Original graphics Vs. Improved graphics.

[brpadington]

I know there are a lot of purists out there that want the mame cabinet to be as close to the original as possible but there are others who want to make the games look as sharp and clear as possible. I have an old crt monitor in my cab that has the ability to run low interlaced resolutions as well as the higher resolutions.  i seem to prefer running the games at higher resolution. I am starting this post to find out what you guys prefer and find some arguments on both sides. To me there is something magical (as well as evil) about running super mario bros. in 1080i on a 55" TV.

[Ginsu Victim]

I did have my 19" CRT PC monitor set at a higher resolution with scanline effects turned on, but I got tired of how the scanlines darkened it, plus the performance hit the system took from the higher rez.

Now I'm running at 640x480 without effects and it looks great. I'd love to have an authentic arcade monitor one day (or at least a decent television), but at the same time, I'd like a good 4:3 LCD with rotation. The one thing that bugs me most is playing vertical games on a horizontal monitor.

[FrizzleFried]

I have 2 cabs running arcade monitors and 1 cab running a PC monitor.  I prefer the authenticity of the real arcade monitors.  They seem less "pixelated" when run on their native display...

[CheffoJeffo]

Here now, there is no need for labels !  

I want the experience to feel as authentic as possible -- I don't want to know that there is a PC or emulation involved at all.

I will always choose original controls over digital restriction or other approximations. I will always choose original cabinets and hardware, even when changes could enhance gameplay. I feel strange playing Robotron on a 25" monitor. I have two cabs that can run the same games, but I segregate the games lists based on 4-way vs 8-way controls. I am not a purist per-se, but I want to feel like I am playing in a real arcade.

Same deal with Mrs. Cheffo's Intellivision -- it runs on a nice 20" TV, not on the big screen.

Having said that, the arguments arising from this question have a tendency to become tempests in teacups (akin to the CRT vs LCD question). If I had to choose the 3 most important defining aspects of Galaga, video resolution would not be among my answers. For Asteroids (or any other vector game), perhaps, but if you don't see that off-the-bat, then you most likely won't get it.

If you don't have a problem with how the games look or play, then you don't have a problem with the way the games look or play.

 

[javeryh]

I'm with Cheffo for the most part.  I prefer to run the games so they look as they did originally in the arcade.  I want it to feel just like it did 20 years ago when I'm playing Pac-man or whatever.

Now, for something like Super Street Fighter II Turbo vs. the new Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix, I prefer the new graphics since the game plays (pretty much) exactly the same except prettier... but I'd prefer the original Super Street Fighter II Turbo on an original monitor instead of playing it in high-res or 1080i or whatever.  I'm not sure I'm making sense...

[TelcoLou]

I'm poor. I got a nice 19" CRT PC monitor for $20, and my MAME games look fine to me. As for the vertical-games-on-a-horizontal-monitor 'issue', I just use a custom art bezel, filling in the blank sides 

[Ginsu Victim]

As for the vertical-games-on-a-horizontal-monitor 'issue', I just use a custom art bezel, filling in the blank sides 

Same here, but it's still too small of an image, especially when you rotate the image and see how nice it could look.

[StarControl]

Since you have to allow extra clearance in your cab for the monitor to rotate, you don't really gain much image area with a rotating monitor.  For example, the image area of my fixed 27" diagonal TV is nominally 21.6" wide by 16.2" tall.  If I were to put in a rotating monitor the image area would have to fit within the turning diameter of 21.6" which means I would have to use a 21" diagonal screen with a nominal viewing width of 16.8" and a viewing height of 12.6".  So with the added complexity of a rotating monitor, my vertical games would be 16.8" tall instead of 16.2" tall giving me a whopping 0.6" (4%) of extra vertical display area.  This would be accompanied by a loss of image area for horizontal games -- horizontal image area would go from 21.6" wide down to 16.8" wide  -- a loss of 4.8" or 22%.  I'll take the bezel artwork.  If I was going to get serious about playing vertical games on a big screen I'd build a dedicated vertical cab.

[ahofle]

"Original graphics" were never really a priority for me until I actually saw the difference with MAME running on an arcade monitor.  Now I'll never go back to "improved" (stretching, filtering, processing, etc).

[drventure]

Personally, running on a Widescreen 24" lcd using a relatively hot graphics card (Mine's an ATI Radeon x1900, not even the newest thing out there), and turning on the processing in MAME and, ok, I'm no purist, but all the standard games look pretty dang good to me.

On a lark once, I ran mame on a laptop with low end graphics. Eww!

But with high end graphics and and processing/filters/etc, it works for me.

[Ginsu Victim]

Since you have to allow extra clearance in your cab for the monitor to rotate, you don't really gain much image area with a rotating monitor.

I've measured my 19" cab versus the 20" 4:3 LCD I use at work and there is room for the rotation, so I would totally benefit from this setup.

[Blanka]

void

[Blanka]

void

[Ginsu Victim]

19 inchers are 5:4, not 4:3 and thus almost square. No need to rotate them.

Sorry, I meant to say 20". My monitor at work is 20".

[RandyT]

Funny observation is that none of the maybe 500 kids from 4-15 that played my machine at an expo asked questions about blockyness or bad graphics.

No offense, but if you asked those same kids if anything was wrong with the canned tuna fish they get fed nowadays that mostly resembles cat food, you'd probably get a similar response. 

What it boils down to is "if you don't know the difference, then you won't miss it".  Honestly, most kids today don't take these types of games very seriously in the first place, and pretty much expect cell-phone style LCD pixelization from them. 

Personally, I spent too much time pixel pushing "in the day" to take the fullest advantage of the display technology and know that perfect, sharp cornered pixels weren't "part of the plan".  So I prefer viewing them on the types of displays they were created on, because it allows you to see what the designers, and arcade goers, were seeing.  I'm also interested in the advances allowing for emulation of these characteristics.

Using the word "Improved" is probably a misnomer in this regard, as all those viewing the graphics on modern displays probably would not consider them as such.

RandyT

[NoOne=NBA=]

I prefer the graphics smoothed, but not overlayed with any scanlines, or effects.

The problem I have with Robotron, etc... on a 25" monitor is that you can't take in the entire monitor at once.
With a 19" monitor you don't have to pan with your eyes, to see what's ahead in the direction you are travelling.

[xtravbx]

Does mame support graphics card acceleration?

Or does it only run off the CPU?

[Xiaou2]

 Here is a good example of what the intended object is supposed to look like...vs
what happens when viewed by the wrong type of display:



 
 Notice the strange choices of colors on the car on the PC monitor.  It looks horrible.
That is because it was never intended to be displayed on such a high res - no distortion
display.

 The arcade monitors make-up creates a much more smoothed picture.  It blends
the colors together.. so they are more subtle highlights that match perfectly. This is
how the designer intended it to look.   It was never meant to have hot pink
on the red car.

 Things like the road do not seem as "Flat",  as seem on the pc display, because
the tvs shadowmask's lines create a nice texture pattern.  Much like an artistic
painting on canvas.

 Edges such on sides of buildings and the road lines are much smoother instead
of artificially jagged.  They look much more real and artistic.  Not so Harsh on the eyes.
Not so fake and generic.

 Also, the general overall color palette changes a little due to the differences in
phosphors, brightness/contrast differnces, the masks thickness and light interplay,
and more.

[AcidArmitage]

that picture explained so much to me just now 

[Ginsu Victim]

I wondered how long this thread would go on before Xiaou2 showed up with his usual response.

Question: The PC monitor....was that vertical or horizontal, and at what resolution? And is it just me, or does the original car have hot pink as well?

[Minwah]

Low res every time. Games intended to run on a standard resolution arcade monitor look absolutely terrible on a PC monitor. Granted they can look slightly less terrible with video effects but still poor, not to mention the extra horsepower required.

And on LCD screens....thats a new level of terrible, but then LCD screens are bad at just about everything except having a small footprint and using relatively little power...

[ViciousXUSMC]

I would prefer the authentic arcade experience but no room or budget for it so I am quite happy turning my computer into a dual purpose arcade machine and computer.  I wonder why Mame does not have a "blur" function though because that would on its own bring a LCD screen much closer to that of a CRT monitor as far as looks.

Emulators like ZSNES have that function.

Even if I built an arcade cabinet it would not house a CRT due to size/heat/energy/weight but I think a nice projector will give a good medium too so thats what I plan to use. 

[TOK]

I wondered how long this thread would go on before Xiaou2 showed up with his usual response.

Question: The PC monitor....was that vertical or horizontal, and at what resolution? And is it just me, or does the original car have hot pink as well?

When you look at it from a normal distance on an arcade monitor the pink looks like red with sunlight hitting it, creating a highlight effect. I think that was his whole point, that the blurring of a standard res CRT makes the simple image greater than the sum of its parts.

I have cabs with each monitor type at this point, LCD, arcade monitor and TV via component. There is some difference between them if you focus on it, but I always enjoyed them for the gameplay and precise appearance wasn't a huge issue. The TV does a surprisingly respectable job of making the games look good while still producing vivid color. I'm home working on the house today. If I can get a break, I'll put Turbo on each one and recreate Xaiou's experiment for myself.

[Xiaou2]

Its a standard 4/3 Horizontal PC monitor.  It does not matter which way you orient
the PC monitor... The car will still look the exact same, because the shadowmask
on a pc monitor is way too small to see unless you use some high power magnify glass
at very close range.

 Fire up a game on your pc monitor, and you can see right away that it in no way looks
like the original arcade monitor... and looks Exactly as pictured in my post.

 
 What you may be thinking... is that  Mame is not color accurate.  That is NOT the case.
Both the PC Monitor and the Arcade Monitor are getting the exact same picture
signal.

 The cars pixels were designed to be hot pink on one side, with yellow on the other...
because when you see it on an arcade monitor as intended... the hot pink simply
becomes a lighter shade of red... and the yellow blends in with the nearby red... making
a fire-orange color....

 UNLESS - they use two yellow pixels next to each other... which
can be seen on the tail... where there is no mixing.  A single pixel width tends to mix
with nearby color... where as two pixel thick will be twice as vibrant and not mix much if
at all.

 Also, you will see the Lines from the shadowmask on the car seem crooked...

 Why is that???

 The mask is Not actually crooked.  Its an optical illusion actually. (Ive used high power
magnify glass to make sure)

 The phosphors (Red, Green, and Blue dots) are physically located at different positions.
This does have an impact in how they display, because these are much bigger than
your typical pc pixels.  

 ALSO, because each color has a different color spectrum intensity... some colors like
blue wont spread out much... where as red is 'thicker'  and will tend to BLEED over the
top of the shadowmasks surface.   The bleeding light makes the lines seem distorted.

 And interesting enough, Ive seen that the phosphors do not always light completely
up.  They can be lit only a little on the left, for example... rather than the entire
phosphor being completely lit.

 Which leads me to believe that a monitors resolution was not purely pixel accurate
to the shadowmasks...   at least, not back then.


 Anyone with any brains can clearly tell that drawing a car in colors that seen from
the PC pic simply does Not make any sense at all.   It was NEVER meant to be seen
like that.  It was Meant to be viewed on an arcade monitor that blended colors
just like what is seen on my pics.

[CheffoJeffo]

It was NEVER meant to be seen like that.  It was Meant to be viewed on an arcade monitor that blended colors just like what is seen on my pics.

Completely agree and wish that I had remembered your comparison pics when Genesim tilted at this windmill last year.

[Xiaou2]

Thanks Cheffo.

 
 I want to add,  Tok,  that even if you do the same experiment, you may get a vastly different result.

 Reason?   Todays arcade monitors have very different Dot Pitch size.  The size of the
phosphors, and the shadomasks.   And the Shadow Masks themselves may be of different technologies... such as different mounting methods.   A different like that could allow more or less light to leak over the top of the mask...

 The older shadowmasks line thickness will surely create a very different viewing experience.  Just like how looking at a display will look very different on a
low res tv, hdtv..ect.  The effect is a lot more dramatic however.


 While I know that my old monitor may be a little out of adjustment... we can see that
the colors are basically on key.  (No purple instead of red car... no yellow instead of
green grass)   

  There is another example you can find...  but I do not recall which games use it...
On some games... they pop up a seemingly translucent window above the games
background.  That is... when you see it on an arcade monitor with low enough
dot pitch.   However, when you see it on an actual pc monitor... what you see is
dark color dots that are 1 pixel thick, and are staggered in a diamond pattern.  Its not
translucent at all... because you actually See the dots... where as the arcade monitor
blends them so you cant see them.

