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

[genesim]

Ahofle,

First of all, as for what I am conceding.   An LCD is unauthentic the original arcade machine.    This is true, because the original machine had that monitor.   Not exactly rocket science.

The original code, I believe the original arcade monitor is more accurate because of the aspect ratio.  

BUT, the original monitor is still unauthentic in some regards because of the pixel distortion issues.  I.e. it isn't painting exactly what was written on the original code.    Matter of fact, it isn't even uniform.

Haven't I covered this enough?   Just go back and read.   It shouldn't need repeated anymore.

Jeffo,

Thanks for your apology.  

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

Imagine that.   Gee, wouldn't that be grand?

XyloSesame,

I have looked it up.  I posted a link to how a CRT works.   Just go with me here.

You do understand how an LCD works right?   You do understand that an electron beam isn't being deflected as in a CRT rather the pixel is actually being back lit!   So therefore, where is the distortion?

Where is my flaw?   Why do I have to look up something, when I don't even know where I am wrong???

The only colors that LCD had trouble emluating(in the past) are dark colors.   The rest is the SAME as the CRT except for the fact that by design they don't distort.

LCD's by design are capable of displaying any color a video card can put out, if using 10 bit color.

As for the pissing contest...ok I concede and I don't care.

Whether CRTs use analog connections or not, they are still transmitting digital signal.

And this is where you are 1001 % WRONG.    Once it goes through an analog cord, it ceases to be digital.   Google that one.

Point of fact, you can purchase a CRT with a digital input...

Yes, I am aware of this too, but finding them is another matter.    Not to mention COST$$$

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...

More blast from the past.    Digital sound does sample in stamps...to the tune of 100khz in high def audio.    So those "missing portions" are beyond the scope of the human ear.

A well mastered cd in 44 khz will do the job fine.     Matter of fact, that is why MP3's are so prevalent.   Some hear it, some don't.    If done correctly, most of the world won't detect it.   Analog should be dead as Julius Ceaser.   But so many just keep holding on.

Chadtower,

I owned that game...and that is why I am so offended!

[Patent Doc]

Xylosesame

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...

Be careful how you tread ... heading too far down that road gets very very ugly.  As you and RandyT noted, I was, by analogy, trying to convey that the coders would be creating games with the final products appearance in mind and make the appropriate adjustments even if, on paper, it didn't look exactly right (gross paraphrase of RandyT's graph paper argument).  Thus, representing the code exactly may be authentic to the code, while still not being authentic to the artist.  I was definitely trying to ride the razors edge without heading down what I agree would be a discussion for a different thread.

Besides, do to the approximations that are made with the sound wave in any digital format, the analog recording always sounds better....right genesim (   just yanking your chain a little...I don't really want to open that discussion up again)

 

[genesim]

You know what guys, I am really getting tired.

Battling 20 of you is hard on the fingers. 

Hopefully we have some middleground.

I seriously have an LCD headache right now!!!

Can we all agree on this point alone.   We NERDS are splitting hairs!   Splitting the thinnest hairs possible!!

I love my rig, and you love yours.    COOL!    Lets all just get a little more opened mind.    Many of your points are well taken, and at one time I seriously thought about the CRT way.    But I made my decision, and I am defending it.    It is my belief and I spent alot of time and research coming to the decision.

But in the end, its all personal preference.    Its been fun.   Till next one...

[CheffoJeffo]

Ahofle,

First of all, as for what I am conceding.   An LCD is unauthentic the original arcade machine.    This is true, because the original machine had that monitor.   Not exactly rocket science.

The original code, I believe the original arcade monitor is more accurate because of the aspect ratio.   

BUT, the original monitor is still unauthentic in some regards because of the pixel distortion issues.  I.e. it isn't painting exactly what was written on the original code.    Matter of fact, it isn't even uniform.

Haven't I covered this enough?   Just go back and read.   It shouldn't need repeated anymore.

