Original graphics Vs. Improved graphics.

[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.