Interesting article on making LCDs look like fuzzy CRTs

[mlalena]

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05/01/git_crt_emulation/

[Kevin Mullins]

"Fuzzy" CRT's ? ..... personally I think this subject is moot by now.

[DJ_Izumi]

OKay, this got ignored as the last thread with this got derailed.

But does anyone else think this looks NOTHING like a CRT effect?  Excluding the 'color variation' where the colors arn't solid and pure, this looks like an LCD effect to me.  Like if someone took a close up picture of their LCD screen with the macro lense but not TOO close?  That's what this looks like to me.

[severdhed]

why are there like 75 threads on this subject?  why the sudden interest in making LCD monitors look like crap?  CRTs look different than LCDs...this is something we all know....as to which is better..that is personal opinion.  it seems as if these threads are created with the purpose of starting another LCD vs CRT fight.    why can't we just move on?

some people prefer the look of CRTs, since they are what the original arcade games had in them.

some people prefer LCDs, because they have a nice clean look, are inexpensive, and more flexible with mounting options.


who cares what anyone else likes....everyone needs to stop shoving their opinions down each other's throats.

and regarding the link in the first post...that is just stupid.  if you want to use an LCD monitor, then fine..but why go to the extra work just to make it look like crap?

[Blanka]

Why does everybody post the reghardware link. I want contact with those STUDENTS who made this crap, and give them some hints to do it right . For now I go into blocky OpenGL scaling again. Wakkawakkawakkawakka.

[Xiaou2]

Look like crap?  Who is the one with the OPINIONS again???


  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

 LCDs  "  CHANGE   "  the way that the picture is displayed for these older games... which
were NEVER meant to be viewed on such high res monitors.

 People want to see the games displayed as close to the Original look as possible.
Many will buy CRTs to do this... but everyone knows that CRTs wont last too much longer.

 
 Nobody but the fools think this is a  LCD  -vs-  CRT  fight.   Because many who use
CRTs also have and love their LCDs.  However, as stated.... these same people do not
like their game to look different than it should look.  Different from their childhood
memories. Different from the artists designs.  Different period.

 A game drawn on a lowres arcade monitor does not look Better when viewed on a
high res LCD monitor.  It looks Different.  In most cases, looks Worse.

[Spacejack]

I think they exaggerated the effect on the driving one, Ridge Racer?  If the Atari looked so blurry that what it thought of as a checkerboard grid of 4x6 blocks blurred together like that, you'd never have been able to recognize the shape of the ship in Asteroids or the fly in Yar's Revenge, or the cows in Stampede, or Pitfall Harry for that matter.  I can see blurring single pixels with neighbors but I played Atari on many TVs and I do not ever remember the level of blurring seen in that still.  Admittedly my experience with it only started around 1981.

[Todd H]

Not again...

[DaveMMR]

  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

I'm agreeing with Xiaou on this one.  LCD's are lighter, easier to work with and as of late, easier to come by - but CRTs are more authentic-looking.  If you're the type to have an LCD in your cab for the "quality", this is a moot topic for you. 

But, the images aren't convincing me...   

[RayB]

I think they exaggerated the effect on the driving one, Ridge Racer?  If the Atari looked so blurry that what it thought of as a checkerboard grid of 4x6 blocks blurred together like that, you'd never have been able to recognize the shape of the ship in Asteroids or the fly in Yar's Revenge, or the cows in Stampede, or Pitfall Harry for that matter.  I can see blurring single pixels with neighbors but I played Atari on many TVs and I do not ever remember the level of blurring seen in that still.  Admittedly my experience with it only started around 1981.

That still is exagerrated, but don't over-estimate that blurring was considered when drawing graphics! Pull out a Sega Genesis emulator and run "Cool Spot". Or look at this screen shot:



See how the bubbles have vertical stripes in them? We drew them like that on purpose because when viewed on a TV (through a real Genesis console of course) the stripes would blend with the adjacent pixels and create the illusion of transparency. For some reason, the Genesis would generate perfect blends if using stripes instead of a checkerboard pattern. (Checkerboard patterns worked too, but you could still see some stippling in the graphics).

Here's a Commodore 64 example:

I drew this with a checkboard pattern because the C64's composite output when viewed on a Commodore monitor blended the pixels enough that, although there was still some "checkerboard" visible, it blended enough to give the illusion of being another color (a mix of the two colors used in the pattern). When viewed on a TV with RF output, this effect was even more convincing, but you lost sharpness.

If the monitor/tv sharpness back then was equal to a multisync PC monitor or LCD, where you can see very square pixels with no bleed, I can assure you I (and other artists) would NOT have used techniques like I point out above. We used those because we knew most people's TVs would have a certain degree of pixel bleed/blend!

 

[DJ_Izumi]

If the monitor/tv sharpness back then was equal to a multisync PC monitor or LCD, where you can see very square pixels with no bleed, I can assure you I (and other artists) would NOT have used techniques like I point out above. We used those because we knew most people's TVs would have a certain degree of pixel bleed/blend!

Lots of PC games used gradiants like that back in the 16, 64 and 256 color days, even though they ran on CGA and VGA monitors.

http://linuxdevcenter.com/linux/2003/02/03/graphics/hq1-0.original.png

[RandyT]

To disagree a bit with RayB, they still would have used this method.  What choice did they really have?  They would have and did use the same technique, but with much less success.

On systems with more available colors, it can be used to greater effect.  VGA screens (EGA, CGA) still had very coarse dot pitches at that time, which meant that that some blending was still possible.  Dithering can work extremely well on an analog VGA display because the color changes can be so much more subtle.  Just keep in mind also that the importance of blending goes down as the number of simultaneous colors that can be displayed is increased.

But those old displays, even with cleaner inputs, still shared much more in common with standard TV's than do the more recent hi-resolution tube displays.  And as different as the old tubes are to the new tubes, they are still a hell of a lot more similar than tubes vs LCD panels.  With the perfect, sharp-edged pixel representation of LCD's, the only real option is to have enough of these perfect pixels (or advanced algorithms) to decently simulate the interaction between adjacent pixels as would have occurred on the old analog displays.

I haven't really been all that impressed with most of the attempts so far.  I don't think the resolution of most LCD panels can yet match what will be required to do this really well.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 Ray is correct... and being a game artists,  he has more weight to his argument than
NON ARTISTS.

 While some designers decided to leave their graphics more blocky and cartoony...
there were many who did utilize the faults of old CRT arcade monitors to create special
effects such as color blending, edge smoothing, texture, transparency and more.

[severdhed]

Look like crap?  Who is the one with the OPINIONS again???


  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

 LCDs  "  CHANGE   "  the way that the picture is displayed for these older games... which
were NEVER meant to be viewed on such high res monitors.

 People want to see the games displayed as close to the Original look as possible.
Many will buy CRTs to do this... but everyone knows that CRTs wont last too much longer.

 
 Nobody but the fools think this is a  LCD  -vs-  CRT  fight.   Because many who use
CRTs also have and love their LCDs.  However, as stated.... these same people do not
like their game to look different than it should look.  Different from their childhood
memories. Different from the artists designs.  Different period.

 A game drawn on a lowres arcade monitor does not look Better when viewed on a
high res LCD monitor.  It looks Different.  In most cases, looks Worse.

i never said that i didn't have an opinion...i'm just saying that if using the image from the link..




the right side of that image looks like crap.  i dont understand why anyone would want their games to look blurry and out of focus, simply because that is the way it looked 20 years ago using obsolete technology.

