Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
genesim:
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:
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:
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
RandyT:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 25, 2007, 12:44:40 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: genesim on July 25, 2007, 01:01:31 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: genesim on July 25, 2007, 02:49:39 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Great! Continue to be astounded. Just stop trying to convince people of something that is technically not possible.
RandyT
krutknut:
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version