Part of the issue may come from confusion over the terms 'accurate' and 'authentic' ... I limited my questions (and did ahofle) specifically to 'accurate', but your response interchanges 'accurate' with 'authentic'. EDIT: I did refer to "unauthentic display device" as potentially inaccurate for games where the game drives the display directly. To be clear, I would include raster CRTs in that category for, say, vector games. The same assertion holds, I believe, if we substitute LCD for "unauthentic".

Let's stay with accurate since accuracy to the game code is, to my understanding, the crux of the argument and none of us argue that the CRT is more 'authentic'.

We have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate. Is my understanding of your concession correct ?

So, the next question is, for how many games (or perhaps better yet, in what situations) is an LCD not accurate to the game code ?

My initial answer would be that for anything vector and anything that does not precisely match the native resolution of the LCD, that the LCD would not be accurate to the game code.

Would you view that as a correct assessment, in terms of accuracy to the game code ?

Please note ... I *REALLY* am trying to understand your point ...

[genesim]

Jeffo,

I don't know what you are trying to do.   I like LCD's better, and I feel for the reasons laid out, that they can be more accurate to the original code.     In some instances there is almost a one to one ratio as well.

As resolution becomes more and more, CRT's will become less and less relevant.

We have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.

NO and I never said that.   I believe it to be very accurate.   But no, not authentic.

So, the next question is, for how many games (or perhaps better yet, in what situations) is an LCD not accurate to the game code ?

This is a silly question.   First in direct draw mode, it is accurate for pixel display.    If it can be calculated reasonably one to one, then it is really accurate.   If using software to discern which to calculate up or down, then it is also very accurate.

So using all those examples.    Pretty much all games, LCD's can be accurate to the original code.

My initial answer would be that for anything vector and anything that does not precisely match the native resolution of the LCD,

Neither can the CRT, both are almost equally as bad.   Both have their plusses and minuses.

LCD's are as accurate as the great amount of pixels are programmed.    But I guess it comes down to this.   It is good enough for me.    The display looks great, and getting better all the time.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where did I enterchange authentic with accurate??    I have rarely used authentic, not my style.    But to fix the mess, I meant accurate in almost all cases because LCD's could never be authentic, because that isn't what was used.

[ahofle]

I love my rig, and you love yours.    COOL!    Lets all just get a little more opened mind.    Many of your points are well taken, and at one time I seriously thought about the CRT way.    But I made my decision, and I am defending it.    It is my belief and I spent alot of time and research coming to the decision.

The problem is you sound less like "defending your decision" and more like insulting those who disagree with you.  If you started your posts this way, none of this would happen.  Instead you liken people who prefer CRTs to sheep, religious wingnuts, etc and say things like "good riddance to CRTs".  And you wonder why you are having to argue with 20 people?   I just figured you enjoy debating.

FWIW, I don't see why these debates are frown upon so much (as long as they don't get  into really nasty name calling, and they haven't).  I'd much rather read a thread like this then a "help me design my control panel" thread. 

[CheffoJeffo]

I don't know what you are trying to do.   

I am trying to understand (and, indeed, refute in a rational manner) your assertion:

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

In my mind, this has been a recurring theme in your dismissal of CRTs. If I am incorrect in that belief, then please correct me.

We have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.

NO and I never said that.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but ...

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?

Did I misinterpret ? (This is in the context of classic arcade games)

This is a silly question.   First in direct draw mode, it is accurate for pixel display.    If it can be calculated reasonably one to one, then it is really accurate.   If using software to discern which to calculate up or down, then it is also very accurate.

You see, I don't think it is a silly question ... you have argued (again, to my understanding ... if I misrepresent your views, then please correct me) that your LCD setup is more accurate to the original game code and, indeed, that the increased accuracy is self-evident using deductive reasoning. I disagree and would like to learn why you believe me to be wrong on this aspect of the discussion.

