Countdown to the death of the arcade monitor?.....

[SavannahLion]

ChadTower, that's kind of the thing though. It's generally accepted that what was explored with the old vector games is the precursor to what is done now. Hence the further refinement of what was then. If you look at the package as a whole, vector vs 3D on a raster, you're bound to find a lot of differences. Possibly enough to conclude they aren't the same technologies. Strip out the raster and what do you have left? You're still adopting a point to point system to a line by line system.

Yeah, it's true that it is all packaged differently. And in some cases their intended purpose isn't always the same. But in the end, playing connect the dots is still playing connect the dots. The whole thing had to start somewhere.

I personally feel that pure raster monitors are ultimately a dead end technology. We're increasing resolutions which gobble up exponentially increasing amounts of memory which consume huge amounts of bandwidth. Which is all overshadowed by a power struggle for DRM between the average consumer and the major media corporations. In the mean time, we've discarded or severely hampered perfectly legitimate avenues of research. I think the real technology isn't in raster per se, but in a combined hybrid... at least until my Holosuite arrives in the mail.

[ChadTower]

Strip out the raster and what do you have left? You're still adopting a point to point system to a line by line system.

Right.  They are the same in the end product in that they are both based on lines.  So is everything, really... if you want to break it down everything visual is basic geometry.  That doesn't make the design process similar by any means.  It's a vastly different process to do the math yourself for an X-y wireframe presentation than it is to design an object in an IDE and have a processing engine render that object for you.  The divergence between the type of effort required is so early that it is hard to say they are anything alike.

[knave]

My work just surplussed a bunch of 19 inch dell LCD's that were on 8 hours a day for about 5 years.  Most of them worked just fine.  Those that didn't were victim to some form of physical abuse.  

I wonder how you all feel about having your arcade monitor go into a screen saver or power save mode? Not traditional but sometimes you need to work within the means of your technology.

[SavannahLion]

Strip out the raster and what do you have left? You're still adopting a point to point system to a line by line system.

Right.  They are the same in the end product in that they are both based on lines.  So is everything, really... if you want to break it down everything visual is basic geometry.  That doesn't make the design process similar by any means.  It's a vastly different process to do the math yourself for an X-y wireframe presentation than it is to design an object in an IDE and have a processing engine render that object for you.  The divergence between the type of effort required is so early that it is hard to say they are anything alike.

It wasn't always the case to use an IDE to design an object and let the rendering engine do the rest. I do recall reading about people who actually memorized entire geometric object tables (tea kettle anyone?). It isn't too far of a stretch to realize that if vector monitors were still in use that, at some point, an IDE would have been created.

I think the points where we differ is which end we view this discussion. You keep looking at the end product and result. I'm looking at it from the beginning and where it goes from there.

[ChadTower]

Actually I'm looking at the beginning too.  I'm looking at what I have to do to design a vector game vs what I have to do to design a raster game... the whole approach I'd take diverges pretty heavily before I even got to the keyboard.

[leapinlew]

Oh, I'm sure we'll be able to call the Geek Squad to come over and fix our LCD monitors for us. Never fear.

[SavannahLion]

Actually I'm looking at the beginning too.  I'm looking at what I have to do to design a vector game vs what I have to do to design a raster game... the whole approach I'd take diverges pretty heavily before I even got to the keyboard.

What point are you trying to compare? It seems to me that you're comparing a process from 1980 to one used today. I'm trying to tell you that the modern techniques has evolved from the 1980's techniques. Therfor,

Vector graphics have not came and went, only the vector monitors. Vector development have continued on to be refined and improved.

It's been moved to a raster monitor, it's filled in, it has fake Z, bumpmap and shading have been added. It's still geometry, it's still vectors. Using a different tool doesn't change what lies underneath.

[ChadTower]

What point are you trying to compare? It seems to me that you're comparing a process from 1980 to one used today. I'm trying to tell you that the modern techniques has evolved from the 1980's techniques.

They did, yes, but that has nothing to do with games.  All of software development has changed in that manner as has the skillset required to make a game.  Today's developer half the time doesn't even have to have taken linear algebra to start popping out 3D objects into an environment with decent simulated physics. 