[Xiaou2]

 Well, the article was simulating a primitive home console through a poor composite style
output.   Its a LOT different than Arcade Monitor Simulation.

 One thing to note in that pic,  is that the sky is more blended rather than solid
bands of colors.  Also, The Hills are smoother, rather than sharp blocky edges.

 

[RandyT]

Ray is correct... and being a game artists,  he has more weight to his argument than
NON ARTISTS.

Except for the one point that was pointed out.  Proof of this can be seen on handhelds like GameBoy Color, which uses an LCD screen (no chance for "blurring") and employs pixel dithering to great extent simply for differentiation due to it's limited color capabilities.

Don't assume you know everyone's backgrounds here, Steve.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 There are many games which use very little to no dithering.

 Dithering is an artistic choice...  and one can tell a picture drawn by a Good
artist.. and a person who tries to simulate an effect.


 Dithering when done on an LCD  -vs-  an old CRT are very different situations.
On arcade crts, dithered patterns can appear translucent and or mix colors.   
That is Not true of modern LCD / pc displays.

 And being that we were discussing the reason why people would want to simulate
arcade related displays...  your argument had little place.
 
 The pics that ray has shown show, are good examples of an artist who has designed
his works around a standard res tv.   You could take some of those moden handheld
games, display their images on a tv.. and see that the effects would mess their
image up.  Basically, they are not designed to be viewed on a standard tv, and the
results will be completely different than what you may expect...  which is EXACTLY
why graphics are designed around the display tech they are going to be displayed on.
 

[RandyT]

 There are many games which use very little to no dithering.

 Dithering is an artistic choice...  and one can tell a picture drawn by a Good
artist.. and a person who tries to simulate an effect.


 Dithering when done on an LCD  -vs-  an old CRT are very different situations.
On arcade crts, dithered patterns can appear translucent and or mix colors.   
That is Not true of modern LCD / pc displays.

 And being that we were discussing the reason why people would want to simulate
arcade related displays...  your argument had little place.
 
 The pics that ray has shown show, are good examples of an artist who has designed
his works around a standard res tv.   You could take some of those moden handheld
games, display their images on a tv.. and see that the effects would mess their
image up.  Basically, they are not designed to be viewed on a standard tv, and the
results will be completely different than what you may expect...  which is EXACTLY
why graphics are designed around the display tech they are going to be displayed on.
 

No one is arguing (most of) these things.  Do I really need to upload my C-64 graphics so you feel better?

The point is, that the reasons graphics are dithered are really the same regardless of  the efficacy of the result.  Limited color palettes required the artists to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, even if the attempt was only somewhat successful.  Making a blanket statement like "if so and so displays didn't do X, designers never would have done Y" is patently false, demonstrably even, and therefore indicates a religious zeal which ultimately hurts the position.

I know very well that graphics were designed with the final display in mind and tweaked to better take advantage of the traits inherent to them.  I am not arguing that working to make the way these early programs appear on modern displays, as close as possible to the displays used originally, is a move in the wrong direction.  I am just stating that making weak arguments results in a weak position and should be avoided, especially when there is evidence everywhere to the contrary.

And BTW, if you are going to make statements like "There are many games which use very little to no dithering." it would help to provide examples.  Games for systems with very limited color palettes which do not employ this technique look absolutely horrible and are a sure sign of a rushed port to a less capable system, not an "artistic choice".

RandyT

[Malenko]

Not again...

exactly. You cant argue opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs, from ChadTower to Genesism.

move along, nothing to see here......

[RayB]

Randy, my point was that I as an artist in those days, I made concious choices about things like that based on how the end result would look on a television.  I KNOW some artists still used the technique on games for a variety of other types of displays, but most of the time it still looked like a checkerboard and therefore looked like sh!t. Those were just bad choices on the part of those artists. (For example, you don't dither red with yellow expecting the illusion of "orange". The contrast is just too great and the results don't blend.)

Another good example is that I never used the technique on NES games. At my very first job, coming off of C64 graphics, another artist already experienced with NES showed me what happened if you use checkerboard dithering in NES games. The outputed graphics would do this weird "shimmering" when the graphics scrolled.  Now that doesn't mean some artists at other companies didn't do it anyways, but we made the decision we wouldn't, since it looked like ass due to the way the NES displayed it on a tv.

PS: I'm not arguing for either "side" of the argument but just throwing wrench into things for the sake of "just sayin". 

[genesim]

I am really really trying to understand this.

The Atari image is untrue to any image I have ever seen on at least 10+ Televisions that I have personally played on.

The lines of the sky on the left were absolutely there, while the "blurred" image is just an after effect that I never saw there.

While the intent may have been on the Atari(and I personally doubt this 99%) to blend the colors, IMHO it didn't happen on what was finally displayed...at least any truly perceptive way.   So if my premise is true(and for me it is because I had nothing but crappy hotel TV's, black and white TV's, better TV's, small Tv's....), then shouldn't it be called for what it is...which is untrue to the original display?

Keeping the original display only is a choice that some people prefer..maybe most people(though Joe public is another story), but perhaps this guy isn't all wrong in that he like me is trying to find an answer for displaying all older games with the least compromise on current hardware...even if one understands that it will always be some degree of compromise.

Case in pont, Randy remember you or was it someone else that was talking about the settings in MAME that would give the desired results for the sensitivity for original spinners.    I like the idea of this.    First I am lazy, second I like consistency.    It all comes down to just enjoying playing the games.

[FrizzleFried]

"Fuzzy" CRT's ? ..... personally I think this subject is mute by now.

mute?

[Kevin Mullins]

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

[Ummon]

I think everyone should check out my posts today on that old other thread:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=89791.msg967067#msg967067

For old-timey 19" goodness, I think they look ---smurfin--- good. Still a tube - and remember OS screen shots are still only the final output signal, not the monitor's image itself - but I tell ya the images shown look exactly like it does in person.

[Malenko]

     

STFU about this already, when you're more annoying then 3 chads, you have a problem.

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

moot?

[Kevin Mullins]

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

moot?

Yes, moot.

[pinballwizard79]

Meeeeeeeyooooooow

[Xiaou2]

No Ummon, it does Not look exactly like an arcade monitor.

 For example,  the upper left where there is a checkerboard bar - is supposed to
be displayed as translucent instead of seeing a checkerboard pattern.

 And that is only the beginning of it all. 

 Compare an actual photograph of an arcade monitor, and see for yourself.


 Edit:

 ohh, you are talking about the pics you posted.  Those are even worse.

[genesim]

But...the topic is about the Atari pics.

Why can't anybody adress the pink elephant in the room?

Was my TV special?   Were others seriously blended to the effect that you didn't see the lines?

If anyone seriously claims they were, I would like to see pictures of this.   I sold my Atari 2600 years ago, but I would gladly repurchase one to prove my point, but I know what I saw.   ..on the other hand, why should I do it, when others won't even comment on this blatant fact.

The pic by the guy who fabricated this supposed desired picture is painting a completly false representation.   It would be nice if someone would adress this point.

[Kevin Mullins]

Meeeeeeeyooooooow

Mmmmooooooooo.....T

[Ginsu Victim]

But...the topic is about the Atari pics.

Why can't anybody adress the pink elephant in the room?

Was my TV special?   Were others seriously blended to the effect that you didn't see the lines?

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

[RandyT]

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

Yeah, mine neither.  I think it was a mediocre attempt at best.  Those colors did still blend like they do in the modified image, but the rest is a miss.

RandyT

[genesim]

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

Yeah, mine neither.  I think it was a mediocre attempt at best.  Those colors did still blend like they do in the modified image, but the rest is a miss.

