posted.   The end result is something I don't really care about anyway.    Pacman being 224x288 means that something had to be changed with a square display.   It is a mathmatical necessity.

Now how they got to that number, I do not know, nor do I care.   The end results are astounding(as I have posted) and that is what matters to me.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 03:03:23 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 #98 on: July 25, 2007, 08:28:47 am »
I am not speaking about Direct Draw.   They are 1:1 with one exception.   IT CANNOT FILL THE FRICKIN SCREEN!   That is the advantage.

If your screen is filled, there are extra pixels (not Pac-Man "pixels" but display pixels) being added or subtracted from the image, also known as "artifacting."  It is not possible to fill the screen any other way when the native resolution of the game does not go evenly into the native screen resolution of your LCD.  We went through this before and you said you understood that, yet you refuse to press the menu button on your display so you can tell us what resolution the monitor is running at.

If you want to "fill the screen" in DirectDraw, use the -hwstretch command.  You'll get the same effect.  However, if you want the image to be as large as it can be in a 1:1 correlation, don't.

Quote
Direct 3D approximates in a much more detrimental way when blown up to default windows displays.   This is fact. 

Tell the guy who is twisting your arm to use it to "stop" :)  DirectDraw is faster anyway.  If you want to get rid of the bi-linear filtering in D3D mode, use the -noflt switch.

Just out of curiousity.  Could you please explain to me how the MAME screen shot(which wasn't used for the majority of the pictures that I posted), is not an accurate representation of what is being diplayed?

When you zoom in on the pictures I have posted, the similarity is astounding.   Do I need to waste my time doing this too?   Do you not understand that the camera has limitations when showing pictures of that detail.


It's an accurate example of what is being sent to the LCD, but not what it looks like at pixel level.  If you are trying to show a difference between the result on my screen and yours, then show it.  All I get when I zoom i is JPEG artifacting.

I was asking you the question, but actually your opinion doesn't prove anything.   Obviously to some, seeing is believing, and I think this smackdown is necessary to put an end to this whole idea that my original pictures posted were somehow sacrificing the image that was being put out by my display.    It was and still is a 1:1 relationship and it shows the inherent problems of Direct 3D which stretches the picture.    You continually say....well use Direct Draw, but you miss the most obvious point of all....THE WHOLE SCREEN ISN'T BEING UTILIZED TO FULL EFFECT!    Multiple pixel assignment is absolutely necessary to get the most of any monitor, especially an LCD.   Without that, then you have distortion of the original vision.   

Pics to follow as soon as I get home and set up my tripod.   Though if one uses their brain you can already see the relationship from what I have posted already.   

Actually "if one were using their brain" one would know that LCD's have fixed pixel counts and one would know that you can't magically shuffle them around without the creation of image artifacting you claim doesn't exist.

Quote
By the way, prescaling is too generic.   Its all good if you have an even number, but what about odd ratios that cannot display properly?    Wouldn't it make much more sense to assign say a odd number display to an area like the black bars on the side of pacman which don't need to be correct anyway?    You can get the same effect without ever seeing the difference.   I can see for myself that part of the Pacman display was cut off to achieve the 352x288 ratio that I have posted.   The end result is something I don't really care about anyway.    Pacman being 224x288 means that something had to be changed with a square display.   It is a mathmatical necessity.

Pac-Man is a vertical game.  The scaling of the blank areas on the sides don't do a hoot.  The vertical resolution is the only important number and it must go evenly into the vertical resolution of your display, or be cropped, or be disproportionately scaled.  Period.

BTW, you never did say what the native resolution of your monitor was.  How about some numbers to back up all of these things you have been saying?  It's simple math, not magic, but without the numbers you don't wish for some reason to provide, this is all a bunch of meaningless jabber.

Quote
Now how they got to that number, I do not know, nor do I care.   The end results are astounding(as I have posted) and that is what matters to me.

Great! Continue to be astounded.  Just stop trying to convince people of something that is technically not possible.

