Randy T,
Q: Nice cabinet. How come the screen is so small?
A: With my budget, I had a choice between a good 20" LCD panel or a 27" Multi-Sync. I think LCD Panels are way better.
Everyone that has come over to my house has enjoyed the rig and appreciated it as "out of this world". But yeah, I do think the 19 inch LCD Panels are better. Care to make any more personal comments on my preference? I wonder when it was going to come to that.
My graphics are not "choppy" either. My computer is more then fast enough to not only handle almost every game that MAME emulates, but the same applies for newer games as well.
But this is my question: Is there some reason you think the latest games can't be played on a CRT monitor?
Not on a multisyc onversized one. Not only are the resolutions shy of what they should be, but I have mentioned a hundred times about the problems that I have with CRT monitors. I don't like reflection, I don't like blur, I don't like color problems, I don't like analog.
I like DIGITAL sharp image.....
So your assumption is that the programmers worked with CRT because they had nothing better,
First of all, I want to say thank you for taking the time to read what I have written and acknowledge my point. I didn't know how else to explain it. But lets get one thing straight.
It IS because they had nothing better. There is nothing to debate when it comes to this. LCD's for all intensive purposes were not a choice until recent years. While they did exist as far back as 1970, the tech just wasn't there. So yes, my assumption which would be correct...for the games that were made, vs cost, vs tech. They didn't have a choice.
And no, I don't believe programmers programmed for pixel differences that I speak of. Randy T, by the way, is not grasping what I say because he is still talking about a debate that we had a long time ago about the blurring that occurs when using different dot pitch paired with scanlines. This is something I also disagree with, but nothing to do with my points I am illustrating now.
This is why I question if people are even reading what I wrote. It is impossible to get a point across if people aren't even grasping my point.
Cheffo Jeffo,
I did read everything -- and I still find it ironic that you use "accuracy" to the code (which you seem to have defined unilaterally) as a benchmark to judge the superior display technology, but disregard the accuracy issues involved with emulation on a PC and not using original hardware.
Again, this is not true. I do not disregard accuracy issues involved with PC. I don't know where you got this at all?? I look at cost vs result. I know that MAME and other emulators aren't perfect, but there are very obvious reasons that I don't want all the original arcade boards.
You have chosen an interesting windmill to tilt at -- a few microns of display distortion which are typically viewed from a distance (and will be perceived differently by everybody who views them, so is virtually impossible to actually assess in a meaningful fashion).
Actually no. What I have described above is quite visible with your eyes on most any CRT display. If you haven't see it, then cool. For me, I notice the "lense" look as well as the uneven colors. I have taken pictures of it, and compared with tons of magnification. But again, my first view told me what I know theoretically to be correct. I match colors for a living, and I know color when it is inconsistent.
For me, the most important issue of accuracy with respect to a game like Pac Man is controls -- everything else is a distant second.
To YOU, and that is fine. Both are just as important to me.
Oh ... and unless you are channeling Toru Itawani, then you might want to scale back your representations as to the intentions of the programmer or the code. Just a thought.
Why would I need to do that? It is obvious when using deductive reasoning. A.It is proven that he did not have LCD's available to him in the current model with the affordable price range and B. Each pixel was represented the same when moving across the board.
But it is tempting to write him and ask. Did you or did you not program against a technology that was pretty much not invented yet?
Patent Doc,
In your recording analogy you are correct that the new media (LCD in your analogy) would pick up more from the original analog master tapes (in your analogy I assume the master recording represents the code) and likely be a more accurate representation of the recording. The problem is music engineers of the time placed mikes and processed sound going into the master knowing what the limitations of the vinyl lp (CRT in your analogy) were.
No I do not agree with this. While I am sure microphone placement, muffling, eq...etc would adhere to the limitations...or better yet what an engineer might think would sound "right", this is not proven. We don't know it, any more then Randy T's arguement of what each and every programmer had in mind.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand the point. Now understand this.
The importance is getting everything from the master correct FIRST, and then provide the limitations second...not the other way around. After all, if what you say is correct, as in the egineers meant for the master to sound that way, why would I further add error by tinkering with it???
Showing a Square in Pacman as accurate as it can be first is key. Same with a recording master. If you want it to sound like the record back in the day(and why...I would never know) then get the master represented first and then put on the crappy eq and poor sonic fuddling associated with it.
But in both cases, I want a CHOICE. And no I don't agree that in either case that the engineer wouldn't have wanted a more precise technology such as digital which can recieve all of the code/master in perfect quality, each and every time. Unlike a CRT monitor which has an analog connection, or a record which is pressed differently the farther and farther you get from the original metal master.
I beleive engineers have foresight, I believe that they have expretise, but I do not logically think they program for tech that hasn't even been invented yet I just don't find that theory reasonable. Why, because just like with the pixel arguement(the one I speak of not Randy) there is no evidence to support it. NADA. When I see hoofprints, I think horses, not zebras.
What joe saw, may not be the same as what schmoe saw because of these limitations with analog. So the "accuracy" isn't even there to what supposedly was originally witnessed!