[Ginsu Victim]

Anyone with any brains can clearly tell that drawing a car in colors that seen from
the PC pic simply does Not make any sense at all.

That sentence didn't make any sense.

The reason I even asked about the hot pink color was that I could see it in the original image, and reading what you said made it sound like you didn't see it. I understand what you were getting at now, which is why I asked whether I was the only one seeing it. I think most of us understand the difference between how PC monitors and arcade monitors display images and the blending that is involved. Those of us who grew up on these things would be crazy not to see it.

[cmoses]

I'm home working on the house today. If I can get a break, I'll put Turbo on each one and recreate Xaiou's experiment for myself.

Please share you pictures if you can.

I would enjoy seeing any comparisons like this from people that have multiple displays and can take pictures showing arcade monitor vs TV vs computer monitor.  I agree the arcade monitor is the way to go if only because it was the way it was intended to be viewed.  I also think that it looks the best that way.

[sean-o-mac]

If you have a MAME cab that play many games, hi-res.  If you have a dedicated cab, low-res.  Keep it as close as you can to the real thing with dedicated.  Personally, I think the MAME sharpness & non-pixel options used on a LCD looks good, but it takes away from the technology for which the older games were based on.

I seen a dedicated Ms. Pac-Man/MAME cab up close.  It looked exactly like a brand new machine, except the graphics were all sharp and clear with no pixels.  It looked terrible to me because I expected pixels.  So it could be personal opinion.

[Jack Burton]

SMB in 1080i on a 55" screen?  Unthinkable for me.  Bigger is not always better.  I think for NES games a 25" is biggest I can comfortably play on. 

I always go with the native resolution of whatever game I am playing and play it on hardware that is as close to an arcade monitor as possible.  That is the sharpest and clearest image. 

For me the order of preference is:

1.  An Arcade monitor the same size as the original dedicated cab.  Preferably the OEM hardware or at least a monitor with identical dot pitch and tube curvature.

2.  A native res capable PC or Studio monitor the same size as the monitor in the dedicated cab.  Think Sony PVM series and their equivalents here.

3.  An arcade monitor that is a different size from the original.

4.  A studio monitor that is 15khz capable and of a different size than the original.

5.  A CRT television, BUT it must be set up very carefully or it falls to the bottom of this list. 

6.  A CRT PC monitor

7.  An LCD TV or monitor

8.  A plasma TV

9.  A projector

10.  DLP TV

11.  Rear Projection TV

#7 through 11 are completely unacceptable if they have even the slightest hint of input delay. 

Keep in mind this list is only in reference to games that run at 15khz.    31khz and above games or widescreen games  are a whole other story.

I never ever turn on any kind of smoothing functions in my games like 2xsai or HQ filters.  I'm told these can actually look pretty good though at very high resolutions, but since I have the old hardware to display the games in their native res's I haven't bothered with it. 

I actually like the razor sharp pixel look.  It's how NES games look when they are played on a studio monitor in 256x240 RGB.  It's like you're playing MS Paint. 

Here's a few good examples of what I'm talking about with the NES:








But I definitely prefer the softer image that a real NES puts out.  That's why my NES emulator of choice is Imbnes, a psx nes emulator.  I can hook it up to my RCA lyceum tv through composite out and it looks 99% as "good" as a real NES.






I know, I know, I'm kind of a nut about this. 

[ahofle]

I would enjoy seeing any comparisons like this from people that have multiple displays and can take pictures showing arcade monitor vs TV vs computer monitor.  I agree the arcade monitor is the way to go if only because it was the way it was intended to be viewed.  I also think that it looks the best that way.

I haven't taken many of PC/LCD monitors, but here are some TV vs Arcade monitor pics I took a while ago:

[TOK]

I did a couple pics of Turbo, but the images look pretty much like Xaiou2's. I did one on a TV, one on a 19" computer monitor. The first is on a 27" TV oriented vertically (correct for Turbo). The second is on a PC monitor oriented horizontally.

[Xiaou2]

Yup, as expected... not much blending on the tv pic.  As can be seen, the dot pitch of
both of those monitors is much much higher than the ancient turbo arcade monitor.

 You can see the shadowmask pattern has very fine lines,  vs the huge lines seen
on the pic i posted. 

 From what Ive seen posted... the more modern arcade low res monitors use a higher dot
pitch shadow mask than the originals.. and they seem to use spacing and or doubling
to put things on screen properly.  Less light bleeds, less line effect, less color blending...

 All I can say, is while they look better than a PC monitor by far.. .its a bit sad that
they are not quite the same as the original look.

[Xiaou2]

Another set Id took a while back:

 *notice: Pixel blobs  -vs-  Bushes ! 

 PC monitor



 Svideo TV



 The svideo was before ATI made a specialized method of interlacing which they
use now.   Todays svideo has a lot less blending - and looks much more pixely.

 The TV is also 480i  ,so the dot pitch is pretty high actually.


 With my new nvidia video card, using their special tactics... it can output the
display over 1024x768.   Text is blurry as heck.. but its quite amazing that they
can make methods to output like that on a tv that shouldnt be able to do that.

 Sadly, its just bad news for mame cab builders who wanted to use svideo tvs...
unless you can still find an old or generic card maybe...

[Ummon]

I did a couple pics of Turbo, but the images look pretty much like Xaiou2's. I did one on a TV, one on a 19" computer monitor. The first is on a 27" TV oriented vertically (correct for Turbo). The second is on a PC monitor oriented horizontally.

First one looks way better. There actually appears to be depth, giving the car the look of an object rather than a paper cut-out.

I did have my 19" CRT PC monitor set at a higher resolution with scanline effects turned on, but I got tired of how the scanlines darkened it, plus the performance hit the system took from the higher rez.

Now I'm running at 640x480 without effects and it looks great. I'd love to have an authentic arcade monitor one day (or at least a decent television), but at the same time, I'd like a good 4:3 LCD with rotation. The one thing that bugs me most is playing vertical games on a horizontal monitor.

Hey, you came round. Don't you just love me.

I definitely dig what Randy said. I recently saw an original MsPac at a bar close by and was thinking specifically about this...although I still think the monitor needed focus adjustment. So, yeah, native for me. But I'm currently going with arcade multi-syncs.

[Ginsu Victim]

Hey, you came round.

A while ago, actually. We'd had a conversation where I said that I saw what you meant this whole time. So after running 640x480 for a while, I switched to 1024x768 with scanlines turned on, but got tired of the dim image. I went back to 640x480 and like the look of it much better. I'm hoping my monitor will die soon, though, so I can buy a TV instead

[Blanka]

void

[Blanka]

void

[TOK]

Regardless of the discussion, I just kind of like looking at real screenshots (not captures) for some reason. I took more last night, but haven't cropped and resized them all. I did them at 10 megapixel, so the images are huge. Here's a little hunk out of one of them.

[Todd H]

I agree 100% that there's nothing like an authentic arcade monitor. Having said that, however, I bought a 26" LCD monitor for my cabinet. I wanted to use an arcade monitor, but nobody makes a 25" digital multisync. Plus, I plan on using mine not only for classic arcade games but for console emulators and PC games as well. So an LCD just made the most sense.

Hopefully MAME effects will one day improve to the point where you can achieve that arcade monitor look. With CRT's going the way of the dodo bird effects might be the only way in the future to get that authentic arcade monitor look.

[TOK]

Its still in the 40's out in my garage, and thats where the cab with the LCD monitor and my JAMMA cab are at the moment. Don't want to fire them up when its that cold. Here is a DK shot on a PC monitor... Other than being mounted horizontally which really shrinks the screen down, it doesn't bother me even slightly to play the game looking like this.

[Ummon]

Its still in the 40's out in my garage, and thats where the cab with the LCD monitor and my JAMMA cab are at the moment. Don't want to fire them up when its that cold. Here is a DK shot on a PC monitor... Other than being mounted horizontally which really shrinks the screen down, it doesn't bother me even slightly to play the game looking like this.

At what resolution?

Hey, you came round.

A while ago, actually. We'd had a conversation where I said that I saw what you meant this whole time.

Hm. I don't recall. Cool, either way.

I'm hoping my monitor will die soon, though, so I can buy a TV instead

Ahuh - I see.

[RandyT]

TOK appears to have a crappy PC monitor which makes classic games look pretty good! 

Some of the old VGA monitors had some pretty coarse dot pitches, and would be good candidates for a cabinet.  Probably not too many of them left in good shape, but nearly free if you can find them.

I know that's probably not the case, mainly because it's harder to see the corners with an up close shot like that.  Shrink it down to something more like true size, and the corners get easier to see.  Still not that bad though.

RandyT

[Jack Burton]

Just for fun I'll post this pic.




I could never get a pic that wasn't blurred due to my poor photography skills. 

This is Donkey Kong running on a 37" presentation monitor in 254x240.  The dot pitch on this monitor is .7 mm, or the same as an older arcade monitor.  And the shadow mask is of a triad type.  So the image is practically identical to the dedicated cab, just bigger.  I have actually rotated this monitor and played on it while sitting a couple of feet in front of it.  Dk is a very different game when you actually have to move your head up to see what is happening at the top of a level!

  To me, the size of the image is as important as the resolution.  I used to always lust after these giant monitors, but after the experience of playing different games on them I find that for most stuff they are just too big. 

Kong indeed!

[Xiaou2]

Donkey Kong isnt exactly the best example.  The game is designed without any real
shading - with exception to the barrel flames.  Its very Pixel-esc on purpose... where
as some other game try to smooth and shade things a bit better.

 Many artists capitalized on the blending feature.  Nintendo just seemed to keep
things as simple as possible graphically. (cartoony)

[Valken]

Here are two pics of my bartop cab running mame


lcd 19"  1280X1024 , aperture mres, 2X Sal

... maybe  not 100% authentic, but i like the way it looks

[TOK]

The computer monitor is about 5 years old, same age as the MAME cab. I'm running at 640x480.
Its a 19" Samsung flat screen.

The game looks much more "solid" than it appears in that pic compared to an actual arcade monitor. That was way zoomed in on it. I did pics of Time Pilot as well, but some got an odd moire pattern in them.

[Ummon]

The computer monitor is about 5 years old, same age as the MAME cab. I'm running at 640x480.
Its a 19" Samsung flat screen.

That's what I figured, as it seemed there were hardware scanlines, which happens on those at that res.

Here are two pics of my bartop cab running mame


lcd 19"  1280X1024 , aperture mres, 2X Sal

... maybe  not 100% authentic, but i like the way it looks

That Ghosts and Goblins looks good...although I think the real test is golden age games where the background is mainly black (no graphics).

EDIT: actually, no that's the test for LCDs. Fully saturated screen is a test of effects for dimming, etc. Looks good.

[retrometro]

I'll add to the scaled vs native resolution orgy that is this thread...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjKLq-LMgjM[/youtube]

[ViciousXUSMC]

I'll add to the scaled vs native resolution orgy that is this thread...

*snip*

The cake is a lie.

[Ummon]

Hey, Valken, where'd you get that effect? I thought it was part of the suite with Mameplus, but I can't find it anymore.

[Valken]

You're right, Ummon: it's MAME PLUS! (0.129u1).

Go to "options" tab, than "advanced", "image enhancement" and select "2XSal" effect. That's all.

[Ummon]

OHHH. I forgot about that option. Thanks.


....ohhh. I see. It's not in mamepgui (standalone gui), but in mamepui (which comes with mame plus binary). Not as flashy as the gui, but I wonder if the pui will work with other binaries....

[Barry Barcrest]

I was thinking about this, wouldn't how the monitor is mounted also effect the look. Because of how each line is drawn the blending from the shadowmask would create a slightly different look on the same game on the same monitor depending if it was vertical or horizontal.

[Xiaou2]

Yes it does.  The mask is not perfectly squared, so when rotated, it
appears slightly different.

 Btw - dues-ex,  your email box is full.

[Xiaou2]

 An Interesting Find:

The shadow mask is usually an invar mask (64% iron & 36% nickel) which is a thin plate with small holes punched in it. Only about 20-30% of the electron beam actually passes through the holes in the mask and hits the screen phosphor, so the rest of the energy is dissipated as heat from the mask.

 As a result, shadow mask monitors are prone to colour purity problems as they heat up due to slight shifts in the position of the holes relative to the phosphor dots.

-----

 Doming is a phenomenon found on some CRT
Cathode ray tube

The shadow mask is one of two major technologies used to manufacture cathode ray tube televisions and computer displays that produce color images.... become heated.