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 10:39:00 am by RandyT »

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 #99 on: July 25, 2007, 09:15:09 am »
Genesim, thanks for your effort with the screenshots.

However, with bitmap-prescaling set to 4 or 5 in MAME, the image on my LCD screen looks quite a lot like the arcade VGA screen you presented. Is the arcade VGA really that much better than what I get with bitmap-prescaling? Could you post a picture comparing that as well?

Without bitmap-prescaling, I get a nice anti-aliased version of PacMan which also looks much more like the PacMan drawing on the bezel, than a jagged bitmap does.

So, can the Arcade VGA card also do anti-aliasing, creating a round pacman rather than a jagged one? Does it do a better job on anti-aliasing than a normal card does?

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 #100 on: July 25, 2007, 10:23:52 am »
Randy,

Direct draw with hardware stretch is putrid just like Direct 3D.   Here are some pics.   Judge for yourself.    My native setting is 1280x1024 on my LCD.    Now the fact that I can pick all the other resolutions beats me.   Me guesses it is algorithms to achieve this.    The black border is still there, so no what I meant about the screen being filled up was in response to RATIO as in the bottom and top is filled up.    Here are some screen shots to clarify.

Direct 3D at 1280x1024



Direct Draw at 1280x1024



Direct Draw with hardware stretch 1280x1024



Direct Draw using the Arcaded VGA special setting of 352x288



Conclusion...Direct Draw and Arcade VGA are very much even...the difference.   Arcade VGA fills up the screen!!

Direct Draw full size



Arcade VGA full size



Gee, now why wouldn't I want to use Direct Draw in its regualr form, when I can get better results with arcade vga.

krutknut,

I use MAME 32 Plus.   Is bitmap-prescaling used with that?   Where is the option to put it on?


« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 10:39:39 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 #101 on: July 25, 2007, 10:57:16 am »
Better.  Now, if you would, take a better picture of DirectDraw w/ Hardware stretch, as well as a full-screen shot at this setting.  If you are still getting D3D filtering on a DirectDraw, then you don't have something set correctly.  Also, turn off Bi-linear filtering on D3D and the fuzzy will go away.

The only reason the DirectDraw with hardware scaling looks worse is because the picture is worse.

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 01:11:17 pm by RandyT »

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 #102 on: July 25, 2007, 11:21:38 am »
Just right-click on pac-man, in MAME32FX, then Properties, then Display.

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 #103 on: July 25, 2007, 11:46:32 am »
Randy,

It is without filtering, and hardware stretch...uh STRETCHES the picture that is why it looks worse.

My camera hasn't moved.   The difference is quite apparent.   You go take a picture.   I put alot of time into getting these pictures right, and you won't face facts that the proof is right there in front of your eyes.

It wouldn't matter what you saw.   You will stay prejudice.   I know what my eyes are seeing, and the pictures are as accurate as they can be considering the limitations. 

Incidently, how am I getting Direct 3D filtering on a direct draw?   The regular non-stretched version looks exactly the same!   LEARN TO READ CAPTIONS because that is the exact settings those are on.

If you think it looks fuzzier on the Direct Draw image it is because it is SMALLER.   I have no filters set PERIOD.

krutknut,

I will get back to you on this.    Got off night shift and I took alot of time just trying to get MAME32 regular reconfigured only to find out that you can't set discrete resolutions!

A quick glance at MAME32FX shows the same problem.

To me, if you want it fuzzy and round, then you have to blur it with effects or get scanlines covering the image to make it appear rounder.   To me, this takes away from the whole purpose of the card.




« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 11:57:54 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 #104 on: July 25, 2007, 12:57:02 pm »
It is without filtering, and hardware stretch...uh STRETCHES the picture that is why it looks worse.

The -prescale switch has been mentioned at least 5 times in this thread.  Use a prescale of 3 and you will be amazed at the difference.  Post a picture of this output in both closeup and full-screen (-hwstretch) with DirectDraw.  The output will pretty much be the same if you use D3D with the same prescale and the -nofilter switch to turn off the bi-linear filtering.

