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

[CheffoJeffo]

So what if they came and went. So did tube-radio's, I still love them (AND their sound !)....

Interesting analogy ... nicest sounding stereo I have ever heard is my uncle's McIntosh-driven system ...

[Level42]

Nothing beats a tube-amp.

AND they are still in production !

[Ken Layton]

Nothing beats a tube-amp.

AND they are still in production !

That's because there is still a demand. You can still buy brand new tubes and brand new tube amplifiers. The same with CRT monitors.

[bfauska]

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!

Posts like that are so much easier to read and pay attention to than the hard-line emotional rants we've seen previously.  Post like that more often and you may be surprised with how civil the conversation can stay.

[Level42]

Yep, and it's my deep hope that there will be a (small) market for CRT's like that in the future. However prices will go up.

However, I can now get brand new TV-sets, with on-screen set-ups etc. for as little as €80,- here.
The only problem is they're 21", not 19"....but I'm seriously thinking about getting 2 or 3 (maybe I get a rebate ) Would like to see the face of the seller and maybe some other people around  

Long live SCART ! 

[genesim]

bfauska,

Let the past be the past.  I see it differently, but stirring the crap doesn't help.

You think I have improved.   Good for you.   Maybe some others can as well.

Jeffo,

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.

I say this with all honesty.   I don't think you are reading all that I have wrote.   

Do you understand that I am saying accurate to the ORIGINAL CODE?

Using logic and understanding, if every pixel is congruent...as in that every pixel is programmed exactly the same...yet the display changes because of the design, then it stands to reason the programmers didn't program for the display.   

What is more accurate is that the programmers worked with what they had and did the best they could.

Now as far as an LCD displaying.   However much is interporlated, you can count on this.   Each pixel is the same as the next because of its design.     

No color is being projected differently to your eyes.   

On the other hand, the electron stream is being deflected on a CRT, so by design each pixel is not the same as the next.   And the color that is projected to your eyes, is less accurate(in theory).

For example...lets say that the color in the middle is 30 percent green, 20 percent red, 50 percent blue.    Now further say that 40 pixels left it is meant to be the same color.    But the problem is that because of the deflection angle, it may actually come up as 34 percent green, 18 percent red, 48 percent blue which gives a slightly different color.     Add to that, 30 percent green, 20 percent red, 50 percent blue may actually effect the pixel right beside it because those coordinates spill over to the next pixel which may have completely different coordinates!   So what you get is a average of the two.   Which of course leads to the color blurring that I spoke of.   

With separate electron guns in the more expensive CRT's some have said that they are more accurate still, but the problem is that nasty little thing called distance.

So would you say that CRT's are accurate to the original code that was programmed by the original artist giving these faults?  Maybe just maybe this is more accurate then even the artists understood at the time!   Perhaps the artist at the time said who cares!...lets go make some money.

LCD's do not have this problem.   So if the ratio is ever rendered correctly through software, then yes you can get a more accurate account of the original code then even the original CRT's could deliver.

Bluring and what not as in intentional rounding of the "boxy" pixels, are up for debate.    That was what me and Randy T argued page after page.    But THIS(as described in the paragraphs above) is something else all together.    I hate to say it again, but it is a fact that when you have a signal being beamed across an amount of space, and you further have it deflected, you will get signal loss/uneven quality and lastly undesired results.   Not to mention, analog connections that compound the problem.

The difference with the LCD is that all the action is happening at the screen.  It is being back lit, so there is no space for it to travel.  So each pixel is essentially the same, without any effect on the next.   That and the fact that it is a digital connection which in theory recieves each and every bit that was programmed.

Understanding, that the original code was digital, so therefore, yes again, LCD at least takes the signal a little further in totally intact form.

So yeah, that is what I meant about more accurate, and not simply what was in the arcades.  I am aware of what was in the arcades, and I am not implying that you don't either.