This is not an argument as to whether or not LCD is a good choice ... I have 7 of them in my house, some used for gaming ... this is me trying to understand how you can so vehemently assert that LCDs are more accurate to the game code than CRTs. I don't have a problem with how PacMan looks when I run it at a decent resolution on a decent LCD panel ... but I don't believe that the required hardware abstractions can allow for the LCD to be more accurate to the game code.

[genesim]

The problem is you sound less like "defending your decision" and more like insulting those who disagree with you.  If you started your posts this way, none of this would happen.  Instead you liken people who prefer CRTs to sheep, religious wingnuts, etc and say things like "good riddance

Can we not move on, or shall I start defending myself yet again?

There were many many many ultra vile comments made to me, before I even implied that anyone was like a sheep.

In the end, who cares.   I apologized.   No need to rub it in my face.   I have plenty to rub back, but I choose not to.

Let the past be the past.
But yeah, good riddance to CRT, I stand by my opinion.

FWIW, I don't see why these debates are frown upon so much (as long as they don't get  into really nasty name calling, and they haven't). 

Well thats not true, but as it stands I agree with you for the most part.   

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lets take a hard look at my quotes:

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

But out of context one doesn't understand that I am referring to the blur/distortion/color bleeding..etc of the CRT monitor, that was what I meant by nature.    And also, I have said it before.   I am referring to multi-sync monitors that aren't in the original aspect ratio-which also have problems to the original code(referring to monitors in the correct ratio).

We have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.

NO and I never said that.

And I stand by that.    I never once said that LCD's are not accurate.  EVER.

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?

Ok, now you want to play lawyer.   Well let me clarify.    Using an unauthentic display is not accurate to the AUTHENTICITY.      You got it now?

I disagree and would like to learn why you believe me to be wrong on this aspect of the discussion.

Go back and read, I am not explaining it again.

... this is me trying to understand how you can so vehemently assert that LCDs are more accurate to the game code than CRTs.

Go back and read, I am not explaining again.

... but I don't believe that the required hardware abstractions can allow for the LCD to be more accurate to the game code.

Oh now you want to say that I am implying that LCD is MORE accurate to the game code.   Yeah thats exactly what I said.      Care to add any more things I supposedly said?   You think putting in bold and saying it several times makes it more likely that I said that???

You need to edit, because you are trying to project things on me that I never said.

[CheffoJeffo]

... but I don't believe that the required hardware abstractions can allow for the LCD to be more accurate to the game code.

Oh now you want to say that I am implying that LCD is MORE accurate to the game code.   Yeah thats exactly what I said.      Care to add any more things I supposedly said?

To be clear, I am implying that your assertion was that the LCD is more accurate to the game code than the CRT. Am I wrong ?

I don't think that I am alone in this belief.

[genesim]

And if that is what you meant, then yes that is what I believe.

Glad you made that clear.

Care to reply on your lawyer tactics.   

Just wondering with all that quotin what you were trying to prove.

[CheffoJeffo]

OK, so back to vector games and non-matched raster resolutions ....

How can an abstracted and translated signal be more accurate to the game code that the original equipment ?

[genesim]

Never said they weren't.   Quit lying, or implying. 

Go back and read.

What you can do is keep posting, and just remember these words, and I don't have to waste time replying.

Vecor games are harder to emulate properly and the special features of the monitor make it more difficult to acess.

[CheffoJeffo]

Care to reply on your lawyer tactics.   

Just wondering with all that quotin what you were trying to prove.

You keep editing your posts ... like

Ok, now you want to play lawyer.   Well let me clarify.    Using an unauthentic display is not accurate to the AUTHENTICITY.   Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!   You got it now?

What was your original response ?

[CheffoJeffo]

Never said they weren't.   Quit lying, or implying. 

OK, so an abstracted or translated signal is NOT more accurate to the game code than the original signal ?

[genesim]

It doesn't matter, because I edited.   This was my final response and all that mattered.    

Consistent and dead on.

Read my edit about the Vector games, though I discussed this before, another one that you seemed to miss.

[CheffoJeffo]

Are you sure ? You still have a chance to convince me.