Quote
It wouldn't matter what you saw.   You will stay prejudice.   I know what my eyes are seeing, and the pictures are as accurate as they can be considering the limitations. 

I think that goes both ways.  Except there have been several individuals telling you pretty much the same thing.  You just haven't set MAME up properly yet to see it for yourself.  However, there is one undeniable difference with the card and that is that the blocky looking output functionality you desire is achievable independent from software.  That means you should be able to see your NES or other emulators the same way, even if they don't specifically offer those options.

Quote
Incidently, how am I getting Direct 3D filtering on a direct draw?

Obviously you can't. There was obviously filtering on the output, just as with the D3D mode, and that was my point.

RandyT

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 #105 on: July 25, 2007, 01:05:08 pm »
Gensim, just try it out as I suggested. You have to actually use that option to get the output I described.

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 #106 on: July 25, 2007, 01:19:24 pm »
genesim,

Also, you really need to understand that even though the un-stretched DirectDraw image doesn't fill the screen, it is the only means of getting a true, clean 1:1 pixel ratio on an LCD monitor.  Scaling to fill an LCD screen resulting in anything other than exact multiples of the original game resolution results in some sort of artifacting, regardless of the method used.

Scaling exactly to full-screen often has an "accuracy" penalty on an LCD, and there are a number of factors that dictate how severe that penalty is.  There's just no way around it.

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 08:18:09 pm by RandyT »

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 #107 on: July 25, 2007, 06:12:39 pm »
Anyway, at 1680*1050, pacman fills my screen from bottom to top, with a bit of black on the sides. The "pixels" also seem square to me, with a bitmap pre-scaling of 4. No anti-aliasing. (Of course, at 1680*1050, each pacman pixel use several actual pixels).

Can the Arcade VGA card really do any noticeable improvement over this? (If you like the pixels to be really distinct to begin with, that is).

A picture showing the difference might help, since I don't have an Arcade VGA card to compare with. (I don't even have my digital camera at home today.)

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 #108 on: July 26, 2007, 02:59:36 am »
Randy,

Quote
Also, you really need to understand that even though the un-stretched DirectDraw image doesn't fill the screen, it is the only means of getting a true, clean 1:1 pixel ratio on an LCD monitor.

While what you say in theory is true, it doesn't mean that other applications can at least make the symptons less problematic.

As pixel count gets higher and higher, the differences will become more and more neglible using multiple pixel technology.

With the pictures I posted, I do notice that that the "dot" is slighly fatter.   This is likely because of the odd resolution of 352x288 representing 224x288.   While most of it does go to black, you cannot get away from the fact that the numbers don't mesh.   

BUT, I do standby that Direct Draw with hardware stretch shows the obvious problems that you preach against.   

Now that said, I did try the bitmap prescaling and I saw similarities.   Still, you cannot get away from the fact that the tricks are being used on Windows default settings as opposed to using a programmed fixed resolution through the hardware.

The resolution that is displayed is exactly what is being picked.....I just don't know how they got there.

From what I have seen, it doesn't appear like there is much to gain from the card over bitmap prescaling except for one thing.   EASE OF USE.    Hardware set to certain resolutions in some cases can give better displays.   Perhaps Mortal Kombat was a better example because of the resolution being closer to a full size monitor.   

Again, I don't pretend to know how they got there, but 400x256 is the fixed monitor display, and the results are exactly what I expect.    With scanlines, the image is very close to an arcade look alike.  Being my favorite game of all time and spending many years playing it, I do know what I am talking about(oh wait this is a qualifier that goes against my own pet peeve :banghead: ;D).

I will still take some pictures, but I got to get more sleep, so it may be a bit.

Still, I think it is a waste of time at this point, because I concede that the results are going to be like the pictures above.    I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   That or another version of MAME would better achieve this.   By the way....ignorant/lazy for the dos version.   Tried it once...got it running, thought it was too much bother.   Nothing against people that do, but making little notepad commands just isn't my cup of tea...and yes I have done front ends too, I just prefer the windows interface.