RandyT

Does anyone have a true picture of this, because I can tell you I have never seen this phenomenon.

Look at the pixel count quoted by Blanka, how would this be physically possible?   

A NTSC standard television has FAR more lines of resolution.   Sorry Randy but I think the "blending" is not ture.  Not to be disrespectful, but it just doesn't makes sense at all.

If those lines blended then you people's eyes wouldn't be made out on TV programs.   You wouldn't see hair....it makes no sense at all.

[genesim]

Let me state it clearer, if that much blending did occur(which again makes no sense to many years of me playing Atari 2600 and NEVER saw this phenomenon), then how could you see any kind of detail on regular television.

How could you make out any detail if TV's blurred images that bad???   Do you realize that we are talking several millimeters.    How would you see hair follicles...eye brows...teeth.

Answering this question opens up alot of what I have been arguing about from day one.   Maybe I need to start taking some pictures and doing some real comparisons.   The fact that this person could doctor images to fit their arguement....like the Ghosts having double images and it not existing on LCD's( ).

Why is noone questioning this?

[RandyT]

One thing people seem to be ignoring is that the 2600 only had RF out, and it wasn't anywhere near as good as the RF converters you see today.  The tuners on TV's were pretty poor back then as well, with a lot of folks still using tube sets with the channel changer that went "clunk, clunk, clunk" when you turned it.  I'm an "old guy" and I was all of 12 when it came out.  Just out of curiosity, genesim, how old were you?  If your first experience with the machine was 10 years after it was introduced, you were likely viewing it on a better display than most had when they played it hours upon hours each day.

As for seeing "hair" on an old TV with an RF broadcast, I'm not so sure one really could.  You could tell it was supposed to be hair, but it certainly didn't have enough definition to see strands.  Hell, Hi-Def is the first time one could really experience that level of detail.  Also keep in mind that moving images, long persistence phosphor coatings and interlaced images tended to hide a lot of the clunky nature of the display.  The first time I saw one of those VCR's or computer cards with the ability to snag and display a raw field of NTSC video, I was flabbergasted.  It looked absolutely terrible.  Blocky, noisy, etc.  But this was very representative of the signal.  The fact that your brain averages everything tends to make things look better than they would if your brain was sensitive to each detail in that tiny moment of time.

You can believe it didn't happen if you want.  But on my very used $150 10" color TV, it most certainly did.  It was a very different world, my friend.

RandyT

[genesim]

UH no.   I experienced it when it debuted.   My father purchased it and actually shared it with me and him both proceded to play it for over 10 years along with my friends.  Quite an assumption.   Don't tell me what I did.    You don't know, but I can tell you this, I too knew about the dissapointment of having the front covers not looking like what you got in the game....oh and for the record I also have one of the original catalogs that came with the game.   But of course that must have been an illusion right?   Something I just picked up later.

Second, the NTSC standard is just that.   Doesn't change resolution my man.  While TV's can be more crappy from one to the next, it doesn't change the fact that a said number of lines are being produced.   That is why it is called a STANDARD.

Third...Atari 2600 whether hooked through RF, Antenna, the resolution doesn't suddenly change.  You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.   

But on my very used $150 10" color TV, it most certainly did

WHOAAA there, so now you are telling me they they specifically designed the resolution for your TV??

I was there, and I was playing it.    Not 10 years after the fact like many on here claim that know better.

You could tell it was supposed to be hair, but it certainly didn't have enough definition to see strands.

BULL.   While it doesn't look like high definition, shall I dig it up my old televisions now?    While the screen is interlaced, you cannot be serious.

Hair can most defintely be seen and it wasn't my eyes just finishing the rest.   This is a weak part of your arguement and if noone steps up to blow the whistle then it shows that people just don't want to know what the truth is.

[genesim]

Oh yeah and for the record I had the "clunk" "clunk" "clunk" as well....UHF and VHF(as I remember) was also a channel.    There were all different kinds.   Hmmmmm must be only you though right.

[RandyT]

I see you dodged the question......how old were you?

[genesim]

I don't like to tell my age.   That isn't a dodge.   Lets say I am 35 to 50 which puts me old enough.   

By the way, your arguement kind of contradicts itself.

You say that your mind finishes the rest with hair....but it somehow blends the rest with the lines?

hmmmmm

So next are you going to say that my mind is different from everyone else's. 

I get it, I must not have the mindset to see the blurred image.   

[RandyT]

I don't like to tell my age.   That isn't a dodge.   Lets say I am 35 to 50 which puts me old enough.   

Uh huh...and your reason for not divulging what might be a very important gauge as to the credibility of the experiences you constantly refer to in this debate is...?

So next are you going to say that my mind is different from everyone else's. 

No, I'm not going to say it....

[genesim]

I see you dodged the question......how old were you?

Gee what would prove it to you anyway?

I had the catalogs that updated all the time putting new games to the end.

I remembering each being categorized...strategy/sports/adventure

I remember the first demo being played by a guy in a sears store and me thinking...cool Superbreakout that has more balls falling!

I remember Pacman looking like complete "butt" compared to arcade.

I remember the original chess game taking an hour it seemed to process a move and actually going blank while it was "thinking".

I remember it using switches on the back as a passthrough??   Lets see, i remember the little teeth actually recessing in the controller port after a while and having to pull them out with a pair of plyors to get them to register after years of abuse.

I remember having to get replacement power packs after many burnouts.    I remember playing the off brand versions and the cartridge design changes as time would go on.

I actually have PICTURES with me holding the frickin' games.  Would that satisfy you and make all I said more true?   

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MATTER???      Bud I had it the year it was released.  Case closed.

[genesim]

This is all a witch hunt plain and simple.    I stated it before and I will state it for the last time.   It is a religion and everytime I get closer to the truth people get personal.

Stay blind.   But this line of thinking is so dangerous.    Thankfully people like me will eventually blow the bull crap whistle.    Truth is truth and it cannot be twisted as much as some people like to try.

Yet there will always be people that believe in Vampires and Leprachauns.    Cool.   I am happy to not be a part of that crowd.

[Todd H]

[genesim]

No I am done, this is futile.

I can't even discuss one plus one with some.   They believe there is a different answer there, so how can I get the million dollar question.

It is all a blind belief.   

There are two kinds of people that are mostly posting here:

1.   The ones that believe something and will not be made wrong.

2.   The ones that get upset at the sign of any disagreement....


But then there is me.    One that is open to discussion and tries to come up with logical understanding...but then when one disagreement comes about..


Uh you must not have been there....you must not know what you are talking about...blah blah blah.

I will follow Malenko's advice.   I need to STFU.    I am talking to walls. 

[Flip_Willie]

That still is exagerrated, but don't over-estimate that blurring was considered when drawing graphics! Pull out a Sega Genesis emulator and run "Cool Spot". Or look at this screen shot:



See how the bubbles have vertical stripes in them? We drew them like that on purpose because when viewed on a TV (through a real Genesis console of course) the stripes would blend with the adjacent pixels and create the illusion of transparency.

Wow, you worked on Cool Spot Ray B? Awesome!

[genesim]

Don't question it.   Blur was considered with his 10 inch television and not my 20 inch!!!    Did you forget to read your Atari 2600 flyer...optimized for those special displays only!   Everyone else sees lines!!

[genesim]

Oops got em confused....Ray/Randy...too many believers in the blur to keep track.

[Hoopz]

Oops got em confused....Ray/Randy...too many believers in the blur to keep track.

Keep it up.... Gonna take another shot at someone else's children next?