Using a different tool doesn't change what lies underneath.

No, it doesn't, but it completely changes the way you get there, and what skills you need to do it.  Today's developers are a completely different breed from those in 1985.

[SavannahLion]

Using a different tool doesn't change what lies underneath.

No, it doesn't, but it completely changes the way you get there, and what skills you need to do it.  Today's developers are a completely different breed from those in 1985.

You win 

Auditing someone elses code just downright sucks.

[ChadTower]

Auditing someone elses code just downright sucks.

I used to be a debug/support developer... you're right, it is just the worst, especially when it's not good code.  I had to move on to other things for sanity's sake.

No winning here, that's just good discussion.   

Ever try writing vector display code?  I did a little stuff for the Vectrex a while back and it took forever just to get it to write my damn name on the screen.   

[SavannahLion]

Ever try writing vector display code?  I did a little stuff for the Vectrex a while back and it took forever just to get it to write my damn name on the screen.   

TBH, I'd rather not talk about that subject ATT. 

[RobotronNut]

I've said it before, I've yet to see an arcade cab that uses a widescreen picture, whether pc monitor or TV (CRT or LCD). But the day will surely come...

i doubt you had this category in mind, but here's one. it uses a 32" widescreen LCD. if you want your home arcade cabinet to be serviceable beyond 20 yrs or so, this might be the direction to take. then again, who knows... maybe 16:9 screens will be obsolete in 20 yrs!

http://www.arcadesrfun.com/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=1&osCsid=8433da2b22a041e7c6be8eb2d642abe2



personally, i've given up on the cabinet idea entirely. i love the images from plasmas and LCDs. prefer it to CRTs. i just have a control panel on a simple pedestal in front of a free-standing 32" LCD panel (currently sitting on top of a bookcase). "when i get around to it" i intend to have a nice, open, tubular steel pedestal built, and the LCD wall mounted.

[ARTIFACT]

Pixel Shaders will come save us

Surely there'll still be a problem with matching the low refresh rates though?

nope.

just an additional thing ot "emulate"

as long as we get HIGH DENSITY (~200+ DPI) LCD (and OLED, etc) displays, and actually FAST rate, the "right coders" will be able to create a (set of) pixel shaders and geometry shaders that could exactly emulate all of these analog behaviors - including the low refresh rates

This is all theoretical of course and will take GOOD coders who REALLY know what they are doing with a GPU... but it IS possible

... again I am absolutely puzzled at how the mamedev guys are using D3D today... D3D gets a bad name for it but in fact it IS possible to get as good a result as they have reached with their old DDRAW implementation... "going OpenGL" (as I've seen mentioned a few times as a solution) ain't going to fix the way their scaling/blur looks... D3D can do a lot better.

anyway... I AM enjoying my 27" CRT monitor and its multi-sync/resolutions ... no doubt... and no doubt that these will all end up broken as landfill within a couple of decades

Folks in the broadcasting field are either dumping all their CRTs, or doing the reverse (hunting for them, to save them)

[u_rebelscum]

as long as we get HIGH DENSITY (~200+ DPI) LCD (and OLED, etc) displays, and actually FAST rate, the "right coders" will be able to create a (set of) pixel shaders and geometry shaders that could exactly emulate all of these analog behaviors - including the low refresh rates

I've been praying for high density resolution monitors for a long time.  Some of the excuses why we haven't gone high made sense ($$$, GUI OSs assumed 72-96 dpi), but others were baloney (people don't need better than 72 dpi, which was changed to "... not need better than 96 dpi" later; then why are printers 300 to 600 dpi or better?).  And with MacOS and Vista finally screen "resolution independent", one of the legit reasons is fading. (Yes!!! )


Please manufactures release many good high density res monitors (so the price goes low enough for me to buy). 

... again I am absolutely puzzled at how the mamedev guys are using D3D today... D3D gets a bad name for it but in fact it IS possible to get as good a result as they have reached with their old DDRAW implementation... "going OpenGL" (as I've seen mentioned a few times as a solution) ain't going to fix the way their scaling/blur looks... D3D can do a lot better.