I do know that if you are going to duplicate(or get really close) to the arcade, you cannot rely on Windows default and picking filters or stretching the display will only make the display "appear" better.    The best way is to get the pixels close to the original display AND fill the screen (which yes means that they are blocky) is to get the resolution correct and adminster scanlines to mask the jaggies(if that is what you want).

For me, I do prefer the "blocky" graphics because the picture is much clearer and the original code is represented even if there is speculation that the original author intended his code to be masked off.

But Randy, I have to say, are you still standing behind the fact that Direct Draw with hardware stretch is better then the Arcade VGA estimation?   It is there in the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone would prefer that crap.

I do submit to the bitmap prescaling, but I also am lazy.    352x288 gets damn close, but as you know there are a hundred other displays possible with the card and all one has to do is look at the original resolution and use the closest resolution.    Again...as opposed to using windows default or mucking with bitmap intrepretation.

p.s.   As for LCD as a display, not only do I think it is a great display for ALL games, it is absolutely necessary for new games because of the absence of scan lines.

Just how does one treat something like Marvel vs Capcom 2 or Capcom vs SNK2 with highly detailed background graphics if one is going to rely on a CRT with all its inherent problems.

Alot of the same arguements about graphics being blocky is due to the Capcom fighters being low res and thus showing all their "blocky" characteristics.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 04:08:40 am 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 #109 on: July 26, 2007, 10:56:30 am »
I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   

I believe you have to select a 'screen' (other than 'auto') before you can manually select resolutions in MAME32.

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 #110 on: July 26, 2007, 01:15:19 pm »
So the probplem is like I thought.   You can't set any weird resolutions like 400x256 without the card.

Maybe more pictures will follow soon.     I would like to compare the bit map of a MK game against the local.


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 #111 on: July 26, 2007, 01:40:28 pm »
As pixel count gets higher and higher, the differences will become more and more neglible using multiple pixel technology.

Correct, and I believe I said that already. 

Quote
BUT, I do standby that Direct Draw with hardware stretch shows the obvious problems that you preach against.   

Please refresh my memory.  I think the things I have preached against are sharp edged images.  Everything else are just facts.

Quote
Now that said, I did try the bitmap prescaling and I saw similarities.   Still, you cannot get away from the fact that the tricks are being used on Windows default settings as opposed to using a programmed fixed resolution through the hardware.

The resolution that is displayed is exactly what is being picked.....I just don't know how they got there.

I think that may be the crux of the issue.  The resolution is, in fact, not what the windows utility says is being displayed, rather what your LCD panel tells you it is receiving when you look at your LCD panels built in menu screens.  The "tricks" you are talking about exist across the board, with the exception in the case of MAME where they are not hidden from the user.  As for it occurring in "hardware", so is the DirectDraw and D3D scaling.  Again, no magic there.

Quote
From what I have seen, it doesn't appear like there is much to gain from the card over bitmap prescaling except for one thing.   EASE OF USE.  .   

I believe I stated this already as well.

Quote
Still, I think it is a waste of time at this point, because I concede that the results are going to be like the pictures above.    I wish I could put the odd resolutions to the test with anti-aliasing, but MAME32FX doesn't let you pick the resolutions other then windows default.    Perhaps I am missing something.   That or another version of MAME would better achieve this.   By the way....ignorant/lazy for the dos version.   Tried it once...got it running, thought it was too much bother.   Nothing against people that do, but making little notepad commands just isn't my cup of tea...and yes I have done front ends too, I just prefer the windows interface.

If you concede that there is no difference between the output using the methods outlined here and that of the card, then absolutely there is no need for further pictures.  They were as much to allow you to see that fact as others who might be following along :)

Not wanting to deal with command line options is valid, but doing so with an LCD panel is far less complex compared to a standard CRT.  With LCD there is pretty much one setting (your LCD native resolution) along with the options outlined in this thread. After that, it pretty much does things automatically for you.