In televisions that exhibit this behavior, it tends to occur in high-contrast scenes in which there is a largely dark scene with one or more localized bright spots. As the electron beam hits the shadow mask in these areas it heats unevenly. The shadow mask warps due to the heat differences, which causes the electron gun to hit the wrong colored phosphors and incorrect colors to be displayed in the affected area.

-----

During the display of bright images, a shadow mask will heat up, and expand outward in all directions (sometimes called blooming). Aperture Grilles do not exhibit this behavior - when the wires heat up, they expand vertically. Because there are no defined holes, this expansion does not affect the image, and the wires do not move horizontally.

-----

Traditionally, shadow masks have been made of materials which temperature variations can cause expansion and contraction to the point of affecting performance. The energy the shadow mask absorbs from the electron gun in normal operation causes it to heat up and expand, which leads to blurred or discolored (see doming
Doming (television)

Doming is a phenomenon found on some cathode ray tube televisions in which parts of the shadow mask become heated....
) images. The invar shadow mask, which is composed of the nickel-iron alloy invar
Invar

Invar, also called FeNi, is an alloy of iron and nickel with some carbon and chromium. This alloy is known worldwide for its unique properties of controlled coefficient of thermal expansion....
, expands and contracts much less than other materials in response to temperature changes. This property allows displays made with this technology to provide a clearer, more accurate picture. It also reduces the amount of long-term stress and damage to the shadow mask that can result from repeated expand/contract cycles, thus increasing the display's life expectancy.

[Ginsu Victim]

Interesting. Thanks for that.

[RandyT]

As a result, shadow mask monitors are prone to colour purity problems as they heat up due to slight shifts in the position of the holes relative to the phosphor dots.

This is why you always want to leave a monitor on for an hour or so before you adjust it.  And since it needs to be adjusted when warm, it's also the reason why it may not look all that great when you first turn it on.

On another note, I have heard today while speaking to a supplier that most of the tube factories have ceased production, so it's going to start to get more difficult to get tubes from retail sources.  There will be plenty around for a long time to come, but the simplicity of purchasing a brand new one is likely about to become a thing of the past. 

Get em while  you can (if you want one, that is.)

RandyT

[Jack Burton]

Man I'm such a nerd for this stuff.

These are images from my favorite monitor that I own.  It is a Sony Trinitron 1251Q.  I think it was originally used for broadcast or filmmaking purposes, but now it is my vertical MAME monitor.   

I post this info and pics because I think this is also an interesting case of original vs. improved graphics.  You see, this monitor is perfectly capable of running 15khz modes and thus arcade games in their native resolution. 

But the dot pitch on these kinds of monitors are often finer than a real arcade monitor, or of the stripe pitch instead of triad type.  Some of them have aperature grills or different types of shadowmasks.

In most peoples opinions they would be classified as superior display devices compared to an arcade monitor, even receiving the exact same signal.  But that is up to your interpretation of what looks good, hence this post.

Pics of Turbo and Donkey Kong of course since they seem to have elected as universal subjects.



Turbo definitely feels like it has some depth and the road looks like it has a little bit of texture on it.  But the colors of the cars do not mix at all and I see Xiaou2's point that there is no way an artist wanted the game to look like that unless he was on acid.



But I must say that I really love the razor sharp pixel look on these monitors when a game is in it's native res.



These buildings are blue and have little sense of texture to them.  The blurriness of my photography actually helps the image here.  In real life they look flatter.



DK looks GOOD.  Maybe it's just because I've never played a good looking DK in the wild, but when the contrast and brightness are turned correctly this game really shines on this monitor.  I have it turned down a little bit here so my camera can capture it and show the pxiesls, but when I have the monitor adjusted to my liking there is a little bit of a glow that rounds off all the sharp edges and makes this game look great.



My camera had a hard time capturing the blue ladders.  In real life the scanlines running through them are very visible and make a huge difference compared to a high-res display that doesn't have them. 



Donkey Kong scanlines go up and down!

[Level42]

Trinitrons use different shadow masks. Since you positioned it vertically it really shows in the lines going through the pictures (look DK close-ups).   I don't like Trinitron. It's personal taste. They're great for computer monitors (if CRT's are still your thing for that) but I never liked the colors on TV's.
I also hated the extra wire(s) running through the screen. Those are totally irritating on bright (white) screens.

Still, I'd prefer a Trinitron over a LCD any day.

Nothing but CRT's till I die for my games. You don't put an electrical engine in a steam locomotive.

Plenty of TV's thrown away all around, get CRT's while you can

[Xiaou2]

 Donkey Kong is still a very bad example.  The only thing that uses shading is the
fire in the oil barrel... and you didnt take a pic of that.  The rest of the game is
drawn like a flat cartoon.

 That is like trying to compare a hand drawn animae on a regular tv  -vs-  hdtv.
There wont be much difference.  Now, compare standard film  on the two formats,
(dvd -vs- blueray)  and the differnces are Huge.

 Furthermore, the pic of the DK arcade machine was with what dot pitch
monitor?  Is it the same dot pitch as it was shipped out from the factory with?

 I believe it will be harder and harder to know what these games were supposed
to look like, because the original monitors were long replaced with new monitors
that have superior shadowmasks with higher dot pitch, thinner lines..etc.

 Still, you can see the color blending is much better in the fire on the arcade monitor
than on anything else shown.

 And yes... Sonys use Aperture grills for the Shadow Masks.  They only have vertical
wires... rather than an actual screen like grill of a typical shadowmask.  This changes
the overall effect seen.  But more than that, its simply the dot pitch that is limiting the
desired effects.  The finer the dot pitch, the lesser the effects seen... unless heavily
magnified.

[Silverwind]

I prefer original graphics.  That is why I bought a betson 27" arcade monitor.  Love the classic look.

[genesim]

The problem then is the same problem I have now with this whole discussion.

The arguement is how to accurately render the original code!   If something looks more pleaseing...that doesn't necessarily make it better.

What is going to be the future if anyone cares to do it, is to have more accurate representation of the original scan lines and emulation of the original screens.

Then you don't have to go digging up your landfills or wasting time with that perfect CRT representation...which of course is a distortion of the original code also.   Artist intepretation is theory at best.   

I outlined this a long time ago and it is no less true then it is now.

With proper software you can get a close approximation of the original source...with further software you can also get a closer approximation then having to go with said compromise of a monitor that is closer to the source display.

The problem is that people saying..."I must have that one!!" slows the obvious conclusion down.

Still religion is a persistent things and arguing logic with a belief is a lesson in futility.  Yet...genesim keeps coming up. 

[CheffoJeffo]

Heee's baaaaack ! 

[genesim]

And you have the record for the most time mentioning me.  It is only fitting that you would be the first to respond.  Love my groupie. 

Hell, I even see that you accuse others of being me.   You wish so hard for the real thing, well now you finally have it. 

[CheffoJeffo]

Well, there have been three incarnations of another member who used to say silly things, insist that everybody else was wrong, call them names and then storm off in a huff, so I figured that it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility. 

[genesim]

I never did any of the things you said I did.

If I said you were wrong, then it was my opinion you were wrong.  Not the same as insisting that everyone has to be wrong...learn the difference.

Or are you of the opinion that if a group of people believe one way then they must be right?  Yeah mobs work that way.

I am not a name caller, not my style.    Though like anyone I can lose my temper, I was attacked quite a bit...for no other better reason then I disagreed.

Lastly, I stopped posting..not out of being angry but simply being busy.    Know the difference there too.  The day I stop coming to a board because of a few people that act completely out of line will be the day that I die.    The moderators of this board have acted very fair and I appreciate all the help behind the scenes in regards to the building of my arcade and ideas for future projects.   

As for you, is it really your style to accuse people of being frauds without knowing the facts?    You really have a profound sense of justice.   

Grow up!   Stop riding my coattails and learn how to be civilized.   Get your last word in, and then be done with it.   And for future reference I post only one name only GENESIM.    I don't need to have several identities to get my point across.    People like you who accuse without cause need to be banned permanantly.   The worst thing you can do to someone on a messageboard besides go after them personally is to try to take away their identity.   Even if I don't agree with you there is no way in hell I would be such a low life as that.    You should have figured it out the first time you used my name.   

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Anyway.....moving on, my point was actually in relation to the topic at hand.    I recently got a Vox modeler guitar amp.    For those that don't know what that is, it is a Tube amp that emulates other amps.    It does it quite well and has about 40+ preset amps inside.   The fact that it uses Vaccum tubes make it a much closer copy of what other amps do.   Besides being a great Vox amp it also gives you rare sounds like the Trainwreck amp that precious little were made of today.

Now my question is this why can't the same kind of behavior be done for say older screens.    I know that current monitors have more then the capability with refresh rates that go beyond the originals.    It is done for film prints now with their limitations in regards to having a lower frame rate...for example LCD's that are capable of 120hz refresh rates.   So what happens is frames are repeated and it actually gives a more fluid picture...almost 3D like.

Could software achieve a purer signal along with emulating the faults of the original screens?   If done well, it could get quite close with the added benefit of not producing the faults that I know damn well the original programmers didn't program for...like the uneven colors involved with the different speeds of light and the approximation from the center beam...or the color bleeding...and of course the big problem of having glares given off by CRT..etc. etc. 

If it has already been done, then I would like to know, but someday if it hasn't, I don't think this would be a bad plan at all.

[CheffoJeffo]

Works everytime !

 

[genesim]

Anway,  like I said...I would be very interested at someone pointing out an option or if it has ever been considered.

[Malenko]

         People like you who accuse without cause need to be banned permanantly. 
    

If done well, it could get quite close with the added benefit of not producing the faults that I know damn well the original programmers didn't program for...like the uneven colors involved with the different speeds of light and the approximation from the center beam...or the color bleeding...and of course the big problem of having glares given off by CRT..etc. etc. 
      

he didnt accuse you of anything, he just said it was possible.

You dont know what the programmers did or why they did it, let alone that its a "damn well fact" ; its your opinion that they programmed for perfect displays with no uneven colors or scanlines which despite how well you stand behind your opinion is not correct.

no one is trying to take away your identity either, we all know who you are; youre the guy who preaches about intent of programmers from 25 years ago who prolly wasnt even alive 25 years ago AND also thinks CRT monitors are the bane of arcades and everythign should be LCD driven

[genesim]

Let me get this straight.   So you are saying that programmers made their code to account for color bleeding and pixel distortion from the center to the outside?

Could you please produce this "evidence"?

And yes, I was very much alive and playing video games more then 25 years ago.   And you?   


We can start from here.

[genesim]

Oh and for the record I stated that he questioned another about being me.   Please keep up.

[Ummon]

I think that Vox only has a single tube for the input stage...unless they made the power section tube, too....but then, why?

[genesim]

From what I understand the Vacuum tube(12AX7) is a dual Vacuum tube which is two tube amps in one.   It uses a Valve Reactor circuit which is 100% analog and it is the passthrough for the guitar signal which has been first modified with the digital processor.

So in effect you can get the effect of a say a tweed Fender amp from the 60's to the Marshall Stack from the 80's. 

I do not even pretend to be an expert on amplifiers(just as I am in no way an expert on arcade monitors), but I do know what I hear and judgeing from going to stores and having friends that have decent retro amps I file it under good enough for me.

The past had digital amps that in my opinion sounded like crap especially with the clean sound.    Having a true vaccuum tube amp gives a wonderful change and to me gained new ground in to what I call a cost effective measure.

It is my opinion that these same kind of ideas could be used to revolutionize the way we look at arcade games.    Save the technology, without necessarily making everyone keep the hardware.   Labor of love if you ask me.

[Xiaou2]

 What do you Think the programmers Viewed their creations on?!

Sorry man, but you are dense.


 They may have tried to map out images on graph paper to start out.. but
As they displayed images on the actual screen and noticed that things blured,
colors were changed, lines were too faint...etc.. then they had to adjust and
change the images to work well with the display technology that was used.   

 ANY good artist who does very small detailed work can tell you that this is Fact.

 And furthermore, I HAVE provided more than enough proof already.
Anyone with any sense of Logic can tell for example, that the colors and shapes
in the Turbo car were made to create a shading effect on a low-res monitor... as they
look completely different -  and look like S**T  when viewed on a modern pc monitor.
This is but one of a ton of examples you could find if you actually did some
comparative research instead of speculative BS that has NO FOUNDATION AT ALL.

