4:3 or 16:9 for Possible Bartop?

[lettuce]

I am considering making a bartop for vertical mame games, and am just woundering what would give the best display in 'trying' to keep games looking authentic as possible, would a widescreen LCD, positioned vertically of course, cause games to look to narrow?

[nexus6]

why 16:9 i dont know any 16:9 vertical game.

[stephenp1983]

I think is he saying would a widescreen lcd monitor turned vertical give a better picture for vertical games than a standard monitor.  I would say yes, and I wouldn't think you would have any distortion.

[nexus6]

i'm confused. why would a vertical 16:9 give a better picture than a vertical 4:3?

[DaveMMR]

I may be wrong but, if it's just for MAME wouldn't it be better to go 4:3?  With 16:9, I imagine there would either be stretching or wasted space with letter boxing.

[lettuce]

In a vertical arcade cab, does the screen display the full width of the screen alwats, or is there slight boarders on the sides?

[ark_ader]

In a vertical arcade cab, does the screen display the full width of the screen alwats, or is there slight boarders on the sides?

Yes alwats. 

I never seen borders on any vertical cabs, unless wea re talking about dead space on the tube.

[lettuce]

Just tried donkey kong on my Dell 24" widescreen monitor, and it does appear to not fill the screen at the top and bottom, so i think the aspect is being displayed correctly. If this is case i would get a large screen size if i used a 22" 16:9 than a 22" 4:3!!

[nexus6]

why that? i guess that the 16:9 has less width (rotated) than the 4:3.

[lettuce]

Yeah a 22" 16:9 screen is taller when rotated that of a 4:3

[Jack Burton]

I'm confused by this discussion.  Using a widescreen monitor for vertical games will not be any more accurate than it would be for horizontal games. 

Vertical games always filled the screen in the arcades, the only time you will see borders is when you are playing in MAME with the rotate function turned on, or on a console that has been programmed to display that way.

If you played a vertical game in mame without rotation turned on then you will have borders on the top and bottom of the screen exactly the same size as the pillarboxing you would find on a horizontal game being played on the same monitor.  This is because they are the exact same aspect ratio.  99.9 of arcade games use the 4:3 aspect ratio, vertical games included.


So, a 16:9 monitor would not be a good choice if you were going to go with the most accurate image, because no matter what, you will have some empty space on screen.

[scotthh]

Some measurements from the Pythagorean theorem:
A 22" 16:9 monitor is 19.2" x 10.8"
A 22"   4:3 monitor is 17.6" x 13.2"
A 24"   4:3 monitor is 19.2" x 14.4"
A 18"   4:3 monitor is 14.4" x 10.8"

Assuming you do not stretch the image:
If you display an image that was designed for a vertical 4:3 monitor on a vertical 16:9 monitor you will have wasted space on the top and the bottom of the monitor. If you use a 22" 16:9 screen, you'll get the same size image as you would from an 18" 4:3 because the 10.8" dimension is the limiting size, leaving you 2.4" black bars on the top and the bottom.

*You can't compare the diagonal measurement of 16:9's vs. 4:3's directly.
*Using the screen size that the image was designed for is best.

[lettuce]

Do they actual produce a 22" 4:3 LCD monitor?

[Turnarcades]

Can't believeso many find it hard to visualise what a vertical game looks like!

Vertical arcade games basically just had a rotated 4:3 monitor, so if you like, was viewed from a 3:4 aspect ratio. To my knowledge no vertical games used anything but a rotated 4:3 monitor, especially as widescreen wasn't really around back in the day. Some games may have appeared longer or thinner, but this is probably just a trick of the eye because of the graphics layout on the screen and maybe some side bezel coverage.

So I echo what most have said here; a vertical widescreen would be pointless as you wouldn't gain a bigger viewing area on vertical games. If size is your thing, you'd be better off looking for a 19" LCD in 4:3 - anything bigger in 4:3 is hard to find and may cost you.

[lettuce]

Your right, after 19" 4:3 size screens, the price sky rockets. It may be worth getting a 16:9, but keeping the aspect correct thus having boards at the top and bottom of the screen when rotated vertical, and then just fit the marquee so it just fits the active display of the widescreen TV

[Stobe]

The biggest 4:3 LCD that I've seen personally was a 20.1".  They may make 22", but I've never seen one.