Quote
But Randy, I have to say, are you still standing behind the fact that Direct Draw with hardware stretch is better then the Arcade VGA estimation?   It is there in the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone would prefer that crap.

I never made that assertion.  I said the two could be made equal with the proper settings in MAME.  But I honestly think that it is a difficult proposition to get a good looking classic arcade game representation on an LCD panel.  It's my opinion that neither really do the game justice.  However, using a prescale of 2 with Direct3D's bi-linear filtering enabled (as Aaron recommended in the documentation) does make LCD display more palatable.  This also works with DirectDraw using the same pre-scale and -hwstretch.  What this does is add a very subtle softness to the edge of the graphics.  So it's much of what you like with a just the right amount of softness to reduce the hard edged look.  The ability to do this, in my opinion, trumps a fixed pseudo-mode that has only the hard edged option.

RandyT
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 11:29:30 am 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 #112 on: July 26, 2007, 11:40:13 pm »
Randy,

Quote
Correct, and I believe I said that already.

You do understand that I am referring to the fact that as pixels get higher on LCD's this occurs..just checking.

Quote
Please refresh my memory.  I think the things I have preached against are sharp edged images.  Everything else are just facts.

You stated that Hardware stretch with Direct draw is just as good.   I don't agree.   One mars the original code, the other doesn't(at leas as much).

Quote
As for it occurring in "hardware", so is the DirectDraw and D3D scaling.  Again, no magic there.

The card has set resolutions.   Direct Draw or D3D scaling are independent of that.    One is pre, one is post.   Not the same thing.

Quote
I believe I stated this already as well.

There have been so many posts, that I don't remember that.   Still, who cares.   I saw for myself, no big deal.   Though I will say this.  I didn't say it, because I was arguing against Direct 3D and Direct Draw stretched.   I didn't even know much about bitmap prescaling.   I admit it, but I wasn't arguing against it either.

Quote
They were as much to allow you to see that fact as others who might be following along.

Uhh except for the fact that I was never referring to bitmap anything.

Quote
But I honestly think that it is a difficult proposition to get a good looking classic arcade game representation on an LCD panel.  It's my opinion that neither really do the game justice.

Well that is certaintly your opinion, but I have never liked scanlines.   Even if the authors intended it.   It doesn't mean that the original code isn't being accurately drawn, it just isn't impaired(intended or otherwise), by inferior analog connections etc. etc.

The end result is LCD's do alot and you don't get the downfalls of a CRT in the process.

Though you didn't answer my question.   How exactly is the best way to show something like Marvel Vs Capcom 2 which uses both low res and high res images??    If you look at the pictures you can see that the images are pretty spot on.    All that "distortion" just isn't there is it?    Gee LCD's are so terrible.   A few effects can give very similar results and yet you continually say how LCD displays are a bad choice.    The differences are minimal, and you ignoring the other obvious pitfalls shows where your mindset is at.    You lose picture with Analog, bottom line.    If you want to get into a few pixels, I can come back with ALL the pixels being distorted on a CRT display.   How about adressing those problems that do not exist on an LCD.   

A little software can fix the LCD display, NOTHING will fix the CRT.

Arcade VGA does a wonderful job of rectifying alot of the problems as that can be seen by the pictures.    True bitmap gives you SIMILAR results, but takes alot more experimentation.   Doesn't mean that the card is any less for it.    There are alot of things that get the job done, and Ultimarcs is one of the ways.

But hey, I can see how a competitor would be jumping all over this.   Showing Ultimarc as having a good product is not exactly your first priority.   I can understand that.

Incidently, I will compare bitmap to arcade vga on one standing that I found to be true.   MAME default resolutions are a problem.    On weird resolutions, I am very curious to see the result(of which with Mortal Kombat I already know).

You can't polish a turd, and if resolutions aren't set properly then there are even more artifacts that are present which are at least approximated on a set multiple pixel out put.