I will give you the best example I can think of.    Lets say a music artist records a demo.    They tranfer the music from the original master tapes to a record.   YET years later we go back to those original master tapes and use better equipment to pick up bits of sound that were never transferred to the metal record master.   Would you say that records are the best, because that was how you originaly heard them, or perhaps would you enjoy the new sound that was picked up from the original master and understand this was better then even the people that bought the records back in the day could ever dream!

My example is a long stretch, but I am illustrating a point.   

By the way, me running it on a PC has nothing to do with it.   The original code has been meticulously dumped by Guru and the MAME guys have been working their asses off to represent it correctly.   While maybe not 100% across the board, alot of it IS!  I think your treading on thin ice when you criticize the authenticity of proven games.    But I do admit, it is an ongoing thing.    And even the best intentions produce speed/emulation problems.

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).

With all due repect, I am not surprised,  I know it.   That is why I brought it up.    With the health concerns that I read about with Vector graphics, that is why they were phased out.  That and the fact that they were very  primitive.

Though some people do stand by them, and yes try to turn down/up contrast ratios to the point of burning up their crt monitors(or so I have heard..I am no expert on these practices).

For me, file it under good enough.   True Asteroids will never look like it did without that specific monitor(the lines were blinding!), but playing the game in decent quality, is pretty good for me...but then again, who knows, in time maybe that too will be obtainable.

[Anubis_au]

OK, genesim, I think I finally understand where you are coming from.

The digital code obviously has every pixel the same size, yet there are tiny variations in the pixel size on a CRT due to the deflection.

So your assumption is that the programmers worked with CRT because they had nothing better, but would have preferred a technology like LCD because every pixel is the same size.

I'd argue that the difference in pixel size is so minute because of deflection that for all intents and purposes, you can treat every pixels as equal in size.

But even if the pixel size did vary wildly, the point we are making is, WE DON"T CARE. We want the game to look as it did back then. Authenticity. Even if the pixels at the edges are minisculely wider than the pixels in the centre of the picture.

[jcoleman]

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

You keep saying this.  The original code was written with the display tech in mind.  Therefore the CRT is "accurate" to the original code.  You may very well like a sharper, pixelated display, but do not say that it is "accurate" to the original code.  A more precise display, perhaps, but accurate it is not.

A modern day example of this situation is Windows ClearType.  This font smoothing technology is used when you have an LCD screen.  The qualities inherent to LCD displays (subpixels) are used to more smoothly display fonts on a an LCD screen.  Similarly, graphic designers on the teams responsible for the games we know and love took the qualities inherent to the CRT that would be used in the machine into account when designing the graphics.  Like you said, "they worked with what they had" - but they WORKED with it, they didn't just throw the graphics on the screen.  Using the Star Wars example: Lucas did the best he could with the technology he had - he didn't just film a bunch of toys against a black backdrop.  The limitations of the SFX technology were exploited, not just accepted.

To sum up, the code doesn't "care" if a pixel is displayed as an illuminated phosphor (which can be square, rectangular, round, etc., depending on the CRT in question) or a grouping of LCD windows turned a certain way - all the the code does is say "green here" or "cyan here."  It's up to the display to render it visible to the human eye.  The display technology used in most, if not all, arcade machines is CRT.  Therefore CRT is the most "accurate" option - but most certainly not the ONLY option.

Coleman

PS One of my favorite BYOACabs is the Rototron - with nary a CRT in sight.

[CheffoJeffo]

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.

I say this with all honesty.   I don't think you are reading all that I have wrote.   

I just find your stance ironic, that's all.

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.

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).

For me, the most important issue of accuracy with respect to a game like Pac Man is controls -- everything else is a distant second.

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.

 

[RandyT]

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

And where we diverge is when I say (having been there and done that) that "working with what you had" meant taking advantage of the properties of the display in order to give a better end result on that display.  This often meant placing pixels into the graphics in such a way that they would look terrible on graph paper.  But on a fuzzy CRT, it improved the picture.  With an LCD you are seeing the graphics in ways the developers never intended.