 And BTW - The CRT still supersedes LCDs by miles.  In Color depth, refresh,
no scaling issues and much more.  When I got my money back for my malfunctioning
37"  1080p  LCD,   I bought a Used Sony Widescreen HDTV (1080i) CRT.
The picture is so much better its beyond comparison.  Especially on things
like consoles - which do not output at 1080.   The LCD scaling Butchered the
pictures on them.. as well as had a poor color palette.  The CRT makes them
jaw droppingly awesome.  The used CRT TV will probably last at least 10 more
years too.  The LCD lasted less than 3 and that was New.

 Its unlikely that digital LCD type displays will have high enough resolution to
ever simulate an old CRT correctly.   There is very little market for something like
that.

 Simulating it properly will take massive processing power, and a lot of egg-heads
who have a lot of free time to burn.  Its doubtful that it will happen without loads
of cash thrown at this problem.
 

[genesim]

First of all, please refrain from using personal attacks like calling me dense.   Try to show some respect ok?

Now lets get down to it.

You seemed to have missed what I said so I will state it again.   

Your "proof" doesn't even pertain to what I have written.   A CRT's image gets distorted when going to the edge of the screen vs the middle.    Explain any circumstances where a programmer changed his pixel representation to reflect this flaw.   

You can start with this point since you fail to adress any of the other things that I have said.   Its better to keep focus then to keep going on a anti-LCD rant.

Your examples have huge problems.  Namely without proper rendering with generic software/video cards.    A camera can't hardly capture advantages or disadvantages.   You see flat, I see the distortion in your CRT examples.   Both haver the pro's and cons if not using the original hardware.   Its all opinion, you can at least admit that. 

[CheffoJeffo]

First of all, please refrain from using personal attacks like calling me dense.   Try to show some respect ok?

At least he apologized for calling you dense.

 

[bboysnj]

This whole thread cracks me up; not that it's not terribly interesting (it is), but the human drama adds to the fun in a major way.   

Side note - my wife pulled up what I was looking at on the vga clone view on our tv -- she confirmed I'm a total nerd and went back to her business.  I guess she expected pron or something.      So yeah, I'm no prize.

Cheffo -- lol.  Just big lol's all around.

Geneism - don't take anything personally, and life will get a whole lot better every day bro   

Xiaou - erm, sorry, Xiaou squared?  Xiaou deux(sh?)  Man, you must have gotten your butt kicked a hell of a lot on the playground.   

[NIVO]

might be time for a judi chop

[Xiaou2]

  A Pixel does Not get distorted when displayed from the left, middle or right.

 The CRT surface is basically like a bunch of lightbulbs being lit up.  You can
mount them all flat, or on a curved surface.. and it wont matter one bit.  The
lightbulbs shape and appearance will remain the same no matter where in the
alignment it is.

 The only thing that is noticed is the reflections from the curved surface, and a
slight depth perception.   A 19"  CRT viewed at 2ft away with only a slight
round face leads very little to no Illusion related distortions.

[Xiaou2]

bboysnj -

 Ohh bboy... you really hurt my feelings.  Im going to have to
write a book about how cool you are now.  Cause you really are my hero.
Everybody should think that too!   I better spread the word so the Whole World
does not miss out on such golden comments as these.   The literary loss
to the generations would be both an academic, and poetic tragedy, to be missed...

 Please Great BBoy, make fun of me some more.   Show the others how
Lame they are in comparison to your almighty greatness...

 Ohh BBoy, dont let us down.  Show us how COOL you really are!

[Ummon]

Actually, isn't it 'shou(t) to' ?

[genesim]

A Pixel does Not get distorted when displayed from the left, middle or right.

This is wrong.  A CRT monitor has geometric distortion.  ALL OF THEM.   LCD's(or plasma for that matter) do not have this problem.   If you aren't ready to accept physics 101 then how can we get to the other faults of a CRT monitor?

When I hear "a bunch of lightbulbs" me wonders if you understand how the monitor works.    3 Electron beams pointed off center will have distortion on the pixel.  There is color bleeding, keystoning, and overall inaccuracy on even the colors that are projected.   All of this because of the very nature of the flawed technology.

After you accept that all of the above does exist what is your opinion in relation to the likely fact that programmers did not account for this?

I suggest you look up how a CRT works before you debate against me further.

bboysnj,

I take it very personally when I am attacked.   I am not wrong for being offended at the behavior.  That said I do consider the source and I enjoy actually calling a person for what they are.   

[Jack Burton]

Even with image distortion, color bleeding, and glare, I still think a high quality CRT monitor looks a million times better than an LCD screen for any classic arcade game.  The contrast, softness, curve, and glow of a CRT just looks better to me.

I don't care about the developers intent.  Although I do think like to think that if I grabbed Toru Iwatani by the arm and showed him my best efforts to display his game with a CRT and with an LCD he would agree with me. 

Hmm, maybe we could actually settle this dispute with some hard evidence.  We could contact Dona Bailey.  She was a programmer on Centipede, and currently teaches game design at the University of Kansas. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona_Bailey

[genesim]

Cenitipede??  You are going to use Centipede as an example??

Peference vs reality, that is what we are determining.

I pefer consistent color, color separation, no glare..etc.

Do I see the benefits of certain CRT displays, absolutely.   But when I hear someone say it can't be done because of computer power I want to laugh out of control.

Keep in mind that even if a look seems 3D it can also be your mind finishing the rest of the story vs actually being shown what was coded.   A CRT display does have a 3D type look because it is actually covering part of the code with its inherent problems.   LCD shows the original code in all its ugly glory.

But know this.   Your "proof" doesn't stand a chance to this fact.   Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

Though her/his(not sure here) input would be very interesting, it isn't the be all end all.  What she prefers could be indicative of nostalgia and nothing more.   But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

[Ginsu Victim]

But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

Where the hell do you think you are? 

[CheffoJeffo]

Where the hell do you think you are? 

He made it very clear that he is GENESIM, and only GENESIM. Please keep up.

[genesim]

But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

Where the hell do you think you are? 

Um a place that talks about thousands of video games....and who has people that are smart enough to figure out that said examples above are not very good ones when comparing the limitations of an arcade monitor being somehow an improvement over current ones.

Still, there are going to be exceptions.

[CheffoJeffo]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

I won't go as far as agreeing with the premise that displays were manufactured to match the limitations of the code (since std res monitors pretty much conform to NTSC and weren't designed in relationship to the code), but there definitely were monitors capable of displaying higher resolutions than used in games.

In fact the same monitors were capable of displaying higher resolutions than used in many games.

The combination is probably why it isn't discussed.

Randy Fromm's Understanding Monitor Resolution article does a good job of explaining the issues.

EDIT: For poorly written portion.

[genesim]

Wow a thoughtful response...please keep it up.

I will be the first to admit that Xiaou2 example is exactly how an artist could have made the code.    I have never stated otherwise.

What is different though is that LCD can actually produce the code more accurately because of non color bleeding and the like.   Even if desired...it has still never been shown for what it truly was.

I stand by the answer being a real emulation study of the original pixel design of the archaic monitors.   For example, multiple pixel representation of the original less then stellar monitors.

Computer processing power can certaintly handle it and the Arcade VGA has the first part entirely right. 

But I can tell you now, the example I said is completely true.   No programmer accounted for the differences with pixel distortion in relationship to the pixels in the center.   Instead of calling me names and putting me down for the love of your religion, how about giving me credit where it is due?    These are undeniable facts and if you follow the logic, it is impossible to disprove me with the current code that is represented in MAME or straight from the circuit boards.

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

When I see hoofprints I think horses not zebras.    Most of what we are debating was cost.   Programmers didn't have the money to truly program to the specific monitor standard in that way.

Turbo is certaintly a compelling answer and just may be part of quite a few exceptions, but most of it was no doubt in the "good enough" category.   The idea was draw it fast and send it out.    The pixels being in a rectangle was not on purpose, it was the limitations in technology.    Nothing more, nothing less.

[genesim]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

A circle even when blurred up...even when masked off is still a circle.   Sometimes the artist that coded the video game are given just a little bit too much credit.

They made a pixel representation and said...now lets see if it sells!   I brought up Splash screens before being proof of this.

[CheffoJeffo]

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

Since the first video games actually used modified consumer television sets, it is natural that the NTSC standard was adopted as the defacto standard for our industry.

Who do I believe, genesim, who apparently has never even owned an arcade monitor, or Randy Fromm who has taught classes on this stuff since the 1980s ?  

I guess it is mere coincidence that Atari's video game standards cite the vertical resolution (Std Res) at 240 and that NTSC's Std Res is also 240.  

Obviously arcade monitors were manufactured specifically for arcade cabinets (arcades are places where there are arcade cabinets).

Where you are wrong is believing that monitors were manufactured specifically to match the specific resolution that a particular programmer used for a particular game. That is why I can, for the most part, mix and match standard res monitors in my games (some exceptions for differences in available/required sync connections).

EDIT: I suppose that I should acknowledge that exceptions also exist for Nintendo games as they use 100V, inverted video and have the sound amplifier on the monitor itself. So, not plug-and-play directly, but require modification to swap into another cabinet or to swap another monitor into a Nintendo cabinet.

[Barry Barcrest]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

You are wrong here or just not getting it, no one said the monitors were specifically made for the code only you..... It's like VGA Monitors, i'm not talking about SVGA but back when VGA's we common place. Most people had pretty much the same monitor (Different manu's but same set up), it was a VGA monitor of a specific dot pitch and the resolution was going to be 640 x 480. You could write code for graphics knowing exactly what they would like on a VGA screen at 640 x 480. There were Higher Resolution monitors and better dot pitch VGA monitors but you would code for the most common place. You with me so far?

So lets go back to the old arcade monitors, yes there were higher resolution monitors but the cost was disproportionatly high and the processing power at the time would have struggled with running games as such reolutions. So they went for a standard resolution monitor that was availble off the shelf knowing that was what would be put into the cabs and coded acordingly for that display.

Where does that say the monitor was made for the code? It doesn't and no one has said this. The code was written for that specific monitor standard. The coder wouldn't care what it looked like on a more expensive better quality monitor because it wasn't designed to be run on such a screen, so the only way you can see it as the coder intended is to run it on what it was designed for.

[CheffoJeffo]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

[Ginsu Victim]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

 

[ahofle]

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

 

It's funny how he complains about CRT 'bleeding' in one sentence and then complains about a Pacman power pellet being blocky in another.

[clok]

This has turned into a argument because some of you dislike the people debating. Both sides just need to talk about the issue, not the people, both sides need to "let it go".

One thing, I have seen some of the old design documents, and yes they where done on graph paper (well sorta) and no, not everyone did it that way. I think Genes point was, when designing the game, they probably started on paper. AND most arcade games where not designed on the hardware (monitors, etc) they ended up being on, so the Bleed and such was probably not Incorporated into the design. I would bet many noticed it and did think about it and use it sometimes, but I wonder if it was used allot or a little? I know I have read many interviews and heard "a effect we didn't forsee but we liked and left in" or words to that effect. One thing to think about is CRTs have allot of adjustments (allot more then the standard color ones your old TV had sticking out the back or on the remote) that are set once at factory, and many times very badly. SO I tend to think designing for BLEED would have been somewhat hard as no two would bleed alike. Most CRTs do bleed and look very much alike, but I have seen TVs/arcade CRTs of the same machine where the ghosting is above the lettering, below the lettering or to the side. So planning for this would be hard in my opinion. Once again, I am pretty sure some did.

My guess (yes just a guess) is most games where designed on a fairly well calibrated CRT where bleed is minimal (but still there) and they did "what looked good" on the CRT it was developed on. Most games where designed quickly (if you read some of the old stories, whoa boy, quick is almost an understatement) and with very little time making it look good, I know they wanted it as good as possible, but I just don't think they spent the time to check how the bleed looked and such. I look at Frogger, its a excellent game, but even for its time the graphics are sorta, ho hum... the frog even with the monitors and pixel counts they used back then, could have looked better (but then again, that's an opinion).

I do agree DK and centipede are probably poor choices to show blending and bleed effects. gauntlet, Ghost & goblins they do allot of blending and are fairly old school games.

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like. I'm a game player, I HATED the fuzzy effects MAME32 had when run on a high res CRT, I like the clean blocky look, but that is opinion only, I just like to be able to play um easy without firing up a cab.

If the world was perfect I would have a Huge building with far to many machines running 24/7, i would let anybody come play and spend way to much time doing it myself. But i cant, I have an APT so i cant keep more then 1 cab ( i have owned 8-10, and regret selling EVERY SINGLE ONE) but i cant keep um.