Not my cup of tea, but AFAIK it's because different hardware treat the same commands differently.  BTW, have you tried increasing the prescaling option to 4 or 5 (if you have a high res monitor); gets ride of a lot of blur IME?

edit spelling

[Anubis_au]

Ahh, the good old analog/digital debate...

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. This "digital world" we live in is utter bollocks.

Digital refers to digital transmission and digital storage. Any screen technology is still analog. Do you see a picture, or a string of 1s and 0s?... it's still an analog picture, just not a CRT.

I know it's way off topic, but it needs to be said every now and then...

End rant.

And Xylo, I'm not having a go at you. I've read many of your posts and have great respect for your knowledge etc. And Prince is cool too

[genesim]

Random quotes:

Currently, LCDs don't hold a candle to CRTs for purity and contrast.

Oh based on what evidence?

I've also yet to see a curved LCD screen...

And this is a bad thing??  If that is what you want, then that is fine, but for me curving isn't integral with the original image except for a few cases(like ancient Atari games that are likely never to be emulated properly.

Here's a screenshot of what Pacman on an LCD would look like after a few weeks at that rate.

First of all, that is obviously a screen shot of an ATARI version not arcade so it isn't even on an LCD, and second, that is a crock.   I have an LCD for over 7 years with ZERO pixel burn out.   Though it does  happen with a manufacturing error, once the problem isn't inherit, it most of the time doesn't happen.  PERIOD.   Pixel burnout is rare...now the dimming in CRT's is real and it is an absolute myth that LCD's don't have as long of a life.  In actuallity you can leave an LCD on for much longer then Plasma and CRT with no degradation.   The lamp is what you have to worry about.

But seeing how they are so cheap.  Who cares!!  Servicing them...what the hell for???   My 4ms response LCD which blows away all the CRT's I have owned cost under 200 bucks.   In the 10 years from now in burns out...if I still have it, then I will replace it if it goes bad.   Big deal.   I am not likely to care by then!

It's sad when it takes a "reality engine" to faithfully reproduce something originally done on the equivalent of a 1mhz 8-bit C-64.

RandyT

We have been through this a hundred times.  Very nice results have already happened as I have shown you with screen shots.  There is virtually no difference between a CRT and LCD when multiple pixel technology is used.   A mediocre computer can do it just fine.

Digital refers to digital transmission and digital storage. Any screen technology is still analog.

Yeah, I guess, so perhaps the best term would be digital in nature(which is alot closer, either the pixel is on or off), because of the fixed resolution.  But one thing is for sure, LCD's utilizes a digital connection at low cost without the many problems of CRT.  CRT love is a religion that is hard to reason with.   Most just like it...because they like it, and no amount of tech talk will convince otherwise.

xxxxxxxxx

as long as we get HIGH DENSITY (~200+ DPI) LCD (and OLED, etc) displays, and actually FAST rate, the "right coders" will be able to create a (set of) pixel shaders and geometry shaders that could exactly emulate all of these analog behaviors - including the low refresh rates

Exactly my point, and not at the cost of newer games!   Until then, I file it under good enough.    Good clean LCD image without having a clunky, analog, reflection, curved, color bleeding, dimming, blur induced, electricity eating, hot image!

[RandyT]

We have been through this a hundred times.  Very nice results have already happened as I have shown you with screen shots.  There is virtually no difference between a CRT and LCD when multiple pixel technology is used.

You saying it does not make it so....no matter how many times you say it

RandyT

[genesim]

And you lining up an opinion against me doesn't make it so either!

Furthermore, it wasn't me "saying it", I took the pictures and the results were obvious.   

On a side note, as if an isolated instant is indicative of the whole.

For every LCD that supposedly went so bad, there are CRTS that are complete junk and are filling up the landfills as we speak.

CRT's have serious problems that anyone going to the arcade of old could see in just a few months.   Burn in is real.

[RandyT]

Furthermore, it wasn't me "saying it", I took the pictures and the results were obvious.   