 

[genesim]

I never took a shot at anyone's children PERIOD.  LIAR.

I will not post again though because I will likely be banned if it hasn't been already. 

No justice.

[genesim]

But someone took a shot at me by saying they would show up at more door threatening my family's safety.  Learn the difference.

[Hoopz]

You've said you were done posting about a half dozen times already.  I called the under for anyone making the book before and I'll call it again.

You have no self control as evidenced by your rambling posts and vulgar PMs to people.  You've gotten temporary bans because of your inability to control yourself.  Hell, I wouldn't do that.... I'd give you enough rope so you finish the job on yourself.

A lot like this contest LINK, we have a nice little pool going about when you go off the deep end and get banned. 

[genesim]

There you go LYING again.   Sorry, but it is hard not to defend myself against outright miss truths.   And you think that is justice?

If I am banned for fighting agains lies, then so be it.   If that is the deep end, so be it.   But rest assured I will not back down.   Posting here means nothing if this kind of crap is allowed to exist.   

Hell I if I am BANNED it is for fighting for the TRUTH!

[ahofle]

Wow, you worked on Cool Spot Ray B? Awesome!

Agreed, very nice!  I always thought Cool Spot was one of the more polished looking Sega Genesis games.

[Xiaou2]

Gen,
 
You really gota re-read what you post.  Its uncivil, and nobody is going to argue
with an uncivil person who is on their high horse.

 You are not as knowledgeable as you think... and more times than not, you are
downright wrong.

 I recall my atari on my old POS tv looking pretty bad.  Maybe not quite as bad
as projected here.. but certainly not clean as an emu portrays.

 
 One thing you have missed completely... is RAYS picture of the Bubbles,
and the explanations behind it.  (which really blows your case all to hell)

 No way would anyone in their right mind make a bubble that had white stripes
down the middle of it!  Why did Ray do it?   Because when displayed on a TV, it would make those appear TRANSLUCENT.  So the bubble would look like a milky but see-through white.

 Ray wasnt the first one to do this.  Its been done in countless arcade games.
Not just for translucent effect.. but color blending effect.

 You gota get off your high horse.  Your so blinded by your own OPINION, that you
cant see anything clearly at all.

[saint]

Stay blind.   But this line of thinking is so dangerous.    Thankfully people like me will eventually blow the bull crap whistle.    Truth is truth and it cannot be twisted as much as some people like to try.

Yet there will always be people that believe in Vampires and Leprachauns.    Cool.   I am happy to not be a part of that crowd.

You know, this is an arcade forum. We're not talking human rights and the future of humanity here. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're insane or out to get you.

*boggle*

[saint]

But someone took a shot at me by saying they would show up at more door threatening my family's safety.  Learn the difference.

Post me the link to that please.

[genesim]

Saint,

Kinda hard to do that when the post got deleted.   I suggest you check your mail I have sent you at least 10 different messages with not one response.

But I can paraphrase accurately..it went like this.   

Me and Cheffo had an all day war.   Then when he couldn't keep up(and I admit that I taunted him after totally being provoked after I tried to call a complete and utter truce...try reading the original post if it is still around) because he said he was picking up his kids I replied back saying my kids were old enough to drive and collect paychecks...hence establishing age.

He got mad and posted again on another personal attack so I said for him to stop ignoring his kids by having meaningless arguements with me(which of course would mean he "lost"...but in reality we both "lost" on stupid meaningless debates...guilty as charged on my account).

He said if I talked about his wife(which I never did) or that I didn't stop being rude and talking about his kids(which I never did...er it was more advice oh parenting skills actually) then he would show up on my doorstep.  Which is a blatant threat to me and my family.

Of course I got banned for threatening him(I think....because you never answered any of my messages to you)... back with saying that would be the last thing he ever did when acutually I wasn't the one that started it with the family.

Now in my defense I did call him Rainman on another discussion without knowing his kids were autistic...which of course I apologized for immediately.

So what happens in kind...Hoopz accuses me of going after his kids just like Cheffo constantly lies about things I never said and when I disprove, I get called names.

Instead of banning me, how about banning people that are telling lies.    And of course banning people that are calling names, or banning people that threaten implied physical harm...or at the least stalking.   Hell I could take the ban if people were actually banned equally.   Nothing I did was any different then what other people were doing EXCEPT mine was done alot less.

You know, this is an arcade forum. We're not talking human rights and the future of humanity here.

Depends on how you look at it.   These blatant lies about Arcade representation threaten the very future of the preservation of the art.    Different things matter to different people.  Who are you or anyone else to judge at its base level.  Though it is your board, and I guess you can cut out all opposing views to the whole.   You of course have that freedom...to be unfair if you so choose.

BUT human rights is what I am talking about when it comes to other members threatening my home.   Messageboard or not, there are criminal liabilities with such behavior.

As for me thinking someone is insane for disagreeing with me...uh when did I ever say that?  Actually if you take the time to read what is written that has been said about ME because I disagreed. 

I do not work that way and like with all them I can quote you direct examples.    Wait...I have done that already.    For some reason it just gets ignored.

I can't even get people to stop attacking me on the fact that I owned an Atari in its hey day.      And thats not personal???

[saint]

Get your last bits in folks, I'm locking this thread tomorrow. Nothing personal please.

[genesim]

One thing you have missed completely... is RAYS picture of the Bubbles,
and the explanations behind it.  (which really blows your case all to hell)

BUBBLES???  What does that have to do with the Atari arguement?   I will get to that when we can at least get the fundamentals correct.   Many are struggling with that even.   There is so much more I would love to present, but I am not even given a chance on the basics because of the constant clouds of personal attacks.

So if we cannot get passed the undeniable facts that are the Atari display not blending....then it is a lost cause.

I recall my atari on my old POS tv looking pretty bad.  Maybe not quite as bad as projected here..

Looking bad and completely rewriting history are two different things.   That picture is pure fiction.  

When you got Randy posting some of things that he said it is clear that he doesn't know what he is talking about on this case.

RF got better to the point of separating??  NTSC standards changed??   My 10 inch screen was the programmers desired intentions??

I am not calling Randy insane, ..because I don't feel that he is.  But coming to those kind of conclusions make me wonder why others have not questioned it and still rail against me.

xxxxxx

Saint,

Get your last bits in folks, I'm locking this thread tomorrow. Nothing personal please.

Well if you are locking it for personal attacks, then it isn't because of me.  I never told anyone to STFU!

As for personal, I don't see how my response to you doesn't at least justify a retort.   

This is not to be mean or any such thing.   But if I see wrong, I am going to point it out.    But I will say this.   Tell me now, tell me in my email, tell me anywhere....

WHAT HAVE I DONE WRONG that others haven't done to me?  Why am I specifically a target???  Is it because I have a different point of view and the MOB rules???

Tell me what to change and I will do that. 

[Xiaou2]

BUBBLES???  What does that have to do with the Atari arguement?

 You, the almighty seeker of Truths can not handle the very evidence presented that
slashes your arguments about Games designed around the Display that they were
destined to be viewed upon.


 As far as I can remember, there wasnt much in the line of color bleeding on atari 2600,
as the pixel size they used was way too big.  However, there were effects such as
washed out colors, and slight blurring... and some colors bleeding such as reds.  These
are all common things that happen over a composite signal.

 The effects shown are extreme worse case scenario...  where the worst possible tv
would have been used.  Being poor, we had such a tv.. and it was pretty damn awful...
just not as exaggerated as what is seen here.

 Still, it does not really change the facts about arcade displays (and console games that
actually used normal sized pixels).  Which is the point you seem to really want to address.    And to which you are wrong, which is proven in such an event as Rays bubble picture & description... as well as hundreds of other similar arcade graphics.