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!

Here are some other likely questions and answers;

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.

Q: Btchin graphics!  Why are the new games so choppy?
A: Because I need to run the game at the native resolution of the panel so I don't get image artifacting.  I'll have a much better framerate when I save up another $400 for a good graphics card / CPU upgrade.

But this is my question:  Is there some reason you think the latest games can't be played on a CRT monitor?

RandyT

[Patent Doc]

genesim

I will give you the best example I can think of.    Lets say a music artist records a demo.    They tranfer the music from the original master tapes to a record.   YET years later we go back to those original master tapes and use better equipment to pick up bits of sound that were never transferred to the metal record master.   Would you say that records are the best, because that was how you originaly heard them, or perhaps would you enjoy the new sound that was picked up from the original master and understand this was better then even the people that bought the records back in the day could ever dream!

Man I wish you had used that analogy in the previous thread regarding the intent of the programmers.  I really understand your position more than ever and think I can explain the other side. 

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.  This was done to create an accurate representation of the music being played given recording limitations.  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. 

The result of using the new media without these limitations is that you become aware of all the flaws that weren't apparent before.  You also become aware of the engineering choices and the music doesn't sound as good.  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). 

Even IF the new media more accurately portrays the recording, it was not the intent of the artist nor the engineer to hear this but to accurately represent the music. With Pac Man the intent was to create a round puc man with round pellets and rounded ghosts, not pixelated puc men and ghosts and square pellets (whether they succeeded even with a CRT is another argument).  With the LCD you definitely see all the pixels as coded, but was this really what the artist wanted?

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. 

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). Why game companies don't go back and reprogram the classics is likely due to a perception of demand versus the cost involved...it's probably not worth the effort. 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.

Patent Doc

[genesim]

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.   

[CheffoJeffo]

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.

I said that I found it ironic, not that I faulted your choice -- from my perspective, I find it ironic to use "accuracy" (which I still believe you have defined unilaterally) as a benchmark as justification for slamming one technology (CRTs), but don't seem to mind that the same criteria are (IMPO) are more damning of other technologies (emulation).

I don't at all fault you for running emulation on a PC ... just that, to my mind, it is ironic.

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.

You keep citing deductive reasoning and it reminds me of former member who used to cite various branches of logic (coincidentally, it has been suggested by some that you are indeed that member, come back under another name). I am a mathematician and scientist by education and training ... deductive reasoning is great, but relies on the initial premise (which, if not accurate or relevant, renders the result useless or at least questionable) and requires that you know the outcomes before any conclusion can be made.

Your argument seems to hinge on assumption A -- which I will admit is accurate, although I would debate it's relevance. In fact, by extension of that argument, wouldn't you also conclude that emulation on a high-end PC is more accurate, because the programmer didn't have one.

As for your point B, I *do* see your point (and now appreciate that it is a different argument than you made before about pixel shape) and understand that you are saying that you believe that a perfectly flat and equidistant representation is more a accurate representation of the theoretical constructs within the code. We could argue that and, should you want to, I think that we would need to extend the concept to include the realization of the image to the brain, rather than leaving it at the display device. However, let's not ... it ain't making my top 10 list for deciding on a display technology.

You're happy with your choice and I'm happy with mine ... now if we can just get you to stop saying things like

Good riddance to CRT.

"I like my CRT" (did I hear a Mark Knopfler riff ?) and, for most of my projects, can't make reasonable use of an LCD (tough to fit in a classic cabinet, running original hardware, etc.). And I am not alone.

So when someone comes through and tells us that we're a bunch of sheep when they don't seem to be taking full account of things ... actually it reminds me of that former member and how he hated arcade cabinets ... hmmm ...