Obvious to you, perhaps.  When LCD's can display resolutions from 192x240 to 1024x768 without changing the image with extra pixels that do not belong, or subtracting those that do, and can do it without adding large processing requirements to the PC or display hardware (i.e. does the scaling work within the confines of the LCD panel itself) then they will be comparable to CRT's.  Until then, they are an inferior display for an arcade cab where one wishes to duplicate the look of the original and do it on a "mediocre" computer (which BTW, is still 1000+ times more powerful than the original hardware.)

On a side note, as if an isolated instant is indicative of the whole.

For every LCD that supposedly went so bad, there are CRTS that are complete junk and are filling up the landfills as we speak.

CRT's have serious problems that anyone going to the arcade of old could see in just a few months.   Burn in is real.

Your use of the word "supposedly" indicates that you believe my "isolated instance" to be a lie.  Do I have to photograph for you this piece of junk that I spent over $200 on and lasted me only a little over two years of use?  It wasn't even on more than a few hours a day in that time period. 

LCD's are nice for a lot of applications, but they are not the "second coming."  Like any other piece of electronic equipment, they will fail eventually and can do so in a variety of different ways.  Most lamps inside LCD panels are specialized parts and are rated at about 50,000 hours.  That's about 5.5 years constant on.  Assuming the electronics live that long (mine did not) where will you find another to replace it?    As Ken stated earlier, they are disposable and that a lot sooner than the CRTs used in the arcade industry.  A little "burn-in" is not tantamount to "dead".

RandyT

[Anubis_au]

Burn in is real.

Burn in is/was a problem with arcade machines that were on for 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for years where one part of the picture was static for a large part of the time (usually, the logo).

I seriously doubt burn in is a problem for the home MAME-er, as no-one will leave their machine on for that long (not to mention, the software has a screensaver built in usually).

CRT love is a religion that is hard to reason with.   Most just like it...because they like it, and no amount of tech talk will convince otherwise.

As to why a person wants to play classic games on a CRT, I'll say this genesim: you either understand it, or you don't. Those of us that get it, find it hard to understand why you'd want to use anything else.

[XyloSesame]

Oy, I have no idea where to begin. This is heading down the PH path, as has so many other posts of late.

@ anubis: I always think of FPs as digital, CRTs as "analog", though I know by definition they are the same. For me, the employ of a vacuum tube endears CRTs to the analog realm more than FPs, though the statement was more of an analogy as opposed to a reflection on the topic. Anubis, you are correct, and it does need to be reiterated so that misinformation does not propagate.

@ genesim: Based on what evidence do LCDs not reproduce color accurately? Are you serious? Do some research and get back to us with any findings to the contrary. Not said to be an ass, but because I want to know. I have never read any literature, benchmarking, testing, or analysis that concluded current LCD technology was better, heck even on par with, tube color and depth. And don't even get me started on the short-sighted "who cares" attitude that is causing the US to be overrun with landfills. Irresponsible.

[FrizzleFried]

I simply chose to use an authentic oldschool crt monitor in my MAME rigs because I wanted AUTHENTICITY. When i walked up to an arcade back in the day I didn't see an LCD screen,  I saw a CRT.  That simple.

If/when I ever build a rig to run modern day games in HiResolution on I would seriously consider using an LCD over a CRT.

[ChadTower]

So the total absence of glare is all to do with a COATING as opposed to the very nature of the technology which uses individual lit pixels vs a projection??

I suggest reading up on the actual physics of a CRT.  A CRT is not a projected image.  It is individual lit phosphors, having been struck by excited electrons, glowing as a result.  The only thing that can be physically called a projection is the electron stream, which is not an image, it's just a bunch of electrons shooting forth at a controlled rate.

[RandyT]

Again, the worst part about this debate is that eventually LCD's / cell based displays could do a good job displaying lower resolution screens.  The absolutely bizarre part of that is that they will need to have a very high native resolution before it can happen.  And of course the aforementioned computing horsepower.

Here is some simple math to illustrate this point;

Original game resolution = 240 x 192  = 46,080 pixels to manipulate.