[DJ_Izumi]

Would a moderator maybe please take action in reguards to what genesim does to these threads?  They are valid topics of discussion and then he comes in and ruins them, requiring them to be locked as a result.

Multiple threads have been locked as the result of one person's instigation.  This isn't fair to the others who have otherwise participated reasonably and constructively in these threads.

[genesim]

What "I" do?

You mean disagree?   I am not the one that starts personal attacking just because someone else is wrong.

But getting back on topic, would all of you please explain this picture from the Atari Catalog?

[Xiaou2]

 No response to the stripped bubble?

[RandyT]

As far as I can remember, there wasnt much in the line of color bleeding on atari 2600,
as the pixel size they used was way too big.  However, there were effects such as
washed out colors, and slight blurring... and some colors bleeding such as reds.  These
are all common things that happen over a composite signal.

Maybe, but the 2600 was a level below composite.  It was RF.  The two are not in any way the same.  Composite was actually a big step up from RF in that it is a direct video signal.  RF, as the name implies, was a radio frequency modulated signal which was then de-modulated by the receiver.  It's literally akin to the difference between listening to a radio station and listening to the source from the radio station plugged directly into your amp with an RCA cable.  Two whole major steps of garbage producing conversion are removed with composite.

Whether the pixels were too large to do the kind of blending seen in Turbo or not is irrelevant.   Vertical resolution could be 192 pixels, and with some fancy programming, use up to 128 colors (Turmoil).  This vertical resolution is not terribly unlike some of the arcade games which followed later.  By placing different shades of similar colors above or below, and coupling it with the fuzzy RF modulated video signal and old-tech displays, somewhat decent gradients were achieved.  Very similar to the one shown in the enhanced side of the photo.  These were enhanced programming techniques and very timing dependent. I'm very familiar with the mechanics of this, as I once used a similar technique on the C-64 to display 128 animated sprites on screen at once when such a thing was unheard of.  Those types of effects are seen on later titles where programmers had become more familiar with the system and were working hard to squeeze every last bit of capability out of it.  So don't bother looking for them on early titles.

RandyT

[genesim]

Would a moderator maybe please take action in reguards to what genesim does to these threads?  They are valid topics of discussion and then he comes in and ruins them,

Let me see, so I have an honest discussion about specifics and Hoopz comes on and tells a outright lie about a discussion that got locked and I got banned for...and then I ruined the topic?

Randy comes on and starts attacking me for my AGE.   My AGE and starts saying that I am lying because I won't give out my exact age??

Dude, how was this my fault that it got ruined?

Look at the posts, I didn't start any of this negative crap then or now.  Every single one of them I was namecalled from the beginning.   I did nothing to deserve the behavior and I even complained to the moderator the moment it happened.   And I ruined it???  

I only "ruined" it because I believe something different from the MOB.    I am not allowed to think anything different hence my posts are deleted and I am banned.   Yet others name call, threaten, and personal attack in every imaginable form and that is ok???

I will likely be banned for even complaining about it publically.  

What is the answer?   Think like an android?  Take all this crap??   I am only allowed to stay here when abused?

If noone attacked me, I would never attacke back.   Wanna test this theory?  

Want to start now?  I got the guts and I can stick by my word.  I can keep the peace.   But here is the point, if there is a personal attack made at me and I point it out, will it be punished?   Will it be fair?

I am not above proving this FACT.   Are you?

It doesn't have to be "ruined", there is a real solution.   We could all treat each other with respect...and that includes treating ME with the same.

XXXXX

Randy T,

Perhaps you are right to an extent, but even that is far fetched.   Why..because the premise is still the same.   The NTSC standard.  Care to comment?

Explain to me how a lower resolution can ever truly take advantage of a higher resolution in case of "bleeding" when the concept just doesn't follow.

What was the exact highest resolution of an Atari game compared to say...a movie that has tons more detail.

[genesim]

Actually let me make it even clearer.

Randy you said 192 pixels...ok fine..but I don't believe it for a second on an ATARI display....but to play Devil's advocate.

NTSC resolution is 525 with it interlaced...so that makes over 200 lines vertical correct?

So where is the color bleed buddy?   Seems like more then enough lines to draw those lines that were supposedly programmed in for that effect.

I think it is more like the obvious problem.   Atari has low ram, so low graphics.   Case closed.  It was never limited by the display just as Arcades were not limited in the early days by display either.

The bottle neck was the CPU not the display.

[genesim]

I gotta get this one in too since the post will get deleted and I cannot edit...

If so many people are claiming that their display was different and there was amazing bleeding effects of their crappy display...why would the programmers not do it in such a way that would benefit all?

Why would a programmer ever make their code work for color bleed?

Why punish the ones with better TV's.  I know my TV wasn't top of the line and I saw it on black and white in the early years. 

But later I noticed all these things on crappy motel tv's.     

[genesim]

No response to the stripped bubble?

Whats that got to do with Atari?

Compelling too bad there is a myriad of problems.   Bad scale up...bad emulation(Genesis emulators are in no way perfect) and of course we are talking about programs that were TWENTY YEARS LATER.

Obviously this is an example of your exception to the rule which I fuly embrace.    Though it doesn't lend credibility that a current display cannot do the effect.

Remember the Genesis had specialized hardware and there is no doubt in my mind that some effects have not been rendered correctly.   Doesn't mean current displays cannot be put right...or at least close.    Apples and oranges my friend.

[Xiaou2]

You make no logical sense.  Its hard to even  understand what you are posting.  Its like
you do not speak english as your native language.

 AFAIK, interlaced tvs were not immediately and widely available until a much later
date.

 The atari 2600 was more than low ram.  It was designed to only output low resolution.
Much like Any early game system has limitations on what it can display.

 Many arcade machines were also limited in the amount of colors and set resolutions.
That is standard practice.


 Color Bleed (and blurr) comes from more places than you realize.  For one.. .it can come from a noisy and poor signal... such as found on an RF output that Atari 2600 used.

 
 And your arguments still do not make any sense at all.

 
 Turbo used a res of  208 x 248   with  256 possible colors maximum.
It does not matter that there may have been higher resolution monitors out there
at the time turbo was released.  Turbo was DESIGNED to be ran on a standard
LOW-RESOLUTION arcade monitor.   And anyone with half a brain can tell from the
graphical color choices used... that it was made that way to utilize color blending and
bleeding as well as the usual blur that all occur from old low res large dot pitch arcade
monitors.

 Just as Rays Bubble was designed to be viewed on a tv  on non-interlaced mode,
and will show a translucent image instead of an image with lines through it.

 You clearly do not understand a thing about this technology.

[genesim]

Why do you have to put me down?

This is the first example of someone saying I do not have a brain..or that I do not speak native English my nationality and when I learned English has no bearing on this conversation....etc.

But for your information I am talking about ATARI..get it??  ATARI.

Next NTSC INTERLACED has been around since the 50's.   Why do you say I don't have half a brain and you seem to be lost on facts.

Cool Spot was designed to be viewed on an interlaced signal...it is the Genesis original no???  Was Genesis designed for PC monitors?  Really?

I don't understand about this technology??   

Color bleed comes from a poor signal, so coders program from this inconsistent source of problems?   Hmmm, it doesn't seem logical.

Turbo is a nice exception, your picture makes a nice arguement.   More exception then rule if you ask me, but having never seen the game up close, it is hard to accept your view as gospel.   