[genesim]

Jeffo,

MOVE ON.    If you continue to try to incite personal attacks, then there you are clearly the catylist for all the trouble that you so inherently want to avoid.

I am not apologizing for my behavior because when one understands the context of why I made my statement(as in sheep), then one could make a better judgement.

As it stand, admin saw fit to delete a good portion of the debate(and with good reason), and here you are digging it up again.

You are COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE.   Just because I don't think like you, is no reason to start a bunch of trouble...again.  DROP IT or others will surely make the decision for you....again.

You see it one way, fine.  I respect that.   I see it another.   RESPECT the thread/board and LET IT GO.   I may be an outsider to the group, but that doesn't give you the right to disrespect me.

As for further accusing me of being another member when I have NEVER posted under another name-you owe me an apology.   

I don't know where you get off with any such inference.   

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In fact, by extension of that argument, wouldn't you also conclude that emulation on a high-end PC is more accurate, because the programmer didn't have one.

Actually in some cases yes.   Timing issues, the original analog music..etc. etc. etc.    And there is nothing wrong with pondering a few of these things.   It is all a judgment call, and the MAME dev's had to make 1000's.    They do it all the time.    Thank goodness for that, or we would all be stuck buying the original arcade boards.

As for your point B, I *do* see your point (and now appreciate that it is a different argument than you made before about pixel shape) and understand that you are saying that you believe that a perfectly flat and equidistant representation is more a accurate representation of the theoretical constructs within the code.

It never was a different arguement.   In this thread it was always what I keep describing over and over again.   Quit trying to find links where there is none.    What me and Randy T debated about the Arcade VGA has very little to do with this thread because I am talking about the specific degradation of the Pixel shape as opposed to the actual pixels that were programmed and what a video card with good software displays.

Maybe that is the problem.   You are so hung up on another subject, that you want to make it spill over into another debate.    Well don't.    I am allowed to talk about different subjects and I should be judged according to each conversation piece of the day.    That is how it keeps from getting personal.

If you are wanting to just stir up trouble, then play with yourself.   This has already gotten way out of hand.

We could argue that and, should you want to, I think that we would need to extend the concept to include the realization of the image to the brain, rather than leaving it at the display device. However, let's not ... it ain't making my top 10 list for deciding on a display technology.

Actually you seem to already be doing that.   Yet all I can do is tell you that logically speaking...as in PHYSICS, signal breakdown/redirectin/interference does occur.   What YOU percieve is a different matter.

But I could extend it to the brain very easily.   The human mind/eye percieves error.    If you don't think so, how could I possibly convince you of this scientific fact?    You either want to understand or not.    I can't make you.

good riddance to CRT

Am I not allowed to make this staement?   It is how I feel, and I am sorry it hurts feelings of people who like them.   There are plenty around(just go to your average garbage dump), so go save them.

At least I am telling the truth as to how I feel.

but relies on the initial premise (which, if not accurate or relevant, renders the result useless or at least questionable) and requires that you know the outcomes before any conclusion can be made.

Most mathemeticians and scientist would disagree with you.   If you could only learn from knowing the initial, then the whole world would never be able to make a study on .....anything.     No crime would be solved, no weather would be predicted, no car would be invented...etc. etc. etc.

Which incidently comes back to one thing.   How is my intial premise inaccurate or irrelevant?   How is doing the best to achieve the most accuracy of the original groundwork..as in the ORIGINAL DIGTIAL CODE a bad thing?

... actually it reminds me of that former member and how he hated arcade cabinets ... hmmm ...

Even that doesn't make sense considering the fact that I built one!    Not only is that a personal statement, and a lie, but it is downright funny.    Now you peeved my wife because I have something we both "hate" in my living room.

[CheffoJeffo]

WHOA !

I didn't expect that ... I thought the only thing that was questionable in my post was saying that you call people sheep ... and you did.