Common native resolution of 4:3 LCD panel = 1280 x 1024 = 1,310,720 pixels to manipulate, which is over 28 times the data needing to be shuffled to create the display.  Of course by doing so, there will be 80 rows of interpolated pixels that will be tacked into the display, altering it's appearance.  Because the rows containing those extra pixels are about 20% larger, they are pretty easy to pick out and you don't need to be a "fanatic" to find them disturbing.

The only way to reduce this negative effect is to reduce the percentage of difference between the clean scaled multiple pixel and the extra interpolated native pixels.  And to do that, the native resolution of the LCD panel must be increased.  For instance, if one had an LCD panel with a native resolution of 6400 x 5120, that same game would now have about 160 interpolated pixel rows, but these would only make the cleanly scaled lines about 3.5% larger, therefore a far less noticeable artifact.

The problem comes with not only the manufacturing and cost of such a high-resolution screen (which may never be produced due to limited demand for such a thing) but the computing power required to manipulate that amount of data.  A 6400 x 5120 screen would have 32,768,000 pixels to shuffle, 711 times the data, just to create an image that looked acceptably similar to the original.

If you have an LCD with either 1024 or 1280 native horizontal resolution, a really good example of what an LCD panel does to a low res arcade game can be seen by simply changing your windows desktop to 800 x 600.  Try it and report back

If one wants to use an LCD, then that is absolutely fine.  I'll probably build a machine that uses one eventually because they offer a lot of options in cabinet design due to their size and low weight.  But they have trade-offs when compared to a CRT when used for this purpose and my hackles get raised when someone says they don't.  Not because I am a fanatical CRT user, but because it is just plain mis-information that prevents others from being able to make educated decisions about  the components they will eventually use.

RandyT

[telengard]

Man, topics like this sorta bum me out.   

I just bought an WG Multisync and I'm very happy with it.  I had just switched from a PC monitor.

The tech everyone is talking about (new LED tvs, pixel shaders) sounds cool but only if I can still get it in a 19" form factor w/ a curved tube.

Should I buy a few more of my WG model and tuck them away?   

~telengard

[bfauska]

Turning uniform square pixels into variously sized square multi-pixels because of upscaling to resolutions not evenly divisible by the original makes for bad pictures.

The most accurate image is one that begins at and ends at the same resolution, from source to display.

The best way to produce black in an image is to not apply any light to that portion of the picture, displays that back-light the whole image by design are not going to create the contrast and black levels of a display that only applies light where it is needed.

An argument that ignores many widely know facts and/or completely misrepresents the technologies being debated is very difficult to pay attention to, and when you know parts of a debate are crap it is difficult to sift through it just in case there is something worth listening to hidden away in it.

The nice part about this argument is that you don't even have to understand the technology to know which side of it is supported by intelligence and which is supported by mis-informed fanatic rants.

LCDs are likely the display technology of the FUTURE, they have many features that make them a better choice in modern society than a CRT.  Arcade machines and the games we play on them are, for many of us, a link to the PAST, they were originally designed and built to work with CRTs and in most cases are more authentically linked to history by continuing that use.

A modern hybrid car is a feature rich smart choice for today and the future, but when driving one you will never mistake it for a cruise in a '57 Chevy. 

If part of your passion for this hobby is for authenticity then it is hard to deny that CRTs are the right choice.  If you want a versitile machine that can squeeze into a smaller than original footprint, uses less power, is lighter to move around and easier to find parts for you may have to SACRIFICE some authenticity for the traits that are more important to you and use an LCD.  Lucky for us the difference isn't as great as it may sometimes sound in these arguments and many people will be happy with either display.

ON TOPIC... any time it becomes more difficult to maintain or reproduce an old piece of equipment with period accurate OEM style parts it is at a loss to the history buffs and fans of the past.  The knowledge of this upcoming shortage of CRTs should help us all make the choice to cram one or two more classics into our well cared for collections now before it's too late.  At the very least we can now try to sell our wives on the idea that we are conserving some of the last remaining parts of an era that will likely be remembered as a great time in many lives.