And pricewise, the widescreens are getting cheaper than non-wides (since the screen is "smaller" )  (note the quotes).  What started off as being a marketing ploy, has become overly confussing for the average consumer.  If an unknowing consumer purchases a 19" widescreen LCD, and isn't smart enough to set his resolution correctly, he is both distorting his pixels, and producing a "smaller" picture than a non-widescreen of the same size.

But back to the original question.....

Yes, 4:3 is ideal (been said too many times already).

BUT.  If you have to get a 16:9 (cheaper, easier to find, etc).  You don't have to "waste" the space.  You can (and the real name eludes me right now) chop up the display in mame to show the game in a 4:3 box, and use the other area for other graphics (move sheets, marquees, bezels, CP, etc).  

-Stobe

[lettuce]

BUT.  If you have to get a 16:9 (cheaper, easier to find, etc).  You don't have to "waste" the space.  You can (and the real name eludes me right now) chop up the display in mame to show the game in a 4:3 box, and use the other area for other graphics (move sheets, marquees, bezels, CP, etc).  

-Stobe

Really?, so if i was able to get the display down the bottom of the screen instead being centred and having boards at the top AND bottom, then i could in effect use the space above the active mame display to display the games marquee???

I dont HAVE to go with a 16:9 screen but price wise it makes more sense espically if i can get the same display size. For instance i can get a 22" WS for around £150 odd, where as a 21" 4:3 would cost be double that, and i should get around the same active display picture from a 22" WS as that of a 21" 4:3 screen, plus then my bartop design would be as bulky

[leapinlew]

The biggest 4:3 LCD that I've seen personally was a 20.1".  They may make 22", but I've never seen one.

And pricewise, the widescreens are getting cheaper than non-wides (since the screen is "smaller" )  (note the quotes).  What started off as being a marketing ploy, has become overly confussing for the average consumer.  If an unknowing consumer purchases a 19" widescreen LCD, and isn't smart enough to set his resolution correctly, he is both distorting his pixels, and producing a "smaller" picture than a non-widescreen of the same size.

But back to the original question.....

Yes, 4:3 is ideal (been said too many times already).

BUT.  If you have to get a 16:9 (cheaper, easier to find, etc).  You don't have to "waste" the space.  You can (and the real name eludes me right now) chop up the display in mame to show the game in a 4:3 box, and use the other area for other graphics (move sheets, marquees, bezels, CP, etc). 

-Stobe

Agreed.

I think your talking about Mr. Do's work? I had posted a while back about using a 16:9 screen and using the top portion to display the marquee and change the marquee based on which game your playing.

[Stobe]

Yup.  I forgot who to give credit to, but I remember now.  You had a post a while back about Mr. Do's work, entertaining the idea of using it for widescreen LCDs.

(searching for that post now....)

[Stobe]

Here it is  (should've used another tab)

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=70626.0

[Blanka]

The biggest 4:3 is 21.3 inch at 1600x1200 pixels. And that one is coming from the same production line as 24 inch 16:10 1920x1200 pixel screens, they are vertically exactly the same size. They are only available in S-IPS (NEC, Eizo) or S-PVA (Samsung, Nec, Eizo).
You pay almost the same for the 21.3 inch as for the 24 inch from the same firm. Only the Samsung 214T is cheaper than its 16:10 cousin the 245T.
Eizo 2100S or Eizo 2431SW are similar in price
NEC 2170uxp is similar in price as a NEC 2470uxp
The new DELL 2709W and Samsung 275 T are very nice 27 inch 16:10 screens
The 30 inch computer monitors have a too high resolution. At 2560x1600, it would be 1600x2133 at 26.5 inch when mount vertical and partly covered! That sounds nice, but first find an old mame computer that does 2560x1600, and then find one that does that pivotted! You will need a serious GPU for that. And how do you deal with a taskbar floating under your bezel?