Last thought, its easy to get annoyed with peoples opinions and comments, i do it all the time (both ways, get annoyed and annoy others). I find that if I DONT reply for a few hours, i just don't care, my "poster rage" has gone. But I'm still human and post when i shouldn't.. maybe just did..

[FrizzleFried]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

Incorrect.  EGA resolutions weren't introduced until 1984 and VGA resolutions weren't introduced until 1987.  Prior to 1984 CGA (standard resolution) was all that was available.

[CheffoJeffo]

Don't forget Extended Resolution ...

[FrizzleFried]

You mean the additional resolutions that CGA monitors can display?

[RayB]

WTF... how do you make a perfect circle when you only have 4x4 fat pixels to work with, and a limited color palette (meaning no ability to anti-alias) ??!  

[CheffoJeffo]

You mean the additional resolutions that CGA monitors can display?

I dunno if a different monitor was required for extended or even which games were extended resolution.

[CheffoJeffo]

This has turned into a argument because some of you dislike the people debating. Both sides just need to talk about the issue, not the people, both sides need to "let it go".

See earlier post about tempests and teacups.

Most CRTs do bleed and look very much alike, but I have seen TVs/arcade CRTs of the same machine where the ghosting is above the lettering, below the lettering or to the side. So planning for this would be hard in my opinion. Once again, I am pretty sure some did.

I think that both you and genesim need to look at a properly converged and configured monitor if you think that these situations are the norm.

My guess (yes just a guess) is most games where designed on a fairly well calibrated CRT where bleed is minimal (but still there) and they did "what looked good" on the CRT it was developed on. Most games where designed quickly (if you read some of the old stories, whoa boy, quick is almost an understatement) and with very little time making it look good, I know they wanted it as good as possible, but I just don't think they spent the time to check how the bleed looked and such. I look at Frogger, its a excellent game, but even for its time the graphics are sorta, ho hum... the frog even with the monitors and pixel counts they used back then, could have looked better (but then again, that's an opinion).

While they did not have tons of dedicated artists like the games pushed out today, they did give considerable thought to making things look good on screen (as stated by developers at the time and evidenced by Xiaou2's pics). Hell, a number of these guys designed the artwork for the cabinets.

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like. I'm a game player, I HATED the fuzzy effects MAME32 had when run on a high res CRT, I like the clean blocky look, but that is opinion only, I just like to be able to play um easy without firing up a cab.

See earlier post about "If you don't have a problem with how the games look or play, then you don't have a problem with the way the games look or play."

Last thought, its easy to get annoyed with peoples opinions and comments, i do it all the time (both ways, get annoyed and annoy others). I find that if I DONT reply for a few hours, i just don't care, my "poster rage" has gone. But I'm still human and post when i shouldn't.. maybe just did..

From what I can see, the person who is annoyed is genesim.

[ahofle]

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like.

That's a pretty poor analogy.  Running Gauntlet on a C2D vs a Pentium 3 looks and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME.  Running it on an LCD vs a arcade monitor looks totally different.  Emulation is about accurately simulating hardware and software, not simply 'running it on different hardware'.  I don't think anyone can argue that emulating arcade games on an LCD looks more like the 'real thing' than with an arcade monitor.  The only thing debatable is whether or not looking the same is preferable (or even something worth caring about).

[Ginsu Victim]

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like.

That's a pretty poor analogy.  Running Gauntlet on a C2D vs a Pentium 3 looks and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME.  Running it on an LCD vs a arcade monitor looks totally different.  Emulation is about accurately simulating hardware and software, not simply 'running it on different hardware'.  I don't think anyone can argue that emulating arcade games on an LCD looks more like the 'real thing' than with an arcade monitor.  The only thing debatable is whether or not looking the same is preferable (or even something worth caring about).

 

[Xiaou2]

when designing the game, they probably started on paper. AND most arcade games where not designed on the hardware (monitors, etc) they ended up being on, so the Bleed and such was probably not Incorporated into the design.

 A lot of these guys were coding using the equivalent of a Calculator!  Zeros and Ones,
no monitor.  A print out only!  (as far as I recall from the documentary I saw long ago)
 
 If that was the case... do you really think that they spent a lot of time on
higher res monitors?

 If they did in fact do so... then that was probably at a later time period. Maybe late
80s to 90s.   And even IF they did it from the start... it wouldnt matter.   The
whole idea is that the game designers Knew that their creations would be
displayed on a lowres monitor... so made the graphics to suit that display from the
very start to the very finish.

 We are not talking Concepts here.  Its known that some designers, such as
the game Joust... were envisioned in true 3d.   Gladly, they didnt have the
power to do such things with the hardware back then.
 


 It was argued that because the beams were shot at angles.. it would cause distortions.
The isnt really all that true... because its not the beam you are seeing.  You are seeing
a Glowing Phosphor Dot light up.   The angle of the beam that Hits the Phosphor
matters very little.  In fact, the Shadowmask is Designed for just that purpose.
The mask isnt simply a mesh.  Its a 3d structure.  The rear of the mask has little
cups routed out on the rear, which catches the beams overspill on both the left
and right  angled gun beams.

 
 When anyone put an image on these lowres arcade monitors,  they would immediately
see that certain things didnt look all that good... and had to be tweaked.

 You can easily know this.. by viewing this website on a non-hdtv.

 Still, its not like what was described in the argument.  The effects of a crt shadowmask is not random. The effects are equally duplicated.   

 You can see such a thing when the artists realized that if they used a single pixel checkerboard pattern of black ,  could make translucent shadows.   The pattern didnt show - but the dark translucent shadow effect did.   Nobody would have known this,
unless they had not tested the images on lowres arcade monitors.   And... they couldnt
have designed the games for higher res monitors - least the player see an ugly
mesh pattern.

 The color mixing isnt random either.  There is a science to the way the colors
bleed, mix and fade... which is duplicatable, and was used in many games.
Most especially with games where they hired actual artists to do the graphics,
instead of only the programmers doing them.
   

 To simulate this however, inst as easy as Gen believes.  It cant be done with a
simple filter effect.  It has to be done with something like a complex ruleset,
and or use of something like a raytrace routine.  Basically, 3d rendered rays
bouncing around in the simulated 3d mask.  The resolution would also have to
be insanly high to pull it off well.  Else, they effect would have to be scaled.. which
would change the entire look of it... making it all near worthless.

 
 As stated, Pac Mans pellets were designed octagonal, because that was what
looked best on a standard arcade monitor.  The way it was Designed to be viewed on.

[genesim]

Clok,

Thank you for shining some light into what I have been stating.

Sometimes I just want to beat my head up against the wall because there are serious communication breakdowns.   Most everything you guys have described have been in terms of absolutes.   I have never stated such.   Programmers aren't one way, nor hardware one way.   It is a mutual relationship.   

At the same time when I hear people say that I don't want octagonal pellets and the like I just scream.    Instead of personal attacking me, how about reading what I actually wrote.   When did I ever that they could make circles??  When did I say it once???   

On this one thing, my point was and is still:

If the programmer had the option of making a circle the programmer would have did such.   The grid and the code did not allow this to happen.    It is about what could be maximized with TIME/COST/CAPABILITY/SPACE.    It is that simple.

You guys debate with what happened vs what was actually envisioned.    There were limits, but at the same time again see hoofprints not zebras.

The monitor was more then capable of handling a circular pellet MORE THEN CAPABLE.   

A monitor with 10 times the capability can easily simulate this.   And the computers of today can do it too.   The problem is that noone up to this point has really given the effort to do so(that I know of).   Most are too busy collecting CRT monitors instead of totally utilizing the tech to emulate the hardware.   

Old CRT's have long fell short of the newest LCD's.   The refresh rates and the contrast ratios have surpassed these(cept vector graphics..not the same at all).

My point is not a carbon copy, but a hell of alot closer.    Of course I like original hardware, but I CAN'T have them all in my living room, and I won't.   

Some people and their splitting hairs...they support MAME...but not monitors?   They cupport Ultra 360's...but not monitors... 

What is wrong with discussing what could be a better way?   

[genesim]

Xiaou2,

By the way are you ever going to answer my direct question about pixel distortion from center to the outside?

Are you still claiming that it doesn't exist?   If you think it doesn't then please disprove all others on any known CRT entry that claims otherwise.

And if you acknoledge that, are you claiming that programmers really accounted for the NON UNIFORM display parameters?

If they didn't would that not at least be one advantage(of many) of an LCD display?   Or are you claiming that you pick and choose what matters and what doesn't?

[CheffoJeffo]

Instead of personal attacking me, how about reading what I actually wrote. 

I will ... as soon as you stop writing such stupid things ... designing monitors to fit game programs ...   

[CheffoJeffo]

Xiaou2,

By the way are you ever going to answer my direct question about pixel distortion from center to the outside?

The only thing that is noticed is the reflections from the curved surface, and a
slight depth perception.   A 19"  CRT viewed at 2ft away with only a slight
round face leads very little to no Illusion related distortions.

 

[genesim]

That isn't even close to an answer.   I am talking about the mechanics of the Electron beam and the physics of time and space.   He gives me an answer on the curved surface of the screen...

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ   try again.

xxxxxxxxxx

As for the monitors, I never stated that they were designed specifically.   Go back and read.   LIMITATIONS will be your clue.   Good luck!

[CheffoJeffo]

That isn't even close to an answer.   I am talking about the mechanics of the Electron beam and the physics of time and space.   He gives me an answer on the curved surface of the screen...

It was argued that because the beams were shot at angles.. it would cause distortions.
The isnt really all that true... because its not the beam you are seeing.  You are seeing
a Glowing Phosphor Dot light up.   The angle of the beam that Hits the Phosphor
matters very little.  In fact, the Shadowmask is Designed for just that purpose.
The mask isnt simply a mesh.  Its a 3d structure.  The rear of the mask has little
cups routed out on the rear, which catches the beams overspill on both the left
and right  angled gun beams.

And, while Xiaou2 and I agree with less frequency than you and I do, he's right.

[CheffoJeffo]

As for the monitors, I never stated that they were designed specifically.   Go back and read.   LIMITATIONS will be your clue.   Good luck!

Oops ... we all misread your statement ...

You meant that the monitors were more than likely designed based on LIMITATIONS in the original code.

OK, I get it ...







































wait, no that is equally ridiculous ... the monitors were designed to conform to the industry standard, which was based on NTSC, just like Randy Fromm said.

Are you trying to tell us that *you* are right and Randy is wrong ?

[genesim]

I admit I didn't see this..and it is nice talk, but WRONG again.

The angle of the beam can change the properties of color...a little when close to the center...alot with every step to the outside.    PHYSICS 101.

Then of course when you put it together to make a picture that is one one second of a movement.    So in effect you have that many pixels that are displayed incorrectly in regards to shading, color, etc.   It distorts the image, and yes it is discernable by the human eye.   You can see it a little in a PC monitor...alot in an arcade monitor because the pixels are so much bigger.

Am I getting through?  

When you agree to the verifiable FACT, then you ask yourself did the programmer account for this.   Uh no, because the code is uniform, the display is not.

[genesim]

NO not specifially DESIGNED, specifically picked/used/manufactured.

Cost effective to what was available.

And yes the rectangular monitors were no doubt in my mind specifically made for the arcades and the code reflected such.   A symbiotic need.

One is not absolute over the other...except there was better monitors..but not better code.    Or were there George Lucas graphics just waiting to be unearthed if it weren't for those crappy monitors. 

Its a display....nothing more.

[CheffoJeffo]

The angle of the beam can change the properties of color...a little when close to the center...alot with every step to the outside.    PHYSICS 101.

The colour that you see on the screen is not a transmitted beam of light, but rather the phosphor on the inside of the screen reacting to being hit by electrons. The phosphor is laid down in vertical stripes of equal width.

The edge distortion from CRTs comes from the curved tubes (hence the emergence of flat screens) and Xiaou2 has already addressed that.

[genesim]

And for the last time THE BEAM OF LIGHT is what I am speaking about.

HOW IT HITS THE PHOSPHER.

THE ANGLE AT WHICH IT HITS THE PHOSPHER.

Are you aware that a beam of light when refracted takes a longer amount of time to display from center phospher to outside phonspher?   Are you aware that how refracted no matter how calibrated, it is still subject to being distorted hence producting distorted pixel from the one next to it?

Either you get it or you don't.   

I talk about beams and you talk about after the phospher...and even the screen.    It is like I am speaking latin.