[Anubis_au]

More fuel -> fire

Genesim, I've just read through the three pages of posts again. Nowhere does anyone say that CRT is a better technology than LCD. Only you are putting the argument forward that LCD is a superior technology to CRT.

Those of us who prefer CRTs to LCDs, do not do it because we believe it to be a better technology. We choose CRT simply because it is the authentic way to play these old, classic games.

So, CRTs have colour blur. Guess what? I *WANT* that colour blur! So do many others. Because the games were designed to be seen with that blur. They even took advantage of it when designing the look of the games.

Nostalgia plays a large part in what we all do here. I see nothing wrong in trying to recreate the look and feel of those old games, by using CRT technology.

As I've said, for many / most applications, I would vouch for the higher resolution abilities of LCD / plasma over traditional CRT technology. Just not for classic arcade games.

[danny_galaga]

havent had time to read this whole thread. i believe we will be ok for quite a while for crts. i think chad mentioned it earlier on. the reason being that crts are still heaps cheaper to make. and there will always be a market for a cheap version to have as a second or third tv to stick in the spare room. or for people on a low budget who just need to see the news. so 21" at least (which is what we are mostly interested in) will be around. as each emerging economy that makes them gets more tech savvy and starts making more expensive types of tellies, other emerging economies take over. i saw a 21" for $99 today. no doubt made in thailand. nothing wrong with that. my housemate and i both have 21" crts and thats all. no plasma this or surround that...

[DaveMMR]

get out of the 80's.

If you believe that rhetoric, you're in the wrong hobby.  The point of these message boards is to help others who are attempting to recreate 80's technology (and 70's and 90's to a lesser extent).  And this is why people love their CRTs (myself included).  If you're comparing technologies, LCD is far superior, if the application calls for it.   But when you're displaying low-res, 20~30 year old games, the CRT has its place.   Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages and three pages of arguing won't change the fact that it's a matter of personal preference.

[RandyT]

Randy T is saying that the light from the CRT Tube is not just that?

It is not being projected?

He is as wrong as Chad Tower??

No, you are attempting once again to put words in my mouth.

If you want to Google stuff, try "persistence of vision".  It is the only reason why a CRT can present an image to you at all.  An LCD based image is lit constantly (see part about the little addressable windows allowing light to pass)  A CRT "paints" an image onto the phosphor, but does so at the end of an electron beam.  That puts out photons only as long as the phosphor remains excited (not very long at all.)  CRTs are even available with phosphor of varying persistence based on the application they are slated for.  But as long persistence phosphor causes streaking on fast moving display data, it is not a good choice for games.

You can say that light is being emitted by the glowing phosphor.  But at no point is an entire image being "projected" as is the case with LCD.  There is a screen sized image there only because your brain says there is.  Try taking a picture of a CRT with a high speed camera and then do the same with an LCD.  The camera has no brain that can be fooled, so on the resulting photo of the CRT, you only see the amount of screen painted for the duration that the shutter is open.

Of course due to the fact that electrons travel at the speed of light, and phosphor starts emitting photons much more quickly than the crystals twist in the LCD panel, the CRT has the advantage of a faster response time (currently.)

RandyT


*Edit to account for Genesim's edit*

Here people, try this link...and also look around for info about Randy T saying that pixels on an LCD aren't indivdually lit.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/03/20/how_crt_and_lcd_monitors_work/2

Thank you for providing a link that illustrates my point.

[Level42]

Thought we were discussing something else: The CRT is close to it's end.

Quite incidentally I read this last saturday in Holland's biggest newspaper (this is my rather poor tranlation):
_________________________________________
CRT now really is history

The situation stays very cumbersome with the production of CRTs. While the flat lcd- and plasmascreens sell like hot cakes, it seems the good old CRT is running on it's last legs.
In that light, it's not strange that LPD, a re-start of the bankrupt LG-Philips CRTs, is going through very rough times. In the past 12 months until september this year. the gross turnover stayed 25% behind the budgeted turnover, as reported in the fourth curator's report about the bankruptcy of LG-Philips Displays Holding which was effected on januari 30, 2006.
The disappointing turnover was a little over $1 bilion.
__________________________________________

The signs are clear. A $1 bilion turnover still means business I guess. But 25% behind estimate....and let's assume they calculated in the role of the LCD's and Plasma's....that means it goes quicker than they thought....