I was trying to be rational and logical in the discussion and to present my objections/observations in a coherent and inoffensive manner. I had hoped that, if you wanted, we could try and discuss rationally. I do disagree with your application of deductive reasoning and stated why. You aren't obligated to follow up, but I thought it would interesting to have a rational discourse for a change.

As for you being that other member, *I* was the one who, at the time, said that you weren't, so you don't get an apology from me for reporting what somebody else suggested, although I do now see certain similarities between you.

I will apologize for setting you off like this -- that was not my intention this time around.

 

[RandyT]

Genesim,

The problem here is that you think because people don't agree with you, they don't understand your argument.  We all understand what you are saying just fine.  It's just that some of us lived through the time period in question and were actually part of the processes you are somehow claiming intimate knowledge of, and subsequently came to the conclusion that your assertions on the topic are really incorrect.  Do we know what was in the mind of Pac-Man's designer?  Probably not, but I haven't scoured the world for interviews with him.    Do we know what was in the mind of other artisans of the time period working with exactly the same medium?  Absolutely.  Do we know that LCD's didn't exist, so the artists could not have considered their use with the code they wrote?  Again, absolutely.

Did you know that the clothes worn by actors in the age of black and white film / TV were almost always very contrasting shades of gray, even though a script may have stated that the woman wore a red dress?  Why do you think that was?  And if they had it to do over in the world of color, would the dress not be red, rather than gray?  This is the purpose of re-mastering for new media.  The clothing was grey because it carried better on the media for which it was destined.

You can repackage your statements as many times as you like, but the end result is that your argument is still the same one that most of us here find to lack traditional logic and reasoning.

RandyT

[ChadTower]

When someone presents an opinion to you... and you don't agree with it... so they proceed to re-explain it under the assumption that your disagreement can only be the result of noncomprehension of their concepts... and they cannot accept your differing opinion, even after further discussion, and are still assuming that you simply don't understand the topic...

...that is arrogant and condescending, and often times, without any actual basis for either. 

People can disagree with you, Genesim, and it doesn't mean they are unable to grasp your statements.

[markrvp]

I don't understand genesim's argument.

genesim, could you please word your argument in a different way and post it below so that I might better understand what you're saying?

k thks, bye.

[genesim]

Jeffo,

I didn't expect that ... I thought the only thing that was questionable in my post was saying that you call people sheep ... and you did.

As if that wasn't enough.   I asked you to move on...and of course you do what.   BRING IT UP AGAIN.

I was trying to be rational and logical in the discussion and to present my objections/observations in a coherent and inoffensive manner. ...

And then a few sentences down.

..., although I do now see certain similarities between you.

Funny how you say that I "weren't" the one, but then it is only YOU who brings up this theor.   Ok     With protectors like that, who needs enemies!

Dude how about doing as I asked and again move on and stop bringing up the past and then you won't have to keep apologizing.


Randy T,

The problem here is that you think because people don't agree with you, they don't understand your argument.

I didn't think, I knew based on what was written and using logic.

We all understand what you are saying just fine.

Really, how about spelling that out to me, because even from these few paragraphs it doesn't seem like you understand even now or you wouldn't be making arguements like this.    Randy T, if you don't understand my arguement now and are stuck just like Jeffo, then I don't see how you will ever understand below.

And if they had it to do over in the world of color, would the dress not be red, rather than gray?  This is the purpose of re-mastering for new media.  The clothing was grey because it carried better on the media for which it was destined.

Here is where I can use your arguement.     I am not finding a color that insn't there.     This is an incorhent example.     But to follow your logic, let me set up my point.  

The color that is supposed to be achieved is a shade of gray.   Even though the script called for red.   Lets say that somehow they found a way to film that it makes the color look red...like a red tint through a filtered lense.  

I want the original color of GRAY.   Why because it is the most accurate to the original film print, then I can go find a filter if I so choose.     You guys want the CRT filtered lense only and are willing to only see it that way even if the film projector has the film running of center, BUT you even have to settle for a more filtered lense(multisync monitor) then that, since you can't find the original red tint filtered lense because of it being discontinued or it not being a great lense for use with many many other films that may use this filtered lense.