Many talk about 16:9, but they are not common in computing. Most screens are 16:10.
16:9 is cheaper, but is only available as TV. Which means lower res: mostly 1366x768. And those screens are mostly TN screens. But it does go up to 30 inch easily. TN is fast in response, but if you want to play 4:3 games on it, backlight leaking in the black areas will be severe. Thus pac-wan will look bad, and you need to cover a part of the screen itself with a bezel. The awesome TV's you see in shops are 40 inch+ full HD models with S-PVA screens. Smaller ones are mostly crap compared to this.

Another problem with putting LCD's vertical is the viewing angle. TN screens look awkward already when mount horizontally, but vertical they are really crap. It is weird to see how your eye accepts slight changes in brightness from top to bottom, but not from left to right. The eye expects symmetry. An S-PVA or S-IPS screen is mostly pivotable out of the box already, and thus way better mount vertical. When shopping for a screen, really test it in vertical position with vertical images! Do not turn your head 90 degrees in the shop. You will be fooled!

Conclusion:
Samsung 214T is the best and biggest LCD in 4:3 and outperforms many alternatives. If you want really big, take the DELL 2709W/Samsung 275T and cover it partly. It will give you a marvelous image at 24 inch diagonal (visible 4:3 part size). All screens mentioned in this post have marvelous colour reproduction and real good blacks (pac man).

[lettuce]

Thanks for the information above, so its best to go with a S-PVA or S-IPS rather than a TN display, is this info usually listed in the monitor specs? jesus ive seen the Samsung 214T for as much a £700, thats just a ridiculus price. Theres no way im will to pay more that £180-200 for a screen for this project. So what size WS monitor would i need to get to give me the same active display area as a 21" 4:3 screen when rotated vertcially?

[Blanka]

Guess it shoud be around 350 £, not 700. Here it is 500 €
If you read my post, you'll see that 24 inch is the same in 4:3 cropped mode.
24 inch, non TN will cost 500 £ at least!
If you buy TN for say 250 £, don't blame me for weird viewing angles in vertical position!

[Blanka]

The 214
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=370338
The cheapest 24 inch S-PVA:
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=726161
Cheap 24 inch TN:
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=701170
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=755658
Or buy an old Dell second hand. A Dell 240x-W is mostly a good choice.
This one is a nice second hand 4:3 as well:
http://www.marktplaats.nl/index.php?url=http%3A//computer-software.marktplaats.nl/laptops-en-notebooks/189818572-strakke-dell-ultrasharp-2007fpb-20-inch-lcd-monitor-in-doos.html

[lettuce]

Ok, so its best to go with S-PVA or S-IPS rather than a TN display, is this info usually listed in the monitor specs? I didnt really wanted to go any bigger that a 24" screen for WS, i mean after all it is surpossed to be a bartop  . I might just a get a 19" screen then, if there active display size isnt going to be that much smaller than that of a 24" WS when u take in to consideration the boarders at the top and bottom

[Blanka]

You can check S-PVA or S-IPS by either 176/176 or 178/178 degree viewing angles, and nothing else (mmm, I just see Dell advertises with 89/89, which is half of 178/178, and is also good!)! Those numbers are generally a good way to spot SIPS or SPVA. With TN they are more like 170/160 or 150/130.

19 inch is no option either: they are 4:5! Gives you black bars on the sides! Listening to your budget, go for a good second hand dell ultrasharp 2007 I would say.

[lettuce]

So the lower the number '89/89, which is half of 178/178' the better??

[fivslt]

Hi, I used a 20.1 inc HP2065, which costed about 450 euros, in my cabinet. Viewing angles and colors are good, although I wish there was less backlight bleed, which is very noticeable when playing vector games in a dark room.

[Blanka]

Hi, I used a 20.1 inc HP2065, which costed about 450 euros, in my cabinet. Viewing angles and colors are good, although I wish there was less backlight bleed, which is very noticeable when playing vector games in a dark room.

It is a 8ms G2G   20" LG.Philips S-IPS (LM201U05)
S-IPS has little more backlight bleed than S-PVA, but less than TN. The Dell 2007 is either SPVA or SIPS, depending on batch:
Dell 2007FP   16ms or 8ms G2G   20" LG.Philips S-IPS (LM201U05) or Samsung S-PVA (LTM201U1)

89/89 is the very same as 178/178. The first is measured from the axis, the other all the way around.