[genesim]

WHy would they design Cool Spot to be on non-interlaced mode when the Genesis was used in RF on NTSC televisions?   Where is your evidence of this?

[genesim]

Here is link about your NTSC education.  Please read and feel good forever!  I think you need brushing up.   Then we will be on equal ground forever ok?

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

Interlaced for everyone!

[Xiaou2]

And btw - it has Nothing to do with  bad emulation or scale.  It has to do with
how low-res TVs display images,  as well as the output resolution.

 I have hooked up my Genesis to an RGB cable, and feed that into my Commodore Amiga
RGB monitor.   The signal is super clean.. and the color information is not damaged..
as well as the monitor being superior to most tvs at that time:  640 x 512 max resolution.

 The Genesis was only outputting:

 #  Pixel resolution: depends on display mode

    * up to 320x240 (40x30 cells) for PAL
    * up to 320x224 (40x28 cells) for NTSC
    * interlaced modes can provide double the vertical resolution (i.e. 320x448 for NTSC). Used in Sonic 2 for 2-player split screen

 
 Some would say that the picture was amazing.  It was way sharper and cleaner...
however.. .it made most every game look horrible.   Why?   Because the games
were never meant to be that clear.  They were designed around being displayed in
low resolution with a lesser quality video signal of composite instead of RGB.

 Rays Bubbles would have appeared just as they do on your pc monitor:  With lines.
Where as with my standard tv and a composite output... it would appear as INTENDED,
as a translucent bubble.

 AND... this is NOT only Genesis related.  Its DISPLAY RELATED.  The effects of color
bleeding are not only signal related.   They are related to the type of monitor you are
displaying them on.

 While you may be able to SIMULATE the blending effect...  it will probably never be
as good looking as seeing it on the real low-res monitor,  with the same exact signal
output that was intended to be used.



 

[genesim]

GREAT... so I fail to see where I ever disagreed with you in relation to Cool Spot?

I accept whole heartedly that 20 years later that design improvements were taking place and the home CPU was starting to catch up.  No need to explain what I already admitted.   

WHOOPEE..but of course we are back at square one.  What does this have to do with the Atari display that has far less resolution?

320 x 240 is far beyond NTSC on its interlaced values I get that.   But nice explanation of what I already knew.

interlaced tvs were not immediately and widely available until a much later date.

Still troubling why you made this statement.  Did you read about NTSC and your faulty information?   Not to be mean, but be educated and learn.   I don't put you down for not knowing.   As long as there have been home video games there have been NTSC televisions.   Can you acknowledge your error? 

The Genesis was designed "down" because the native resolution surpassed the interlaced value.   

The Atari 2600 on the other hand could not have been designed "down" because its native resolution was less the NTSC standard..no?

[Xiaou2]

This is the first example of someone saying I do not have a brain..or that I do not speak native English my nationality and when I learned English has no bearing on this conversation....etc.

 - Your ability to communicate to a point of being understood well DOES have a
bearing on the conversations.

 ALSO, you MISINTERPRET my words... as well as the others words and meanings.
I didnt say you have no brain.  I said that anyone with any good intelligence level
should be able to conclude that turbos use of Hot pink on the cars shading would not
be Logical.

 Of course...   your misinterpretation of Factual data is much more relevant to the
arguments.  As well as your choice to be Ignorant to facts given to you... and to
resort to slapping the person in the mouth when they try to help you understand.

But for your information I am talking about ATARI..get it??  ATARI.

 No.  You are trying to use the Atari 2600 as an example to win your arcade argument...
which you can not do... because they are completely different types of systems.  No
arcade that I know of used such a low resolution as the 2600.

Next NTSC INTERLACED has been around since the 50's.

 

SO?  You really think they were pumping out Interlaced TV in  1950?!!! 
Have you even SEEN a TV from 1950?!   

 Let me clue you in.  Just because NTSC has the CAPACITY to do interlace... does
not mean the content providers will provide such a signal.

 In fact... almost NO arcade games that I know of are interlaced.  The only ones I knew for a Fact there had the OPTION to use interlace mode with Tekken III and a few
other Namco games of that Erra.   
 

Cool Spot was designed to be viewed on an interlaced signal...it is the Genesis original no???  Was Genesis designed for PC monitors?  Really?

 As posted earlier... Genesis resolution was very low. In fact, only a very few games
used the higher res mode... and even that wasnt very high res.  Didnt even come
close to maximum NTSC interlace ability. 

Color bleed comes from a poor signal, so coders program from this inconsistent source of problems?   Hmmm, it doesn't seem logical.

 Why do you INSIST on saying "Coders Program?!"   GRAPHICS ARE NOT PROGRAMMED.
GRAPHICS ARE DRAWN!   AND YES, ARTISTS DO DRAW GRAPHICS FOR GAMES BASES
ON THE DISPLAY THEY ARE INTENDING TO DISPLAY THEM ON!!!   Just ask RAYB,  who
ACTUALLY IS AN ARTISTS THAT DRAWS GAME GRAPHICS, AND MADE AN ACTUAL GAME!!!!

LOGIC?!  You have NONE!

Turbo is a nice exception, your picture makes a nice arguement.   More exception then rule if you ask me, but having never seen the game up close, it is hard to accept your view as gospel.   

 You have not seem to have seen Any arcade games up close. 

 Your idea that turbo is an exception is good proof of that.   As there are COUNTLESS
games which utilize low-res monitor effects.

[DJ_Izumi]

Er, yeah, actually, NTSC is entirely interlaced, always has been, progressive television display and broadcasting is a new revelation.  It's in relation to the 60hz electrical grid where the video signal is traveling at 60hz it was easier to take that 30 frames per section and cut each frame into an even and odd arrangement of the entire picture.

However the signal wasn't necessarily progressive either.  That is, one odd and one even frame don't necessarily equal one single progressive frame when combined.  A lot of video cameras capture every half-field independantly and results in a hypersmooth 60hz video signal.  (You see it noticably on camcorders and shows like 'Cops'.)  That's also why home console and arcade games run typically at 60fps so they could fit that signal perfectly.

That said, interlacing really doesn't have an effect on the blurring and bleeding you see on an NTSC TV.  A lot of the blurring is from the signal.  Take a PS2 and connect it to a TV with composite and component input, the component is brilliantly improved and probbly as good as an RGB connection to an arcade monitor.  (OR at least very few would precive a difference).  Far, far, far less noise, burring and bleeding.

Arcades have almost exclusively used clean, sharp RGB connections for their monitors where as home consoles only in the last few years started coming with anything better than the much lower resolution composite.

[genesim]

Xiaou2,

You are so shrouded by emotion that you cannot seem to have a conversation with me without putting me down.

I comprehded just fine and I am talking about the Atari 2600 first.  Not to win an arcade battle, but to first get simple facts straight.   

Turbo I agree with you on, Cool Spot I agree with you on...MOVE ON.  Repeating what we agree on is not moving the conversation forward.    If you say black and I say black you hammering into my head that I didn't say black doesn't make sense.   I agree I agree I agree I agree.

Though I don't like the hot pink or the blurred display and I can stand the stripes...but I do see your point.

SO?  You really think they were pumping out Interlaced TV in  1950?!!!  Have you even SEEN a TV from 1950?!   

No, not the 50's...pre 70's YES.   You didn't read the article and learn your facts.  Start there then you will be more developed and educated for a debate with me.

In fact... almost NO arcade games that I know of are interlaced.

Arcades don't use NTSC standard...or if they do, I don't know of any.  Who argued otherwise?   NTSC is a standard...not the ability to do or other such nonsense.   You seem to be confused again..please read the link.   It will help you.   