But let me take it a step further.   Why do I want the original Gray....well first of all, I have no proof that the DIRECTOR(artist synonym) wanted that, because often what is in the original script is not what the director wants, and lastly I have no proof because I can't get inside the directors head.    Doesn't matter what Director B did, because Director A is a completely different person.   And like with any art media, there is no way to know what an "artist" will do.   Even if the majority back then did that.

But what we do know, is what is filmed.   That is the only thing that we can be entirely sure of.

Oh and the final statement of all.    There is no red sweater in the script at all.    So therefore no changes were made to adhere to it.    There is no evidence to this fact what so ever.  i.e. my pixel example and how the deflected colors distort and bleed.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chadtower,

How is it arrogant and condescending if it is TRUE!

Maybe it is arrogant and condescending to make this assumption on me instead of presenting to me how they did understand?

Where do I have no basis.   WHERE???    Other then the fact that Randy keeps repeating over and over what he THINKS is my point, and yet it is a start contrast to what I am saying.

markrvp,

Sure...which part.

  

[ChadTower]

Chadtower,

How is it arrogant and condescending if it is TRUE!

That's my point exactly, and rather than thinking on it a bit, you staggered forward like a belligerent Koolaid Man.  I gave up on trying to discuss the concept with you many posts ago... I think I'm pretty much done here now as well.   

[genesim]

AND THAT MAKES ME MAD.

YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND NAMECALLING.

You assume that I haven't thought about it to great length, but yet post NO EVIDENCE.

Yes please go away, because you are incapable of responding while acting like an adult.

And you call me a "belligerent Koolaid Man".

[CheffoJeffo]

5 .....

(and I apologize in advance because someone may be offended)

[saint]

My ban finger is getting itchy....

[ChadTower]

You assume that I haven't thought about it to great length, but yet post NO EVIDENCE.

I don't need to post evidence of how you are acting.  You're doing it for us.  You couldn't possibly have thought about my comment... you responded immediately in the exact manner I wrote about.

And you call me a "belligerent Koolaid Man".

Yes, I do.  I really, really do.  Oh yeah.

[genesim]

Saint,

If it is me, then I feel very sad.    But I am willing to take it if it means that debating and disagreeing with a crowd means that I am called a "belligerent Koolaid Man" as well as accusing me of posting as other members, then so be it.

I thought we were getting somewhere, and perhaps that is the problem.   Usually when there is understanding, certain people start the namecalling.  

Chadtower,

If its true, there isn't any kind of "manner" to it.   Should I say I am wrong when I am right?   Should I bow when not disproven?

[Hoopz]

Is there a difference between calling an entire group "sheep" and having someone call you Koolaid man?

[genesim]

Your right.

And that is why I haven't said anything since that point of the "clean up".

I will even go further and apologize.    But of course, it doesn't change this fact.

When I said sheep it was after many many many personal attacks.

Koolaide Man came after NOTHING on my part.

By the way, acting a like a bunch of sheep..and actually being a Koolaide Man are quite a bit different.   One is outright name calling, the other is a metaphore that could be proven.

Though I still admit, it wasn't very nice, and I shouldn't have said it.

[XyloSesame]

Cheese and rice, I thought this was dead...

A pet peeve of mine: The vinyl/CD analogy is completely incorrect in this context as it is truly analog/digital. In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.

@ genesim, you keep defending the "accuracy" of an LCD, however, your assertion of accuracy seems to only represent per-pixel rendering. Again, current LCD technology does not correctly produce black levels or color, and will, therefore, be inaccurate with regard to these issues. And for the record, I'm looking at an LCD now, will read the boards this evening at home on an LCD, and I will be mounting an LCD in my WIP cab.