[lettuce]

The 214
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=370338
The cheapest 24 inch S-PVA:
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=726161
Cheap 24 inch TN:
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=701170
http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=755658
Or buy an old Dell second hand. A Dell 240x-W is mostly a good choice.
This one is a nice second hand 4:3 as well:
http://www.marktplaats.nl/index.php?url=http%3A//computer-software.marktplaats.nl/laptops-en-notebooks/189818572-strakke-dell-ultrasharp-2007fpb-20-inch-lcd-monitor-in-doos.html

Seen a refurbished, Dell UltraSharp 20” 2001FP,

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/2001fp/EN/specs.htm

which has veiwing angles of:
Max horizontal view angle +88 / -88
Max vertical view angle +88 / -88


You had any experience with this model Blanka

[Blanka]

Viewing angles will be great. It is a SIPS panel.
Contrast seems a bit outdated though. 1:400 is not like the modern 1:1000 panels. If you play many games with coloured backgrounds, like 1941, Tiger Heli and so, it will be fine. Centipede and Pac Man will have a blueish background.

[lettuce]

I'll go for the newer 2007WFP model then, has 1:800 contrast ratio, i shouldnt get blue-ish blacks with that should i?. Are all DELL's SIPS panels?

[Blanka]

No, Dell has S-PVA, S-IPS and TN panels. check this site for details:
http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php

[lettuce]

It would appear all the 17" dell monitors and, and for that fact most of the 17" monitors i have searched for all appear to be TN panels!!

EDIT: found one thats a PVA, Dell 1704FPV

[lettuce]

Ive been doing abit more reading up on the whole, S-IPS, PVA/MVA, and TN Panel subject (thanks to Blanka for bring these different Panel technology to my attention, never knew about different panel types before) and it would seem they all have their pros and cons! Fair enough the S-IPS technology gives the best viewing angles and accurate colours, but thats about it over a TN panel, which generally has faster response times, greater contrasts, and cheaper, with PVA/MVa falling between the 2 but with worse response times that the other 2 tecnologys. The best response time ive seen for a S_IPS panel is 12 ms.

I know when i was looking for a HDTV for my Xbox 360, i was recommended not to get a TV that had a higher response time than 8 ms!!!, now i know this is for modern day gaming, but what sort of response time would you need for MAME gaming, would a response time of 12 or 16 give ghosting effects?

I know sometimes these response times are recorded form a pixel going from one end of the spectrum to the other, ie black to white.  Which for every day Modern gaming stuff doesnt happen to often, BUT pixels going from one spectrum extreme to the other would be more appropriate to old school gaming, would you agree???

I would consider ghosting effects to be more of a problem than viewing angels or colour accuracy, which makes me think that a TN panel would be the better option than a S-IPS or PVA/MVA panel for a Vertical 'Bartop' project?


 

[Blanka]

TN has no good contrast. Some have auto-adjusting brightness, so that white at 100% brightness is indeed 1:3000 contrast to black at 5% brightness. But auto-brightness is shut of by 99% of all users after one week of eye-strain. So we come back to static contrast. 2008 status on that: TN does 1:600, S-IPS does 1:1000 and S-PVA gets up to 1:1200-1:1400

Then ghosting:
Ghosting is the problem that the pixels cannot cope with fast colour changes, especially minor changes. 90% black to 100% black for TFT is very hard. To elminate this, samsung and co made overdrive. This uses 2 frames to predict the 3rd frame. It eliminates ghosting, but introduces lag (because of the processing of the signal).
So 8ms grey-to grey is not interesting to know.
Use this to check how fast your screen is:
http://tft.vanity.dk/inputlag.html
Run it simultaneously on a crt and an LCD and check the difference by making a photo of the two screens side by side. Make it with a horizontal shutter, otherwise the camera introduces unwanted differences.
It will be something like this with 2008 screens: CRT is lagless, TN is behind 1 frame (at 60fps) and SPVA/SIPS is behind 2 or 3 frames. But on the other hand, your brain will correct your movements on this. It's like running through a full railway station. You can do it without hitting people, even when the brain needs to process the images in tenths of seconds. Play with a lag for a week, and you cannot play on a lagless screen as good anymore!