Do I get an apology for your implication that I was lying ?

Probably not.

 

[saint]

FWIW, I don't see why these debates are frown upon so much (as long as they don't get  into really nasty name calling, and they haven't).  I'd much rather read a thread like this then a "help me design my control panel" thread. 

I love spirited debates (I have a P&R forum for pete's sake). What you may not have seen is the nastiness I edited out already.

[XyloSesame]

XyloSesame,

I have looked it up.  I posted a link to how a CRT works.   Just go with me here.

You do understand how an LCD works right?   You do understand that an electron beam isn't being deflected as in a CRT rather the pixel is actually being back lit!   So therefore, where is the distortion?

Where is my flaw?   Why do I have to look up something, when I don't even know where I am wrong???

The only colors that LCD had trouble emluating(in the past) are dark colors.   The rest is the SAME as the CRT except for the fact that by design they don't distort.

LCD's by design are capable of displaying any color a video card can put out, if using 10 bit color.

Neither LCD nor CRT are without flaw; I think we agree on that. In fact, it's all in the eye of the beholder, as our eyes are each individually tuned and de-tuned. However, where I take umbrage is with your remarks that an LCD is accurate when, in fact, it is not. I think you may have misunderstood, though - I never said they were distorted, just that they do not represent true color. If you've done your research, you should have found that color is represented exponentially from cathode ray tubes. Not so on LCDs, so a correction must be set in place to compensate for this flaw in design.

So we've got examples of at least two ways in which an LCD panel does not represent true color: 1) Gamma Curve, and 2) Pixel correction (dependant on the bit-rate of the panel matrix). Neither of which are evident in CRTs. Again, let me say that this is in no way a statement that CRTs are perfect.

Whether CRTs use analog connections or not, they are still transmitting digital signal.

And this is where you are 1001 % WRONG.    Once it goes through an analog cord, it ceases to be digital.   Google that one.

I think you misunderstood. Regardless of cable or transmission, the originating data were digital. You are not dealing with an analog source, that's all I was trying to say.

A well mastered cd in 44 khz will do the job fine.     Matter of fact, that is why MP3's are so prevalent.   Some hear it, some don't.    If done correctly, most of the world won't detect it.   Analog should be dead as Julius Ceaser.   But so many just keep holding on.

OK, this part of the topic should die. Right now. (you're wrong, btw  )

As resolution becomes more and more, CRT's will become less and less relevant.

But I guess it comes down to this.   It is good enough for me.    The display looks great, and getting better all the time.

I can not agree more. As technology progresses, I think color representation and contrast will no longer be an issue for LCDs. As long as it is good enough for you, that's all that matters. It's good enough for me as well. Good enough...

[leapinlew]

What I have learned from this thread:

Some people prefer CRT's and a person prefers LCD
According to some person, I am a mindless sheep

 

I think that just about covers it.

[CheffoJeffo]

What I have learned from this thread:

Some people prefer CRT's and a person prefers LCD
According to some person, I am a mindless sheep

Hey, *I* like LCDs and I only said that you *like* mindless sheep.

 

[genesim]

Word to that brother.

Good point on the exponential color.   So in other words, even more fallacies.    A little interpolation of its own before it even hits the 3 shades.  

Even more room for error, because now not only do you have redirected electron stream....but you have an even bigger redirected electron stream!

First time I have heard of pixel correctionl.   In reading about that, it makes my head burst..as it already is right now.   Interesting stuff though.

I think you misunderstood. Regardless of cable or transmission, the originating data were digital. You are not dealing with an analog source, that's all I was trying to say.

RIGHT, so in having analog cords you are adding error.

That said, to play devils advocate Digital has problems with drop outs.   So how I would argue if I were an analog man....hey at least PART of the signal gets there!

Jeffo,

Do I get an apology for your implication that I was lying ?

Probably not.

Didums need some attention?   Ok, I am sorry.   You didn't lie...you decieved.  

leapinlew,

    I like my sheep with a mind.