Were talking about an attempt to recreate organic matter, or how we perceive organic matter, within a non-organic medium. It's not going to be perfect either way you look at it (no pun intended).

On topic:

The CRT will most likely become scarce, but not dead. Low-res monitors, I feel, will become a relic, forever moved to the "collectors" market. Pity...

@ saint: One vote for re-killing this thread of misinformation and petty bickering...

[markrvp]

But let me take it a step further.   Why do I want the original Gray....well first of all, I have no proof that the DIRECTOR(artist synonym) wanted that, because often what is in the original script is not what the director wants, and lastly I have no proof because I can't get inside the directors head.    Doesn't matter what Director B did, because Director A is a completely different person.   And like with any art media, there is no way to know what an "artist" will do.   Even if the majority back then did that.

What either director wanted is irrelevant.  A black & white TV doesn't show color, so then the director has to make sure the clothing provides contrast and that the outfits don't blend in to the sets.  You are too hung up on what you think original creators "may" have wanted.  They could want to float on a magic carpet while whistling Zippidy-doo-da out their sphincters, but in the end they can only work with what's available.

You are the one who doesn't understand, but you are really amusing to watch.  Keep the laughs coming.

[genesim]

In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.

Actually I was the one that brought this up on this thread.

But you are incorrect.   CRT TV's use Analog connections with analog properties.   LCD's use digital connections with digital properties...i.e. uniform pixels with no deflection.

Again, current LCD technology does not correctly produce black levels or color,

Open for much debate.   5000:1 contrast ratio is beyond the human eye.   CRT's are worse at color because of my examples.    These aren't opinions.   LCD's don't distort color in the same way.

Were talking about an attempt to recreate organic matter, or how we perceive organic matter, within a non-organic medium. It's not going to be perfect either way you look at it (no pun intended).

Now I do agree there..but some things are more accurate then others.

@ saint: One vote for re-killing this thread of misinformation and petty bickering...

OR how about keeping it civilized.    There is nothing here that deserved accusing me of being other posters or namecalling.  NOTHING.   Why do so many back this kind of behavior?  It isn't good for the board at all.

Debating a subject  doesn't hurt a thing, as long as it is civilized, and I am trying to do my best to keep it that way.

markrvp,

You are too hung up on what you think original creators "may" have wanted.

I...I...I am hung up.     Well, maybe alot, and I see nothing wrong with that.   But what I do know is using the original master is a starting point.   No wait...it is THE starting point.    Accuracy to the original code is the most important thing with video games.    The rest is secondary...because after all, without that..NO GAMES.

You are the one who doesn't understand,

I keep being told this, but yet noone explains how this is true??    What do I not understand??

[CheffoJeffo]

But what I do know is using the original master is a starting point.   No wait...it is THE starting point.    Accuracy to the original code is the most important thing with video games.    The rest is secondary...because after all, without that..NO GAMES.

OK, so would you concede that, for any game where the code was driving the monitor directly, that using an unauthentic display device is not accurate ?

[ahofle]

 

[RandyT]

A pet peeve of mine: The vinyl/CD analogy is completely incorrect in this context as it is truly analog/digital. In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.

Not sure I agree with this.  As Patent Doc stated, the mastering was done with the final medium fully in mind.  Had the sound engineers been mastering for digital, they would very likely have made drastic alterations to their set-ups.

This concept extends even to things like knobby tires on dirt bikes.  The road-type is the medium upon which the product is carried and the design choices reflect this.

Accuracy to the original code is the most important thing with video games.    The rest is secondary...because after all, without that..NO GAMES.

Really?  When was the last time you played Pac-Man with the monitor off?   

The portion of the code you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with the gameplay aspect.  The game engine can be totally separated from the graphics and the invisible ghosts will quite merrily continue to chase the non-existent Pac-Man while he eats dots represented by nothingness.  Furthermore, a new graphics engine can be transplanted into that game code, giving you all the hi-resolution, fantastic color and and round edges so befitting your LCD panel.  But then, it just wouldn't be the same game you played in the arcade when you were ...? ... , any more than it is the same when the original graphics are viewed on an LCD panel.