LOGIC?!  You have NONE!

More putdowns.   I am being patient though.  Of course you say no logic then you get onto me because I call them programmers.  Same diff.   Its all symantacs.

I am speaking of them as a whole.  Graphic designer to final coders.   Put them in a basket and shake them up.   It is the intent that matters, not the words.

DJ_Izumi,

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, though I digress with you.   The PS2 is a poor example because its resolution surpasses the capability of an NTSC display in its native form.   Any interlaced up a progressive signal gives color bleed ...IF the display has more resolution.   Less...and the repeated display will be all the display, so bleed is minimal and not enough to be designed for.

PS2 doesn't have a RGB connection as far as I know...one of the things that makes me angry actually.

 

[Xiaou2]

My Mistake.

 Growing up with several computers such as the c64 and Amiga...
Interlaced modes were around 640*480  and above.

 While standard tv may have used interlace to display... I doubt it would have
used a resolution anywhere near 640*480.   My  480i tv can only output that res.
 
 Tekken III can use an interlace mode.   Its either 640*240  (standard default)
 or at interlace,   its  640*480.
 
 Genesis at max res didnt come close to that... and tv back in the atari days..
well,  we know it wasnt broadcast in  640*480.

 So, is it that standard tv used to be a resolution of 320*240... but was drawn in
two passes - to equal 110*120  lines each pass?

[genesim]

Thats the first time I have seen you admit you were wrong to me.

Now if I could just get you to understand that the phospher in the backlight of a LCD is not the color mechanism but rather an illuminating agent unlike the CRT and Plasma which it is integral to the color mechanism...we are good to go.

Notice I didn't call you an "idiot" or "moron" or anyone who thinks like that has "half a brain" or any such other putdown.   I would rather discuss politely and I do not think I am without guilt...rather I am trying to bring this together.   It is much easier if I have others cooperating.

As for the Genesis, I don't know exactly how it works, but that seems reasonable.

But at any rate that is not the important part.  My point is that one pass of the resolution is less then the full pass of 320 so at no point are you seeing all the resolution.   Hence you see blur...distortion...jaggies...etc.

The Atari 2600 has full resolution in each pass no matter how you put it.   Hence the clearer picture...barring RF and other such problematic interference.

But designing for this?  I don't believe it in Atari's case for one single solitary second.   How could it be if the display module(even in one pass) surpases the code?

[genesim]

By the way I too grew up with the C64 and it is one of the best home machines in classic period ever.   Archon is one of my favorite games and the Nintendo version was pure crap compared to it.

Spy Vs Spy also didn't translate well.   So many cool games.

[Malenko]

I just wanted to get in before the thread lock.

I cant figure out if genesim lost his edit rights again or just loves double, triple,quadruple posting.

To recap......... an actual game artist posted that he used creative methods to get a game how he wanted it to look on a TV compensating for poor video/signal and thats brushed aside because a random internet poster says emulation preserves code and LCDs show it better.


kk, threads summarized, it can be locked down now.

[genesim]

Malenko,

If you actually bothered to read I never disagreed with said artist...hmmm

And how many times do you have to be told that I don't have editing rights and I am not just "loving" it to be cute.

LEARN...or not...but then that tells me you are just loving it....or you have trouble comprehending.

Though I still think there is no reason to lock the thread if you look at what has been written at least some are taking the time to actually see my side of it.  Of course this baby step only took a couple of days and me getting banned....

And no I never said that LCD's "show it better".   Also I never said emulation alone preserves code.

Why do so many hold a lie like it is some kind of virtue?  It isn't clever at all.

[CheffoJeffo]

Kinda hard to do that when the post got deleted.   I suggest you check your mail I have sent you at least 10 different messages with not one response.

You are referring to this post, which did not get deleted. And I told you that people where ignoring you ! 

Well, my oldest are 9 and the youngest is 6. Again, I'm reasonably certain that you don't want to say *anything* about my kids and not only because it is in poor taste.

You want to come after me, that is fine. Hell, I encourage it.

If you mention Mrs. Cheffo or the little Cheffos, then you should be prepared for me to show up on your doorstep and hold you to account for what you say.

FWIW, my point in that statement is that we take shots at each other in online arguments and that's part of the way that the online world is. I encouraged you to come after me, which you did, in force, both publicly and in private messages.

If you want to talk about someone's family, then you should not say anything that you would not say to that person's face.

We had already had another instance where it seemed that you were taking a shot at my kids.

In no way did I ever intent to, nor would I ever, threaten anybody's family.

If you felt that I was threatening them, then I apologize, despite the fact that it would completely defy logic given that I was talking about respecting people's families.

[CheffoJeffo]

Uh you must not have been there....you must not know what you are talking about...blah blah blah.

Funny, you said exactly those same things to me last week.

Probably not because you more then likely were not there at the time and you try to speak about knowing so much, but in reality you know far less then me.

[CheffoJeffo]

If noone attacked me, I would never attacke back.   Wanna test this theory?  

That is the experiment I have been running by staying out of this thread ... didn't work out so well this time either.

[CheffoJeffo]

It is a religion and everytime I get closer to the truth people get personal.

[Todd H]

I think it's time to break out the...

[Malenko]

Malenko,

If you actually bothered to read I never disagreed with said artist...hmmm

The artist said he, and other artists, drew stuff the way they did to compensate for the display. You're saying you agree with this?

if so, what have you been bitching about for the last 3 threads?

Though I still think there is no reason to lock the thread if you look at what has been written at least some are taking the time to actually see my side of it.  Of course this baby step only took a couple of days and me getting banned....

I'm sure you posting like a child is the primary reason for the potential lock. Notice I am not calling you a child, merely commenting that the way in which you are posting is akin to being very child like.

And no I never said that LCD's "show it better".   Also I never said emulation alone preserves code.

I'll try to pull quotes to prove you wrong with you own words, but its difficult considering most of the topics of which you "participate" have been moved to post hell.

[genesim]

Cheffo,

I never went after your family. 

Who cares though, I will never convince you anyway.   But know this, if you believe I did, then I apologize.

Not as an agreeance to guilt, but an agreeance that I made you feel that way for whatever reason.    It is all a waste of time and I don't take kindly to threats the same as you wouldn't.

Neither one of us would rather be looking over our shouldiers anyway.   So my apologies for however I said it, or however you took it.    I said it snide, the same as you were throwing shots.

Who started it...who said it...who cares.   We were both wrong at one point. 

xxxxx

Malenko,

Happy hunting.   You can call me..imply whatever you want.     But yes, I do encourage you read and post whatever inaccuracy you think I put down and I will gladly defend it.    Keep it civilized and I will do the same.

As for what was deleted....nothing that I haven't repeated a million times.  My points have not changed one bit.   If I was proved wrong like Cheffo pointed out a hudred times, I gladly admitted it..again...and again...and again.

[Malenko]

Malenko,

Happy hunting.   You can call me..imply whatever you want.     But yes, I do encourage you read and post whatever inaccuracy you think I put down and I will gladly defend it.    Keep it civilized and I will do the same.

As for what was deleted....nothing that I haven't repeated a million times.  My points have not changed one bit.   If I was proved wrong like Cheffo pointed out a hudred times, I gladly admitted it..again...and again...and again.

I'd rather not talk to you.  congrats on being the first person I've clicked "ignore" to, and I think you tied chad cause Im your lucky #7

[Hoopz]

Malenko,

Happy hunting.   You can call me..imply whatever you want.     But yes, I do encourage you read and post whatever inaccuracy you think I put down and I will gladly defend it.    Keep it civilized and I will do the same.