[CheffoJeffo]

And I say "there is no beam of light", because there isn't. 


Tum podem extulit horridulum. 

[wooowman93]

YA

[Xiaou2]

 Thanks Cheff.


   I will add..  for those who do not seem to understand... that color mixing happens
AFTER the ELECTRON beam, on the Opposite side of the shadowmask.

 The bean is ELECTRONS.  They are NOT visible AFAIK.  As the beams EXCITE the
Phosphors on the rear side of the mask.. the PHOSPHORS glow.  The ANGLE of the
beam plays NO real factor in the Light direction.  The electron has to merely be in the
area to cause the phosphor to Glow.  The excess energy is hidden BEHIND the CUPS
that are etched into the BACK SIDE of the MASKS.  Thus, they knew that there would
be possible problems with 100% accuracy, and created the cups to take care of that.
Its a Brilliant solution.   


 The light from the Phosphors glowing is emitted to the Front side of the mask,
in a FORWARD DIRECTION.

 Think of the Phosphors being LEDS.  And the ELECTRON BEAM being a BATTERY
that touches the leads of the LEDS. 


 Because there is black space between the groups of phosphors.. the light can glow
past the intended area.. and hop over to the non-phosphor areas. 

 If two bright colors are nearby - the light that leaks to the black areas mixes.  The
colors then appear to be twice as bright.    Yet a darker pixel next to a bright pixel
can be almost erased because the light leak covers it over.

 
 There is Less leakage in new monitors because the shadowmasks are superior.
They have more precise methods, as well as tighter spacing. The black areas are so
small now, you can barely even see them unless you get Very close and have a
good magnifying glass.   The electron bean is probably smaller and more accurate, as
well as using less power... leading too less Over-Excitement of the phosphors.
 
 (where as the original monitors needed a lot more brightness to overcome the
much darker lines of the mask,  which sets up the conditions for too much light - which
can leak)

[Xiaou2]

 An awesome picture of the REAR (Inside facing) of a Mask.

[genesim]

First of all...my apologies..  I don't know why I even say LIGHT.   I have even been corrected on this before and it is a fact I very well know, but yet I keep typing it.   

Now what did this have to do with a screen again?   When I talked about beams to the phosphers you knew what I spoke of!   moving on....

At any rate, an Electron beam also adheres to the same problems.   Any misallignment of the beam causes a degradation or poor illumination of the phoshers.   Hence wave effects and the like.

Color bleeding is a huge problem with CRT monitors...as lined out by Xiaou2.  So much so that apparently the coders even programmed for it.

So here is the problem, instead of having a pissing contest how about discussing the actual issues of a CRT monitor and how it could be improved with newer technology.

An LCD has superior color and separation capability because of the tech...like true color getting past the red/gree/blue parameters and actually add more chroma to the mix.   Add to that the superiority in pixels and the UNIFORM quality of the pixels.

Why is it not possible to dedicate pixels to the "bleeding" and the like to make the effect.   Good studies of the original monitors and software could give desirable effects.   I don't know how possible, but as computers get better and better and monitors get more and more the idea of needing a CRT is long dead.

Think about the future, not just nostalgia.   I care about preservation of the idea of it more then the actual hardware.   This kind of thinking could bypass some of the emulation problems with the early Atari arcade games.

But AGAIN

HOW ABOUT ADRESSING MY QUESTION.

You have now admitted about the degradation of color through bleeding and the like.   Are you still suggesting it is completely uniform?   Are you still insisting that the ELECTRON BEAM cannot be missaligned?   Do you not understand that it is highly unlikely that any CRT is even alike because of this problem?

And lastly, do you really think that programmers accounted for the obvious pixel not being the same across the plane?

Color and shading diffences are huge and the naked eye in your screen shots make it blatantly true.   I could print out the pictures blow up each pixel and put a ruler to it, but you know very well what I am talking about.

[RayB]

I'm lost. What's he saying today's monitors should be capable of doing? Some how "knowing" what shape that blob of pixels was intended to be and then render it better??

[genesim]

YES.  Software, same as happens for many other applications.

We know this much, the original pixel can be uniform on an LCD.   That is the improvement...now emulate the color bleed for something like Turbo...or Donkey Kong...even though for that game it isn't necessary.

Instead of just having a database for artwork...or a joystick that does all, how about having something that specifically emulates the monitors too.

With Pixels being readily available in sometimes 5 times the quantity and growing with every improvement, desired effects(defects) can be made to get that "hot pink" car. 

Of course you sacrfise the road being grey but I guess thats how the coder wanted it right?

[Xiaou2]

Now what did this have to do with a screen again?   When I talked about beams to the phosphors you knew what I spoke of!   moving on....

 Because you spoke of pixels distorting because of angular light beams.  That does Not
happen at all.   Electrons can fire from any direction to excite the Phosphors,
and the phosphors will shoot the light STRAIGHT out..   NOT AT AN ANGLE!  To which
you typed over and over and over again.

 

At any rate, an Electron beam also adheres to the same problems.   Any misallignment of the beam causes a degradation or poor illumination of the phoshers.   Hence wave effects and the like.

 No. Its NOT the SAME.   And, wave effects?!   You obviously dont know what you
are talking about.

Color bleeding is a huge problem with CRT monitors...as lined out by Xiaou2.  So much so that apparently the coders even programmed for it.

 A) WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS A PROBLEM !!!
 
  A classic arcade machine that has an LCD is blasphemous.  It will not look anything
like what it should look like.   Neither do old console games.  The blending and
textured look is an ARTISTIC quality, which designers took advantage of.

 An excellent example of Why CRTs look better:  OutRun.    The game looks like
an oil painting.  A real work of art in motion.   Yet, take any 3d polygon game
out there that is over 6yrs old... and most people will gag at how Awful it looks.
Jagged, low poly count, poor shading, etc. 
 

 B) Graphics may have been entered as Data.  However, its more correct to say that
the art was DRAWN that way.  Art isnt Programmed.  Its Designed and Drawn.
If I edit or Draw a picture in Photoshop... A person would not say that I "Programmed"
it into my computer.

An LCD has superior color and separation capability because of the tech...like true color getting past the red/gree/blue parameters and actually add more chroma to the mix.   Add to that the superiority in pixels and the UNIFORM quality of the pixels

 Wrong again.  First off... the so called 120 hz  isnt really 120 hz.  Read up on the
Deception.  Ohh snap... I forgot... you Dont do any research.

 You also dont realize how little color spectrum, contrast, and brightness is Lacking
in LCD compared to CRT.  You could crank up the LCD brightness all the way up,
and still not attain the brightness of an arcade CRT.  This is yet another reason
why simulation will not work well with LCDs.

 Also, as stated.. LCDs have POOR resolution ability.  Scaling on them is atrocious.

 LCD is decent for space & power requirements... but its Not the best display
technology.  By far.

 Laser Technology would probably be the optimal replacement.  However, its not here yet.

Why is it not possible to dedicate pixels to the "bleeding" and the like to make the effect. 

 Today?

1) Because there is Not nearly enough pixels to create the simulation accurately,
and LCDs Scaling is CRAP.
2) Because nobody is donating to the team of supergeeks and the measuring
equipment they will need.
3) Even IF someone creates the correct emulation... It will still look better on a
CRT display rather than an LCD.
4) The processing power needed to calculate the light rays would take at least
one if not two extra processors,  and need specialized coding.
5) Anything less than raytracing would probably look very poor.
6) LCDs arnt bright enough.
7) Even the fastest LCD will probably Choke on the fast moving image changes.



 Actually, Id love to see someone tackle this problem.  Ive suggested it be done
via custom Hardware.   However, its very doubtful anyone will invest in doing
anything like this.

 All your logic-less and ignorant ranting and raving will not change a thing.

 

but I guess thats how the coder wanted it right?

 The coders and artists hand chose what colors they wanted to be seen.  The games
are exactly what they made them to be.  If they didnt like the color of the road, they
would have changed that LONG before the game shipped out.

[Blanka]

void

[genesim]

Sounds like someone else needs to do their homework.

You are so busy personal attacking me that you aren't even looking at what you have written.

Let me start with this:

No. Its NOT the SAME.   And, wave effects?!   You obviously dont know what you
are talking about.

I didn't say they were the same, I stated that they can have the same effect i.e. SPEED vs TIME AN SPACE.   Physics 101


Read and learn hear about wave patterns:

No. Its NOT the SAME.   And, wave effects?!   You obviously don't know what you
are talking about.

And yes the electron beam does hit at an angle(meaning not 90 degree but but more or less from the starting point).   Do we need pictures to illustrate this too?    The more you write the less you sound like you know what you are talking about.

The distance is different the farther you get away from center.   So unless the original tube is movie...which it is not...or the screen is moving....which it is not then at some point the beam that coming from the Cathode Ray Tube is longer distance then dead center.   

Your examples are very controlled because it is with an LCD that is trying to be a monitor that it isn't...doesn't mean it couldn't give desirable effects though with proper software.

The problem is that YOU continuously throw logic out the window.   

[genesim]

Ooops forgot the wave patterns link:

http://www.pctechguide.com/42CRTMonitors_Electron_beam.htm

I just don't have time to attack each one of your completely FALSE points, but rest assured you will get it.   Your LCD hate has marred your points beyond comprehension.

 Not enough pixels..WRONG...not ..nobody is donating to the team...of course and people like you help right?...it will look better on CRT...given what parameters the fact that LCD is superior in almost every way?  Get out a specs list and learn...two processors...talking out your ass...oh wait we have quad processors now..hmm....anything less...and who says it has to be?....LCD's aren't bright enough... compared to CRT's?? ...even the fastest moving LCD's....oh ok lets see 120hz vs 15hz...yeah real challenge there.   

Lastly, yes the art was programmed.   It may have been drawn but somehow it got to the arcade screen...so gee whiz I don't know why one would say they were programmers.

You also dont realize how little color spectrum, contrast, and brightness is Lacking
in LCD compared to CRT.

Again more uninformed talk.   Please google Deep color and xvYCC now and contrast ratios now!!

[Blanka]

void

[Blanka]

void

[Jack Burton]

even the fastest moving LCD's....oh ok lets see 120hz vs 15hz...yeah real challenge there.   

What do you mean by this?

the only 15 I know in relation to arcade games is the standard resolution of 15khz, or 240p. 

[genesim]

My point was the arcade monitors have much lower refresh rates.  So in essence any image is going to be shown like 5 times or something to capture said result...removing the jitter effects and what not.

In other words, more then enough hardware to capture the result.

In reference to deep color and the xvYCC standard, the point was that the monitor can display a much wider color space, so in essence it is proof positive the capability of the monitor...nothing more.

A LCD doesn't have enough color is a true crock just as much as the newer ones cannot display black....another flat out lie.

10,000:1 contrast ratio is more then enough.   We are talking low res games here, not much to grab.

True that the Turbo example is compelling...so make software for it!  The LCD can handle it, and the computers now can process it.   To criticize what hasn't been done is simply crazy.   

LCD's are liquid crystals not phosphers.   Though they employ phospher like quality right?  If I am wrong I apologize.

From WIKI and showing the limitation of a CRT monitor in regards to color.   

In color LCDs each individual pixel is divided into three cells, or subpixels, which are colored red, green, and blue, respectively, by additional filters (pigment filters, dye filters and metal oxide filters). Each subpixel can be controlled independently to yield thousands or millions of possible colors for each pixel. CRT monitors employ a similar 'subpixel' structures via phosphors, although the electron beam employed in CRTs do not hit exact 'subpixels'.

Now the next question is do you think that the programmers/ARTEESTS thought about relection too???  How about color fading???   How much credit are we going to give these "artists".   When is a hoofprint a zebra?

[Blanka]

void

[Jack Burton]

True that the Turbo example is compelling...so make software for it!  The LCD can handle it, and the computers now can process it.   To criticize what hasn't been done is simply crazy.   

It might have already been mentioned, but have you looked at the NTSC filter for ZSNES?  It has options to allow things like color bleeding, field merging, and fringing.   It is it something close to what you are envisioning?

[genesim]

Blanka before I apologize ( )  you are telling me it uses some kind of phospher tube?

If the liquid crystal makes the color then that is all I am debating about anyway.   Each pixel is its own entity which is all that matters.

Jack,

Thanks for the info.  No I didn't know about it, but it does sound like a step to that direction...what I am looking for is a real study of the monitors.   A huge undertaking, but hey its an idea thats all.