RandyT

[CheffoJeffo]

Furthermore, an new graphics engine can be transplanted into that game code, giving you all the hi-resolution, fantastic color and and round edges so befitting your LCD panel.  But then, it just wouldn't be the same game you played in the arcade when you were ...? ... , any more than it is the same when the original graphics are viewed on an LCD panel.

No fair ... I was laying a trail of bread crumbs for him to follow and you skipped right to the end ...  ... 

 

[genesim]

Now Randy T don't be silly.

I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that was important.   You gotta read what I wrote.

Jeffo,

OK, so would you concede that, for any game where the code was driving the monitor directly, that using an unauthentic display device is not accurate ?

I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times.    More evidence of you not reading.   And you wonder why I accuse you of this?

[CheffoJeffo]

I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times.    More evidence of you not reading.   And you wonder why I accuse you of this?

My apologies for not reading.


For how many games is an LCD monitor not going to be accurate to the game code ?

[ahofle]

I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times.    More evidence of you not reading.   And you wonder why I accuse you of this?

If you concede that, then why do you keep insisting on using 'accuracy' as your reasoning for using an LCD?  You can't use it as an argument only when you find it convenient and ignore it when you don't.

[CheffoJeffo]

I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times.    More evidence of you not reading.   And you wonder why I accuse you of this?

If you concede that, then why do you keep insisting on using 'accuracy' as your reasoning for using an LCD?  You can't use it as an argument only when you find it convenient and ignore it when you don't.

Next thing, you'll be arguing that matching original resolution and pixel shape/size is a requirement for accuracy!

[XyloSesame]

Again, current LCD technology does not correctly produce black levels or color,

Open for much debate.   5000:1 contrast ratio is beyond the human eye.   CRT's are worse at color because of my examples.    These aren't opinions.   LCD's don't distort color in the same way.

I'm afraid they are opinions. LCDs distort color as they emulate missing colors not available to their matrix. This is not to say CRTs are perfect; however your assertions regarding color and LCD displays are flawed. Look it up, please. I'm not saying this to be snarky, but if you want an intelligent debate, then we must all (myself included) be willing to both expand our knowledge and admit to our our misconceptions rather than simply restating our beliefs. Keywords: Frame Rate Control, Gamma Curve

In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.

Actually I was the one that brought this up on this thread.

But you are incorrect.   CRT TV's use Analog connections with analog properties.   LCD's use digital connections with digital properties...i.e. uniform pixels with no deflection.

Actually, I brought it up and anubis corrected me. Further, I think Layton first mentioned analog/digital with regard to televisions. More pissing matches. Wonderful. Whether CRTs use analog connections or not, they are still transmitting digital signal. Point of fact, you can purchase a CRT with a digital input...

A pet peeve of mine: The vinyl/CD analogy is completely incorrect in this context as it is truly analog/digital. In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.

Not sure I agree with this.  As Patent Doc stated, the mastering was done with the final medium fully in mind.  Had the sound engineers been mastering for digital, they would very likely have made drastic alterations to their set-ups.

This definitely belongs in a different thread... but...

I agree engineers would have altered their technique if recording for digital. However, when discussing analog vs digital audio, another world opens outside of the LCD/CRT debate. Digital sound can only sample steps of an analog soundwave, thus missing full portions of the sound spectrum...

[ChadTower]

Really?  When was the last time you played Pac-Man with the monitor off?   

I have a CRT in the shed that you could probably do that with... the burn in is so strong it may as well be braille.

If this guy can't take being called Koolaid Man he should turn off his PC and go home.  Seriously. 

I don't know if this game would play better on a CRT or LCD.  Maybe this guy can make me decide.