The CRT is not dead yet, and I don't think it will disappear completely for some 10 years because of low-end markets. But it's going fast......

[Fozzy The Bear]

YAWN!!! Not only is this entire thread dull and boring, but it's entirely irrelevant....

WHO CARES!!!!    

If you like the look you get on an LCD USE ONE!!!
If you like the look you get on a CRT USE ONE!!!

At the end of the day it doesn't matter a damn either way!! Can you play the games you want to play?? Yes?? Now shut up banging on about it, and get on with playing them.

genesim is actually wrong and right about a variety of things..... Surprisingly I find I both agree and disagree with Randy on some points. But at the end of the day guys, I'll be off playing games while you are wasting time banging on about this irrelevant drivel.

Have a nice day!  

BTW.... Phillips announced the end of CRT production about two years ago... so the fact is that we're all going to face the total loss of the new CRT tube in the next five years. Regardless of how superior or inferior it is it doesn't matter! we're going to have to live without them. That doesn't mean that a new technology is necessarily better than an old one OR that an old technology is necessarily better than a new one. It's horses for courses buy what you like to look at yourself!

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

[RandyT]

The end of the CRT is a lot  closer than we probably realize.  The consumer market drives production much harder than does the industrial market.  The consumer market is simply many, many times larger, so economies of scale bring prices down and push industry in the dictated direction.

Consumers have spoken on the CRT vs Flat Screen issue and they have chosen the flat screen.  The early adopters (those with cash to spare) have already taken the plunge.  The rest are just waiting for the prices to fall, which they are steadily doing.  When the 27" flat TV costs today what the tube cost a year ago, it will be over.  Tube companies will scale back production (and employees) in a massive way and the CRT will be a specialized item with an associated cost to produce.

I give them no more than 3 years at retail outlets, but suspect it will be even less.

RandyT

[grantspain]

i like projectors

[Anubis_au]

The only thing left is the fact that the resolution/dotpitch is not one to one.   I know this, but yet I also know what I do get is drawn perfectly.   Unlike a CRT which was never correct.

Genesim, please understand the distinction between authentic and correct.

If there is a game that was in the arcades, and it was displayed on a CRT, with colour bleeding, pixel distortions, and everything else you say that occurs due to using CRTs, then those of us who want the game to be as authentic to how it was back then, prefer to use CRT technology to achieve the same image, colour bleeding, pixel distortion, warts and all.

We don't prefer CRT despite these "problems", we prefer it BECAUSE of them.

LCD presents the games with very sharp graphics. You prefer that look. And that's fine. But nearly everyone else on this thread (and that's not to say every MAME'er) prefer the softer look that comes with CRT.

Please just understand and respect that. We don't say CRT is a superior technology. We just like how the games look on CRT because it's authentic to how we knew and loved them back in the day.

And that is also why this thread, originally, was not about us trying to engineer a technology coup, eliminate LCD and reinstate CRT as the champion technology. Rather, this topic is about the sad fact that CRTs are on their way out.

[saint]

I tried to remove any posts that had something personal in nature, and as such some content was lost as well. If you had a point that's worth repeating please feel free to repost, sans anything personal - thanks!

--- saint

[syph007]

I have to add my thoughts as a newb to this hobby.  Death of the CRT is VERY sad.. Im just getting into this, and now its going to be harder to make something authentic down the road.   

On the CRT vs LCD front, from someone looking to get the best bang for the buck, it's an easy decision.  No one mentioned my important considerations, Cost and size!  I can't get a big LCD for the price of a big CRT.. all display technology differences aside.. I want a big screen on my arcade cabinet the fills the space without some inappropriate bezel.  If someone comes over to my house, and saw that, they would know its not a 'real' cabinet, thats its some homemade one...   to me the goal is to make people think you've got something 'authentic'.. and that means a big curved, bright, soft image CRT!   This is making me want to buy some now for the future, just in case I get to build more than one cabinet.