LCD's are capable of looking better and when I hear someone complain about something like "blur" they don't know what they are talking about.   With refresh rates of 120 and 1 millisecond response times those situations are way out the door.

I got a 120khz LCD that is fantastic and blur is a non-issue.   The color is incredible and playing MAME on it is fine with me.   But then again my puny 19inch with a 4ms response is fine too!   It doesn't have near the contrast spec but it doesn't have glare or bleeding either.   

Though a few games benefit from this I am willing to bear it.   Though I don't see how anyone goes under the LCD sucks crap...maybe it should be LCD sucks because the hardware is not being properly utilized!!

[Blanka]

void

[Blanka]

void

[genesim]

As far as I know LCD's do not use Phosphors of any kind to illuminate the red/green/and blue filters.

That is the fundamental difference between Plasma/CRT and LCD is the fact that it is devoid of phosphurs which actually make the color.

On a Plasma the phospher is a gass, on a crt is a phosphor coating.

LCD is devoid of this because it uses a filter to get the effect.  No electron excitement is taken place.   Now if what you are saying is the back lit phosphor coating on the actual bulb, then there you got me...but of course what is coming out of the light is not.   Get my meaning?  Or am I wrong on this?   Just trying to understand. 

What I am getting at is the back light isn't integral to the actual intensity...it is the liquid crystal that does the blocking...hence each pixel is its own entity.   

[Blanka]

void

[FrizzleFried]

This thread makes my head hurt.  What EXACTLY is Genesim trying to "prove"?  If he's trying to "prove" LCD's make good classic arcade monitors,  well,  all I have to do is fire up a multicade with one in it to see that is just not true.  LCD's suck for classic arcade games.  My eyes don't lie and even if they did,  the lie is good enough for me to not give a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

[Flip_Willie]

I know this is breaking away from the Genesim debate; however, those interested in the original topic might find this article interesting:

http://kotaku.com/5225343/kids-make-old-games-look-good-on-new-tvs


EDIT: Here is a link to a more detailed article:

http://www.bogost.com/games/a_television_simulator.shtml

[CheffoJeffo]

Cool article ... 

[Malenko]

very cool article.


Can someone explain to me, in small words since Im retarded, why does Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 look exactly the same on all 3 of my arcade machine monitors when they are 3 different kinds of monitors? Despite the fact they are all "tuned right" genesism clearly implied that color bleed, pixel shape, pixel brightness fade, noise,etc  is inconsistent across CRT and can only be "best guessed"  just for fun I hooked up Tekken 2, Kung Fu, and BreakThru and again they looked the same on every monitor

[DJ_Izumi]

Personally, I prefer CRTs but I acknowlwedge their drawbacks.  CRTs 'lose', in size, weight, power consumption and the ability to be constructed at large sizes.

LCDs for retro games, firstly, not a lot are available at 4:3 anyway.  There's the issue of LCDs having a 'native resolution' where any other resolution looks like crap.  At the same time, LCDs ARE the way displays are going.  High quality manufacturers are dropping CRTs for LCDs with lesser companies still doing CRTs and an LCD is probably a lot easier to physically deal with for an installation.

I think a CRT is 'better' when playing a game that natively ran on a CRT in the box but you have to considder that LCDs will likely take over as the only display option available in about 10 years.

[TOK]

This thread makes my head hurt.  What EXACTLY is Genesim trying to "prove"?  If he's trying to "prove" LCD's make good classic arcade monitors,  well,  all I have to do is fire up a multicade with one in it to see that is just not true.  LCD's suck for classic arcade games.  My eyes don't lie and even if they did,  the lie is good enough for me to not give a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

He's just trolling with nonsense and somehow sucking everyone in.

[Ummon]

And I say "there is no beam of light", there is only your mind thinking there is light.

HEHN.

We are not talking Concepts here.  Its known that some designers, such as
the game Joust... were envisioned in true 3d.

Wait, what? Where did you find this out?

He's just trolling with nonsense and somehow sucking everyone in.

The name kinda makes me think carnival clown.

[genesim]

Look at you guys.  You accuse me of blowing my top and the like and all I am doing is presenting evidence and making a suggestion.


Blanka,

Those are pretty pictures and all that, and I do appreciate it....but I NEVER DENIED THEY WERE PHOSPHRES IN THE BACK LIGHT.

WOW...thank you for enlightening me.   

Now back to what is important.   Back lighting is mandatory, I got that.   Too bad that other then trying to account for the drawbacks they are not what makes the color!   They illluminate the mechanism that makes the color i.e. the liquid crystals that change how the filters are blocked and not blocked.

So nothing I said was wrong.   The color mechanism itself is not dictated by the phospher.   The color mechanism is not the phosper like with a CRT being a coating and the Plasma being a gas.

How many times do I have to repeat it??

My point is unlike those two montors every pixel is independent of each other because of the liquid crystals.  PERIOD AMEN.

So what is my point, hell at this time the angry mob wouldn't listen anyway.   

People please just read what I wrote if you have questions.   I don't work on monitors for a living and I have never claimed to be an expert, but having a pissing contest to just to play sharp shooter is plain absurd.     

My point with LCD is that it has never been a fair comparison because its hardware has not been utilized.   It is simply too good at this state and needs to be made to look worse.   Many of you are confusing this with the ability of the LCD.  NUTTY.

But hey keep crying as your CRT monitors quickly get cleared off the shelves...yeah thats the preservation of arcade games...that makes sense. 

Meanwhile unless you had your head in the sand the specs of the LCD blows the CRT monitors away.   

Call me a troll, call me whatever you want.   Sometimes the truth hurts.    Apparently with some people...really really bad.

[genesim]

Now we are going to play JFK ready...this is a quote from me earlier:

the bullet came from back and to the ...

Now if what you are saying is the back lit phosphor coating on the actual bulb, then there you got me....

Now if what you are saying is the back lit phosphor coating on the actual bulb, then there you got me....

Now if what you are saying is the back lit phosphor coating on the actual bulb, then there you got me....

Funny in all you guys clapping like seals you missed this.   So busy trying to prove me wrong you missed that I actually agreed!

Still wondering why not one person has commented on the evidence of the programmers/artists accounting for the uneven qualities of a CRT monitor.   It is like that pink elephant in the room.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

just for fun I hooked up Tekken 2, Kung Fu, and BreakThru and again they looked the same on every monitor

Physics my man.   Not being mean here, but it is like you haven't read one word I said.   If you think a CRT monitor is consistent then I got a bridge I can sell ya.    Hell even the programmers accounted for it!  Where have you been. 

[Malenko]

just for fun I hooked up Tekken 2, Kung Fu, and BreakThru and again they looked the same on every monitor

Physics my man.   Not being mean here, but it is like you haven't read one word I said.   If you think a CRT monitor is consistent then I got a bridge I can sell ya.    Hell even the programmers accounted for it!  Where have you been. 

I read everything you said.....

so the fact they all look pretty much exactly alike across 3 different sets of monitors means they are inconsistent. got it. 

[CheffoJeffo]

Funny in all you guys clapping like seals you missed this.   

I am not a name caller, not my style. 

No, you're a ---smurfing--- moron and you keep getting your ass kicked.

Everybody knows it and you deserve it.

 

[Barry Barcrest]

Funny in all you guys clapping like seals you missed this.   

I am not a name caller, not my style. 

No, you're a ---smurfing--- moron and you keep getting your ass kicked.

Everybody knows it and you deserve it.

 

Maybe one day he'll go away?

[Xiaou2]

the back light isn't integral to the actual intensity

The color mechanism itself is not dictated by the phospher.

 
This is Not entirely True.   In fact, if you had understood the earlier chart and
explanation given to you, you would have known that.

 If you put a Red Backlight in the LCD frame,  the resulting colors will be off
on the display.

 And if you didnt know this... Go to any hardware store and you can see that
they sell several types of Tube lighting that have multiple output color spectrum's.
 
 Some are more blue-ish in hue.  Some are more warm with a touch of red.

 
 The crystals can only work with what is available to them.  So a poor color bulb
and or Dim backlight will result in less than stellar results.   Some may also know
that over time... as the backlight ages... it get dimmer and dimmer.   So the picture
gets worse and worse.

 LEDs may be solution, because they are much brighter... and do not go dim as they
age (afaik).  (Then again... white leds that Ive seen always seem to be non-diffuse
and have a blueish tint to them)


 And btw - color ranges/spectrum are also a problem with modern monitors.  The spectrum of say 'red' using phosphors may be completely different than that of an lcd.  And so,  the entire spectrum would have to be captured and translated in order for correct color output to be arcade monitor accurate.


 The article was very cool.

 The effect was a little bit off, yet that is understandable, being that there isnt a high enough resolution for it being 100%. 

 Still, the output was 1 billion times better than the typical output.  If only
we could get someone brilliant enough to do the same for arcade monitor simulation.
Sure, it will never be as good as the real deal..  but at least it will spare us the agony
of the incorrect look.

[ahofle]

LEDs may be solution, because they are much brighter... and do not go dim as they
age (afaik).

LEDs do dim over time unfortunately.

[Blanka]

void

[genesim]

Oh so a red backlight changes the color....oh there are phosphers on the orginal bulb....

Gee thanks guys for clearing this up.   I honestly didn't know this.    I thought any color could be put there and I had completely forgotton how a bulb works.   

It really enlightened me. 

Sure got ---my bottom--- kicked there.   

I always wondered why they used white!    GEE WHIZ    And man even when I wrote phosphers I didn't understand why I did....it didn't make sense to me why I would do such a thing!!!

You guys are so busy calling me "smurfing" moron!   

Look it is a religion plain and simple.    Meanwhile if someone came up with the answer and did it well you would be more then worshipping.     

Even a fool would understand with the specs and the improvements made all the time LCD(and other kinds of competing HDTV's) can more then do the job.   

Software is the problem, not the hardware as many of you like to imply.

And Blanka for the record I don't believe the blue filters are 50% less bright BS ONE BIT.   They are FILTERS...let me say it again FILTERS...one more time FILTERS, not PHOSPHERS.   

The PHOSPHERS are not part of the color mechanism they are simply a back light  ILLUMINATING THE COLOR MECHANISM...oh wait I said that before too and Xiaou2 felt like he needed to correct me.      

Polarizing filters are made specifically for shining light through for long periods of time.   Not just for a couple of years...for something like 30 with no change.    Having worked with coatings for a number of years as a Chemist I am not just pulling it out of ---my bottom---.

What do you think these filters are made for in photography or your sunglasses....oh right, it makes sense to have sunglasses at 50% so it lets light in....yeah real smart.

Oh and for the record there is a difference between PIGMENT vs BINDER.    The properties of the coating adhere to how well it is made rather then being reliant on what color it is.   Pigment has nothing to do with it when properly formulated.

Last but not least, if you are really worry about the LCD "losing its properties" it will likely go in the trash in 10 years anyway because they are that CHEAP.     

You know what I do see though...flicker, color distortion, reflection, bleeding, I break my back carrying the CRT, I don't like the power bill, I don't like the safety of it,...and hell I don't even like the obvious hum of a huge CRT tube.

I like the games, and I like preserving what is important...the code and it being displayed the most effeciently while still enjoying the material.  The programmers wanted it this way too, no doubt in my mind.   You think those people didn't sign off on having their material liscensed at put to other uses?   You think they said...oh no, it must be on the same crappy hardware!!!   

This is what they likely said....hey where is another paycheck...COOL!

[genesim]

Xiaou2,

You making a partial quote and not actually looking at my meaning is a disgrace, what I actually said was this:

What I am getting at is the back light isn't integral to the actual intensity...it is the liquid crystal that does the blocking...hence each pixel is its own entity.

   

THE INTENSITY OF THE COLOR MECHANISM of course if you looked at my next post :

Back lighting is mandatory, I got that.   Too bad that other then trying to account for the drawbacks they are not what makes the color!   They illluminate the mechanism that makes the color i.e. the liquid crystals that change how the filters are blocked and not blocked.

Of course when you quoted me here:

The color mechanism itself is not dictated by the phospher.

This was absolutely true.   If the Liquid Crystal wasn't doing its job the phospher back light would just being illuminating bare filters...hmmmm    Gee Jeffo he sure kicked my bottom there!

It has gotten so bad that I am actually just repeating myself.   I am having to requote myself because some of you have resorted to misinterpetation to somehow put me down instead of just having an honest to goodness discussion.   

[Blanka]

void

[genesim]

LCD is not LED.   Next...