[CheffoJeffo]

leapinlew,

    I like my sheep

Quoting that one for posterity ....

[nostrebor]

Too fast for me!

[CheffoJeffo]

Too fast for me!

If only I was that fast with my shipping ...

 

[nostrebor]

Things I have learned in this thread:

1. Some people never change.
2. I was a mindless sheep and did not realize it.
3. If you're gonna edit your replies, you had better be damned quick.

[genesim]

You know one thing I never understood.

Why many of us(self included) feel we got to add a useless ajective to put an exclamation point on the whole affair.

Like...Beligerant (sp) Kool Aide Man.    Isn't being a Kool Aide Man enough?

Or how about Mindless Sheep.    Same thing.

I see this all the time.   Weird.

[CheffoJeffo]

You know one thing I never understood.

Why many of us(self included) feel we got to add a useless ajective to put an exclamation point on the whole affair.

Like...Beligerant (sp) Kool Aide Man.    Isn't being a Kool Aide Man enough?

Not for a decent GIS ...

 

[nostrebor]

You know one thing I never understood.

Why many of us(self included) feel we got to add a useless ajective to put an exclamation point on the whole affair.

Like...Beligerant (sp) Kool Aide Man.    Isn't being a Kool Aide Man enough?

Or how about Mindless Sheep.    Same thing.

I see this all the time.   Weird.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you never talked to your sheep. If you stop to interact with the sheep, you'll quickly realize that they are truly mindless.

(Edit: I was speaking in the second person for some odd reason. Fixt.)
(Edit 2: Added quote because Jeffo slipped in there when I wasn't looking.)

[CheffoJeffo]

If you stop to interact with the sheep, you'll quickly realize that they are truly mindless.

Hey, I resemble that comment ... wait, what ?

[XyloSesame]

So in other words, even more fallacies.

Fallacies abound, on both sides. Because we're trying to reproduce the real world inside of a tiny box. TURN IT OFF and go visit the real world for a while. I'm going to do that right after I click on the "Post" button.

RIGHT, so in having analog cords you are adding error.

You are indeed adding degradation.

--------------------------------------------------

step.
away.
from.
the.
monitor.

true color is outside...

[genesim]

I'm gone...after one more refresh.

[genesim]

I have got to tell you guys something.

So I went over to my main board which I am over a 7 years veteran of and what topic have they started up.

Which is better to buy a CRT or LCD? 

First, I am not telling you where it is.   Second, I don't have the energy.   I just put my vote and let it go.   Just thought I would share. 

[genesim]

Just so you guys know, I guess we can no longer edit.  Man, I am really going to talk like an ass now.    Guess I better keep it on a separate tab from now on.   Damn that sucks. 

[CheffoJeffo]

Just so you guys know, I guess we can no longer edit.  Man, I am really going to talk like an ass now.    Guess I better keep it on a separate tab from now on.   Damn that sucks. 

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=71639.0

[genesim]

I honestly wasn't aware that you could abuse it??

I never edited purposely to change history.   I may have edited while another post is going on, but this is completely different.

Well this sucks.   Oh well.   It is what it is.

[ChadTower]

I honestly wasn't aware that you could abuse it??

Now you know.  And knowing is half the battle.

We need to get this guy in a room alone with Jim.

EDIT:  No, I can't edit.

[genesim]

Can you guys still edit?

[genesim]

Cute

Edit:  Double cute.

[FrizzleFried]

My ban finger is getting itchy....

Scratch that itch Saint...

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST SCRATCH THAT ITCH!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anubis_au]

I think that everyone has forgotten the most serious breech / crime of suggestion genesim has made throughout this entire thread:

The rest, like Greedo shooting first is open for debate.

No, No, No, a million times NO!!! HAN SHOT FIRST!!! That scene is a defining moment of his character, and changing that scene diminished Han.

 

Now back to the normality that is this thread. And Saint, do not delete. This thread is what keeps the office hours flying past. Without it, work would have to fill that void