[genesim]

Genesim, please understand the distinction between authentic and correct.

I do, I do.

The problem is that every pixel that a programmer has made with the original code is congruent with each other.

i.e.   Pacman has square pixels that are even in playing field no matter if moving left or right.

So as Pacman moves farther to the left or right, the pixel is different on a CRT monitor(even if miniscule), then the pixel in the middle.

This is the nature of a CRT display.    This is not accurate to the original code.

Don't confuse intentions of the programmer, to simply compromising because it is all they had to work with. 

I can understand completely with wanting original design.    Hell I like Mortal Kombat so much that I like the original Marquee in all its tackiness.   Yet there have been cool designs that no doubt are very well done....but not the original.

So that is understandable.   It is just when people say that LCD is incapable that I have a problem.   In the end, there really isn't a right and wrong, just different perceptions.    LCD's have their shortcomings, but at the same time CRT has its faults too...and thats right back to the original code.   There are many examples of this, that I already described before.

While it is easy to say a programmer meant for this to be, in reality they worked with what they had. 

Someone mentioned George Lucas and his changes.   While I don't agree with all of them, I certaintly do agree that he made compromises in the beginning based on lack of hardware and money.    I absolutely think the same is true with older games on crappy monitors.

As LCD's get cheaper and cheaper, and computers get faster and faster, this little arguement will be less and less relevant.     Though instead of hording the older technology, maybe some people should take a hard look at the new possiblities.   After all, how are we going to ever improve with ideas?

I know I have, because I am a serious gamer.    Been there from PONG when I was little and been following every since.   

Yes I hate things like Galaxian having aweful emulated sound.    Yes I hate how the warez kiddies don't care about the history, but still a lot of great ideas have kept the older games alive.

I am not suggesting that quality be completely sacrficed...because if given a choice AND being able to play the maximum amount of games....yes I would go with a one to one relationship.

But for me, CRT's have too many drawbacks, and me being very very skeptical of LCD technology have been thoroughly blown away by the new trends.

Now, through all this, I am got some admissions.    People want CRT's because it what they remember.    That is fine, now that it is admitted.   Perhaps new gamers can take something from that.   It sure gives them a choice instead of saying "this is the only way".


syph007,

I feel your pain, and I don't know why LCD's aren't given the fullscreen treatment like they have with widescreen.   Yet that 32 inch looks damn nice with its 21 inch height.   

to me the goal is to make people think you've got something 'authentic'.. and that means a big curved, bright, soft image CRT!

And that is your goal.   I guess mine is for people to go wow...how many games can you play with that?   Even new ones???   Even the whole frickin history of arcade/pc/cosole games...NICE!

[CheffoJeffo]

Its amazing how people forget how vector graphics came and went. 

I can think of more than a few who haven't and nothing (yet) compares to a real vector monitor. You might be surprised to learn how many folks there are here with authentic vector games and/or VectorMAME cabs (I was surprised at the number of VectorMAME cabs and I love vectors).

The problem is that every pixel that a programmer has made with the original code is congruent with each other.

i.e.   Pacman has square pixels that are even in playing field no matter if moving left or right.

So as Pacman moves farther to the left or right, the pixel is different on a CRT monitor(even if miniscule), then the pixel in the middle.

This is the nature of a CRT display.    This is not accurate to the original code.

Don't confuse intentions of the programmer, to simply compromising because it is all they had to work with. 

I find it somewhat ironic that you can cite an authentic CRT from the exact period (which is what the game was specifically designed to run on) as "inaccurate" while you are running the game in an emulator on a PC.

 

[Level42]

There's still some hope:

Look at this Italian site I just found:
http://www.industrial-monitors.com/monitor-industriali-ega-cga-vga.htm

Scroll down to the big CRT on the test-bench and look at the stickers behind it...... 

Vectors ROCK, and if you haven't ever seen a real vector game with a real vector monitor (preferably an Amplifone ) you know NOTHING about them. So what if they came and went. So did tube-radio's, I still love them (AND their sound !)....