With a digital connection. At least the image that is seen is uniform through each and every viewer.
RandyT's point has been that the programmers were like the recording engineers and would place pixels where given the limitations of the display would result in a more pleasing picture even if on graph paper this wouldn't have been your choice.
First of all, I don't doubt that this happened, and it has been a long arguement that never was understood from my point of view. Much like no understanding is going on about the distinction of drawing a pixel purposely "boxy" and the point I made above about each pixel being different. APPLES AND ORANGES
But to revisit that debate. I was referring to the fact, that until that "boxy" pixel is drawn the most accurately, then the filtering that comes later will be inaccurate to the original code(unless one uses the EXACT same monitor, not the multisync out of ratio version). Maybe programmers even programmed for that too...maybe they knew that analog connections would be superceded by digital......uh wait a minute.. NO I doubt that.
You know what I think is more likely the case. Hey, that looks great. Now lets get it out the door and make some money! This looks better then Space Invaders!
What you in fact have created is a situation where you get an accurate recording but not an accurate representation of the music that was played (ie., the vision of the artist). This is a fundamental point. You believe the former (i.e., the recording - the programming code) is the most important to be represented accurately whereas many others believe it is the latter (i.e., the music - the artists vision).
I don't know why you can't have both! First of all, when it comes to music, the artist has little to no say when it comes to the sonic mastering of said record. Most of the time, the original artist just came in, laid down the tracks. So in retrospect, it is the sound engineers that I am cutting out. Some of the best recordings I have ever heard were from crappy home recordings. I care about the material that was laid down, not the studio magicians afterwards. The master is the blueprint....but again, like Gone With The Wind, I am also aware of color correction and that has been applied by people that have studied the original movie notes. BUT do you think they didn't first tranfer the master in the most correct way possible!! It would be foolish to apply corrections before it is represented correctly!!
A good example is to look at the DVD version of Star Wars. During the final battle due to the extreme ability of the DVD media to display detail, you can now see matting (dark shaded boxes) around the x-wing fighters. To be sure it is a more accurate representation of the picture, but there is no way seeing this was George's intent even IF it were more accurate to what was captured on film.
You think the DVD media found this flaw? I got news for you, DVD's are far far far inferior to a film print. When I saw the original Star Wars in the theatre, the storm troopers outfits looked like pure plastic. This wasn't true on DVD because of the lower resolution. Digital can only pick up what is there, not what isn't. The original film prints of Star Wars absolutely had the boxes around the tie fighters. I noticed them then, as I notice them now.
Again, NO DVD's do not represent the original vision the best. The film prints back then had resolutions of over a thousand and only till recently have we been able to even come close to matching that original vision with high def. DVD's are only 500 lines and alot of times non-progressive at that! Add to that, they run through analog cord. So in the end, yes they are even less then then their stock resolution...and you are going to compare that with a film print???
These situations are why there are remasters on CD (for argument here I am only referring to stereo remasters and not remastering into 5.1 surround)...not because the original recording was bad, but because the choices made then to best represent the music on vinyl (here a CRT) are NOT the same choices you would make for a CD, DVD-A, SACD, etc (here LCD).
This has been a theory that runs around the net, but I don't agree at all. The original masters if represented correctly will have a pure sound. The problem with first generation cd's were that they used the sonically screwed up record masters. Records had so many little gimicks back in the day, and many of them quite detrimental. Perhaps there is a whole lotta people that like that crap, but for the most part, my guess is nostalgia over true appreciation of the original artist. What you really get is muffled vocals and a drum kit that doesn't have a "snap"...etc. etc.
Vinyl has a lower frequency response. Vinyl has physical limitations like the fact that a needle has to touch the record. And just like CRT, that is its downfall. You cannot get away from physical limitations. No matter what you think the original intentions were, if you have something like Vinyl that changes with every single play, it is impossible to know what that original vision is! Same is true with any analog rig be it music, video games, movies...etc. You may have theories, but like science, if you cannot reproduce, then it don't mean squat.
I imagine that when Star Wars is eventually released in some HD format, George will revisit the final battle in Star Wars as what was previously undetectable, now noticeable, will be unbearable and no longer represent the intent of George.
I won't miss the black boxes, or the cardboad cutouts. Like the uneven pixels, I can reasonably deduce that George didn't want those in there. REASONABLE DEDUCTION. The rest, like Greedo shooting first is open for debate. That is the difference. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. If you want to debate the latter, then I won't because it is all opinions. But the former, is really commons sense.
I will say this though. George Lucas can do whatever he wants because he owns the material. If he said he wanted clown feet on Luke, it isn't up for you or I to decide, because like computer programmers, until we are in their head, we don't know what they explected.
YET, we can logically deduce what they were going for. If a Tie Fighter is on a black background, and boxes aren't in other shots, one can honestly see that it obviously wasn't intended. The same can be said about the CRT problems.
Anyway, I think you guys get my point. Getting even a few people to understand is all I cared about.