CRT uses phosphor coating

Plasma uses phosphor gas

LCD DOES NOT USE EITHER FOR THE COLOR.

You could use a fricken FIRE to light the liquid crystal.   You could use the frickin SUN.   The PHOSPHOR COATED LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT NECESSARY.  Unlike the other two examples the phosphor is not the color mechanism.   Why can't you get this fact?

As for the coating of plastic, glass....etc. it makes no sense for pigment to be put out that doesn't adhere to QC standards.   Chemist formulate binders to adhere to each color equally.   Are there exceptions absolutely, but an amateur hour guesstimation of the life of a LCD polarizing filter(not LED???) sure ain't it.

It isn't in the companies best interest to have pigment fade out significantly before another pigment.   A formulator accounts for this and in likelyhood a well made LCD will last 20+ years with absolutely no change.    I have two that look damn good for the 10 years that I have them.   

[Blanka]

void

[genesim]

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

Very good!  So we have now come to the conclusion that the light source is not dependent on the phosphor coating.

Thank you very much.

Now on to point two.   Unlike CRT each pixel is therefore UNRELATED to the other based on color application.   

Drawing a conclusion about a backlight has next to nothing do with the relationship as opposed to Plasma and CRT where the Phosphor coating or gas is EVERYTHING to do with the source.

HENCE the problems with separation.    That is why you get a one pixel burnout on an LCD.   It is that SEPARATE.   That kind of behavior is just not as likely on a CRT or Plasma because what is more likely to happen is that you get a dimming of the WHOLE picture.

Why was this so hard to get through?

But of course it is back to my original frickin' question.    This change that I speak of where each pixel is not separate and not perfectly represented....do you really think that the programmers coded for this?   Do you really think that the artists accounted for this!

If so, please produce evidence, because the fact that the code is uniform sure doesn't give credibility.

[genesim]

LCD is devoid of this because it uses a filter to get the effect.  No electron excitement is taken place.   Now if what you are saying is the back lit phosphor coating on the actual bulb, then there you got me...but of course what is coming out of the light is not.   Get my meaning?  Or am I wrong on this?   Just trying to understand. 

What I am getting at is the back light isn't integral to the actual intensity...it is the liquid crystal that does the blocking...hence each pixel is its own entity.   

So what happened is you quoted me saying this and said I am PLAIN WRONG!

So in essense haven't you just went against what you said earlier?   If you are implying that because they do use phosphor coated bulbs then that is what makes it so important....uh then yeah.    You really think I didn't understand this?   You really think that I thought the bulb was back there for decoration?

Apparently people like Xoaou2 do.

I have always argued about color bleeding and its effects.    Like I said, READ then criticize, then you won't have to eat humble pie with a nice dose of crow on the side.

[genesim]

Clok,

I want to tell you, I appreciate you taking a nice unbiased approach.    There is no set answer and some of the artist interpretation is obviously there.    At the same time many of your points are very sound and you are a beakon of light(along with a few others) to the whole open minded arcade community.

It is accepting new ideas(or actually acknowledging some common knowledge one) that will help the preservation of arcades move forward.   

[saint]

OK - I've resurrected this thread minus some of the last arguing. Everyone please tone it down a bit. Thanks!

-- saint

[Ginsu Victim]

[Ummon]

Hmh hmh hmh.

[Jack Burton]

Can we get back to the original discussion, which I rather enjoyed.

Using what is CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AND POSSIBLE, what are your opinions and advice about original vs. improved graphics?

[bboysnj]

bboysnj -

 Ohh bboy... you really hurt my feelings.  Im going to have to
write a book about how cool you are now.  Cause you really are my hero.
Everybody should think that too!   I better spread the word so the Whole World
does not miss out on such golden comments as these.   The literary loss
to the generations would be both an academic, and poetic tragedy, to be missed...

 Please Great BBoy, make fun of me some more.   Show the others how
Lame they are in comparison to your almighty greatness...

 Ohh BBoy, dont let us down.  Show us how COOL you really are!

Wow.  I thought the  was indicative of me busting your collective kiwis. lol.  Ya'll created the drama, I was just enjoying it, that's all.  Everyone's a critic bro.  That said:

http://www.wickedretarded.com/~crapmame/6.html

[Ummon]

Can we get back to the original discussion, which I rather enjoyed.

Using what is CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AND POSSIBLE, what are your opinions and advice about original vs. improved graphics?

I thought it was pretty done.

[DJ_Izumi]

On the topic of resizing, I came across something simply stupid but effective in keeping the 'crisp pixely goodness' when resizing up and not making me blurry.  Since this is so utterly simple, I presume that someone MUST have come up with this long before me, but I'd like to hear the comments on it.

I took a Metal Slug screen shot at it's native resolution.  I then scaled it up 8x using nearest neighbour, it looked the same just huge, as 8x just turns each pixel into a 8x8 pixel grid.  I then scaled it down using bilinier to 1024x768, the results were lovely!  It filled was sharp and pixely like you'd expect, but didn't have the 'odd shaped lines' you get when resizing up without exact multiples with nearest neighbour.  It used sharp gradiants as it scaled down and generally looked pretty spiffy.

You can see an example here:

Original: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Mslug103.png
After scaling up 800% nearest neighbour and scaling back down to 1024x768: http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh100/AshleyAshes2/MSNew.png

If you zoom in you can see how it smootly resized the image without bluring it and maintaining that 'crispness' that a sprite game like this has.

Now, I agree that a CRT rendering out the native resolution would probably be ideal but LCDs have their advantages and will come into the main stream.  As LCDs only have a single native resolution available resizing becomes necessary.  Don't you think that this offers a nice simple result that would be pleasently viewed on an LCD without 'warping' specialized filters and or the blurring of bilinier or similar upscale methods?  Surely someone could impliment such a resize method into emulators without major difficulty or CPU cost?

[Blanka]

What do you think about this:

[DJ_Izumi]

I always thought that faux scanlines add unreasonable darkness to the image.  Also I'm seeing a pattern in your image, I can see the scanlines in groups, probably related to the scaling, I find it distracting.

[Blanka]

Have you clicked it to see the full image? The embedded one has line grouping because of the smaller displaying.
Actually, this one has the full brightness. That's the fun thing about the filter I made, it keeps the colours and brightness the same.

Here is another one, but now at 1200x1600 for those big 21 inch 4:3 LCD's:

[DJ_Izumi]

My bad, I was looking at it scaled down.

Anyway, I find it distracting to the eye.  I'm on my laptop with a 14" 1024x768 LCD display.  I full screen that so it's the full view on the monitor and the lines actually sorta bother my eyes.

[FrizzleFried]

I've yet to find a "fake" scan line filter that looks accurate.   They all look like ass IMHO.

[Ummon]

My bad, I was looking at it scaled down.

Anyway, I find it distracting to the eye.  I'm on my laptop with a 14" 1024x768 LCD display.  I full screen that so it's the full view on the monitor and the lines actually sorta bother my eyes.

I would bet you're not used to original 25"/27" CGA monitors. There's a depth and texture element (as well as brightness factor at lower scan rates) in such a native situation that can be an acquired taste, but a preferred one once realised.

I've yet to find a "fake" scan line filter that looks accurate.   They all look like ass IMHO.

Actually, the original scanline effects were true to form, at least with regard to native res on 25 and 27" monitors. They just dimmed the overall image, and affected the color slightly (of which can happen with the newer format, too). Blanka's looks good, but that's becaue that effect fits that res (320x224), but may not fit lower res games (ie: 256x224, or perhaps 256x240 (a different vertical number) ).

I just re-tried 'scanrez 2' on my hi-res PC CRT, and it gives a great old-style look. (Some games it doesn't do that well at, like 292x240.) Then it's a matter of how defined you want it, and set the prescale accordingly. On that note, I can't see scaling images up and all that weird ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to get defined graphics. Just leave mame stock except for the prescale, of which '2' is usually quite adequate.

Here's a nice one of Gyruss - scanrez2 in vert mode, prescale at 1 ( '0' actually), screen contrast at 1.4 . Remember to click inside it to see it's true quality.

[Ummon]

Or, if you want horizontal lines:

[Ummon]

But for Congo Bongo, for example, 1.4 contrast is too much as you can see the explorer dude is a little washed out in the first image. The second image is set to 1.1 .

[Ummon]

Again in Black Tiger this is evident in the first image, whereas in the second, 1.2 is better. So anything with a graphic-saturated image is better at a lower contrast value, but not '1.0' .  The good things about using screen contrast are that it doesn't affect color too much, doesn't over-saturate as easily as gamma, and doesn't affect the black parts of the screen until high values, far beyond where you'd want it anyhow. In some cases brightness works better, but only with values below 1.1 or even 1.05, as it too easily affects black areas of the image.

By the way, this whole run was using MameUI .130.2 .   Desktop was at 1280x1024. I notice higher resolutions give scaling-like artifacts. Lower resolutions make the effect overlay too pronounced.

[Ummon]

Or take this Bubbles. I recant my caveat above about 292x240 not working. I accidentally had 'switchres' selected. This is what it's supposed to look like, and compliments the rest. By the way, no contrast or brightness adjustment needed on this one. (Hm. Need more than the single magnify that the windown allows, so not perfect, but the 'bubbles' looks good.)

[Ummon]

Then you have something like this. Notice the scan lines....except they're not. Notice sprites and text aren't affected. I asked over at MW, and Aaron said that it was a texturing thing or something, so code-related. Mm-hmmm.

[Ummon]

I'm kinda partial to the type of 'scanlines' you see on 25" and 27" monitors. Recently I was messing around with D3D on pre-video re-write mame and came up with the following. (No pictures for obvious reasons, but you can try this yourself if you have the hardware.)

 
- pre-re-write mame + D3D
 
- texture management: perhaps on for horizontal games, on of off for vertical games, likely off for scrolling games in general.
 
- rotate effects "off", especially vertical games
 
- scanlines 50-25 percent, depending on the game and monitor used
 
- prescale: if using an SVGA/XGA 27" monitor, "2" or "none". PC monitor, generally, 'none'.

- advanced tab: up fullscreen brightness to at least 1.15, though higher for various vertical games; enabling D3D over-rides DD, but if you're worried about it you can turn off directdraw; fullscreen brightness still works, despite being grayed out.
 
 

Caveats:

- seems any desktop setting below 1280x1024 will artifact

- because of the integer stretch due to use of the 'scanlines' effect, most horizontal games (one exception I found was World Class Bowling), and 224x288 games displayed horizontally, will not fit the display area.

- this fluctuates per desktop resolution, though. At SXGA, the above is the case. However, in my testing at 1600x1200, most horizontal, and 224x288 games run horizontally, did fill the screen. 224x256 and 240x256 were reversed and didn't fit the screen. I tried the desktop at 2048x1536, but got overscan and a scrolling desktop (which, curiously, you can scroll with your mouse in-game).

[MrMikeZH]

wow just got through the thread, never ever have i seen such an ignorant victim like genesim. that guy has its own reallity and physics.

[Epyx]

Very interesting thread. I don't think anyone can really dispute that game programmers worked around the "unique properties" of the CRT.     The CRT was even able to address technological deficiencies in older computer systems.

The Apple 2 was a classic example of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series):

Color on the Apple II series took advantage of a quirk of the NTSC television signal standard, which made color display relatively easy and inexpensive to implement. The original NTSC television signal specification was black-and-white. Color was tacked on later by adding a 3.58 MHz subcarrier signal that was partially ignored by B&W TV sets. Color is encoded based on the phase of this signal in relation to a reference color burst signal. The result is that the position, size, and intensity of a series of pulses define color information. These pulses can translate into pixels on the computer screen.

Play any random Apple 2 game on a modern LCD/Plasma etc and you will see something like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mystery_House_-_Apple_II_render_emulation_-_2.png

Showcases the Apple's weak graphic capabilities compared to modern PCs. The color white was represented by combining green and purple, which produced white in the middle, but bleeding of the other two colors on the edges.

Other computers like the Amiga and C64 took similar liberties with the CRT and many of the graphical wonders evidenced in the amazing graphical demos of the day exploited this interaction between the Graphical Processor and the CRT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Amiga_chipset
http://www.studiostyle.sk/dmagic/gallery/gfxmodes.htm

This for me is the true nostalgia and meaning of using an original 15khz display...you are truly seeing the picture as the graphic artists wanted you to see it...it is the artists original interpretation, everything else is a "re-imagining".

Now with that said, I still use LCD's for gaming (bartop etc) and while the picture can be simulated to look good it isn't the same.