You act as if there is no difference.








« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 11:49:09 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 #113 on: July 27, 2007, 12:23:21 am »
But hey, I can see how a competitor would be jumping all over this.   Showing Ultimarc as having a good product is not exactly your first priority.   I can understand that.

My first priority as a member of the community is to keep the facts straight and assuage BS.  If you have to use tactics like this to draw attention away from the hole you dug for yourself and now find yourself peering out of,  then we have no more to discuss.

I'm glad you could finally experience what everyone has been telling you about since the first page of this thread.

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 #114 on: July 27, 2007, 12:51:45 am »
You know, in looking what I wrote.   I feel bad.   I apologize for several reasons, but mainly because it is jumping to a conclusion that I cannot possibly know if its true.

I hope you accept that.

Can you be fair and at least admit that you haven't been the coolest with me either?

I was looking over your website, and it is a very nice set up.    Hopefully someday I may even be a customer.   

XXXXXXXXXX

As for what I have been told....LCD's are a crap monitor.   I disagree and still do.

Just because Bitmap prescaling gives a similar result, doesn't make the video card any less of a good tool for approximating the original displays.    It would be nice if you would adress my points and well as the CRT limitations instead of completely drumming how "bad" an LCD monitor is for retro gaming.   Not only is this completely untrue, but your opinion is no better then mine.

I have always kept the facts straight, and it is all there to be had.   Your implications haven't exactly made me happy either.   
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 12:54:49 am by genesim »

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 #115 on: July 27, 2007, 01:10:04 am »
Randy,

You know what, lets cut out all the BS.

The supposed hole I dug myself in can be referenced here.

I stated that getting the pixel representation correct FIRST was the place to start in achieving the display most closely matched to the original.

Are the two pictures congruent or at least pretty damn close in reference to Direct Draw(no stretch) vs Arcade VGA.  Referencing your original Arrow.

Then isn't the second step getting the scanlines correct to finish it off??

Hardware stretching is not accurate, and Direct Draw with Hardware Stretch, while giving an illusion, is not correct.

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 #116 on: July 27, 2007, 02:48:00 am »
Genesim, when you run PacMan on the Arcade VGA card, and push the button on the monitor that displays the actual resolution, then what does it display?

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 #117 on: July 27, 2007, 02:53:46 am »
I haven't tried it for Pacman, but for Mortal Kombat it shows it displaying exactly 400x256.   The screen shot I first posted was an exact snapshot of the resolution selected.   If you are referring to the physical monitor it is always on highest settings.    That is the way it should be.    The hardware is doing the work, but it is making it think that the monitor is running in full mode, but it is really using multiple pixels to display the low res.   That is how bitrate prescaling looks similar because it is basically doing the same design.    The problem is that it is using MAME defaults over closer approximations provided by the Arcade VGA. 

I think I can find a way around this though.   Just haven't had time at home to do it.

Also the frame rate was 53 fps.    I don't know how this was possible being at best the LCD can only display 75hz.

I admit I don't understand it completely.   I am curious myself though on how Pacman will show.   

I got alot of testing, and I am anxious to see how this turns out.

I also am going to take some screen shots of bitrate at high res vs arcade vga settings at 352x288.     Then I want to try to show scanlines as well. 

MAME32 PLUS for some reason shows the scanlines vertical wich makes no sense.    I might just have to go back to MAME32 if I get good results.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 02:58:53 am by genesim »

Malenko

  • KNEEL BEFORE ZODlenko!
  • Trade Count: (+58)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13999
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:30 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 #118 on: July 27, 2007, 10:27:55 am »
when you run pacman, are you rotating the monitor 90 degrees like they did in the actual arcade machines?
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 #119 on: July 27, 2007, 11:07:06 am »
Right... it's the resolution of the monitor I'd like to know, for the PacMan screenshots.
Since the Arcade VGA uses multiple pixels, other programs can of course do that as well, achieving exactly the same results. But to compare, the same monitor resolution should be used.