As for what was deleted....nothing that I haven't repeated a million times.  My points have not changed one bit.   If I was proved wrong like Cheffo pointed out a hudred times, I gladly admitted it..again...and again...and again.

I'd rather not talk to you.  congrats on being the first person I've clicked "ignore" to, and I think you tied chad cause Im your lucky #7

Chad's at 5 now so we have a new winner.

[CheffoJeffo]

Mal, you may be thinking of this thread, which did not get PH'd (perhaps due to the fact that I just sat and watched ... although I think I was busy annoying him in the LCDs are better than CRTs thread at around the same time):

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=62829.0

I'm not going to rehash the thread, because it would take too long, but one interesting piece of information, that is apparently important given the battle that genesim has had in three different threads about it -- clues to his age.

I am an old school gamer and I have had lots of experience with older monitors.    I have been playing as young as 4 because my dad was hard core even back to pong.    I got an atari when there was literally no games.   

Now, if he is referring to the original arcade version of Pong, then his statement seems to imply that he is the same age that I am. 41.

If he is referring to the home version, then is is younger than I am.

As for the degree of experience with older monitors, I leave that to the reader to evaluate, with the exception of the following as it reveals quite a bit.

Kind of like running a vector graphic monitor...yeah its best, but is it really worth burning your eyes out for?

WTF ?


EDIT: for spelling

[genesim]

Again with my age. 

Here we go...and I thought it could be civilized.       

[RayB]

One thing you have missed completely... is RAYS picture of the Bubbles,
and the explanations behind it.  (which really blows your case all to hell)

 No way would anyone in their right mind make a bubble that had white stripes
down the middle of it!  Why did Ray do it?   Because when displayed on a TV, it would make those appear TRANSLUCENT.  So the bubble would look like a milky but see-through white.

 Ray wasnt the first one to do this.  Its been done in countless arcade games.
Not just for translucent effect.. but color blending effect.

Just for the sake of accuracy, *I* didn't draw the bubble. Someone else on the team did.

And again for accuracy, in my own experience, only the Sega Genesis had the effect of blending stripes. If you displayed the same graphics through a Super Nintendo, you would see the stripes, not blended. And again, the technique on a NES would cause weird "shimmering" when scrolling.

My point was that while there is *some* blending on the tv (and a tv's quality, age, etc would affect the amount), there was also some other effects in the signal itself generated by the console. (And we artists would use that to our advantage if possible). An emulator would not take this into account, since we're talking about the way the final analog signal was generated and combined into a single RF signal, and that's not part of the "logic" that emulators emulate.


While I'm clarifying details, Gene, take some Xanax and feast your eyes on these specs:

Sega Genesis
pixel resolution: 320 x 224

Super Nintendo:Resolutions Progressive: 256x224, 512x224, 256x239, 512x239
Interlaced: 512x448, 512x478

Nintendo Entertainment System
256 x 240 pixels.
Typically, games designed for NTSC-based systems had an effective resolution of only 256 by 224 pixels, as the top and bottom 8 scanlines are not visible on most television sets.

etc...

So Gene, explain how those different consoles all worked on the same STANDARD televisions if (according to you) they have a "FIXED" resolution?

[Ummon]

No Ummon, it does Not look exactly like an arcade monitor.

 For example,  the upper left where there is a checkerboard bar - is supposed to
be displayed as translucent instead of seeing a checkerboard pattern.

 And that is only the beginning of it all. 

 Compare an actual photograph of an arcade monitor, and see for yourself.


 Edit:

 ohh, you are talking about the pics you posted.  Those are even worse.

Those images are the closest I've seen an effect come to the arcade monitors in old-style cabs I've seen recently, including my Mappy cab. Did you pay attention to the instructions about clicking inside the image window? - ie: click on posted image, click inside window.

Randy comes on and starts attacking me for my AGE.   My AGE and starts saying that I am lying because I won't give out my exact age??

Well, heheheheheh, you acted like such a girl about it....does that count as name-calling?

[genesim]

So Gene, explain how those different consoles all worked on the same STANDARD televisions if (according to you) they have a "FIXED" resolution?

  

Right, this is exactly what I said.    I could get angry, I could get confused.   But once you have seen the same trick over and over, I just laugh.    Either people don't want to read what I wrote...have read it and can't comprehend...or are just plain causing trouble.

Perhaps all of the above.   Its not my problem anymore.    Should have never made it mine to begin with.     

[DJ_Izumi]

There's only been one person causing trouble in these threads.

[Xiaou2]

Sorry Ummon,  but YES, I clicked them full size.  They are not good at all.  If you
really think that... then you need glasses.

[Ummon]

Sorry Ummon,  but YES, I clicked them full size.  They are not good at all.  If you
really think that... then you need glasses.

Must be your monitor and resolution then. Desktop has to be at SXGA. Could even be that being on an LCD blows, as I'm using a PC CRT.

[Xiaou2]

Nope.  I have a high res 21" viewsonic pc crt  thats in Excellent shape.  I do graphical
art at times,  so I have a good eye and detailed knowledge about resolution, color,
and much more.

 I also have several arcade monitors on hand to compare with.

[1UP]

 Wow, this is highly entertaining.  This post derailed like the train in The Fugitive. 

[Hoopz]

Wow, this is highly entertaining.  This post derailed like the train in The Fugitive. 

It's good to see you back, but you've missed at least 5 other threads that have gone this way because of one particular person.  3 are in post hell, one is in reviews, and one is in the monitor forum. 

Grab some beers and head to to the one in the reviews section.  Ultimate in idiocy!   

It may also help explain why Rule # 10 was created, why one slack jawed mo-ron argued against it, and why he's been banned a few weekends when Saint didn't want him posting when Saint was around to babysit him.

But hey, make up your own mind!   

[Hoopz]

Here's the link to the thread in the Review section:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=62829.0

[1UP]

Here's the link to the thread in the Review section:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=62829.0

...ehhh...hoboy.    First post was enough.

And here I've been trying to help this guy!

[Ummon]

Nope.  I have a high res 21" viewsonic pc crt  thats in Excellent shape.  I do graphical
art at times,  so I have a good eye and detailed knowledge about resolution, color,
and much more.

 I also have several arcade monitors on hand to compare with.

Mm-mmm-mmmm. I guess we'll have to visit each other's houses.

[RayB]

Mm-mmm-mmmm. I guess we'll have to visit each other's houses.

That sounds like a threat!
 

[Ummon]

Mm-mmm-mmmm. I guess we'll have to visit each other's houses.

That sounds like a threat!
 

Hahhahahahahahah. Or I'm making a pass.

[Ummon]

Well, since this is somewhat more active, I thought I'd post these here. Some scanlines effects that I think look good, using the last Advancemame: .106.1 .  (Ahem - the caveat is that you must be using a 27" monitor at XGA....for those few of you who are....as it doesn't look good on my PC monitor at that res. I'll have to try the native res of that monitor - SXGA - maybe that makes a difference. Another caveat I just found...or, sorta refound....is that they blow scrolling games. Well, old mame affects always did....not that new mame is perfect, either. Anyways....)

Significant differences in this version are:

 - The default output mode in Windows and X is now 'overlay'.
 - The default resize effect is now 'fractional' instead of 'integer'.
 - The 'overlaysize' option now has the default 'auto' which uses the current video mode. 
 - The SDL library now force the video driver 'directx' as default. Required because from SDL 1.2.10 the default is the slow 'windib'

What this means is that it's a bit like the old ddraw+hwstretch in mame, sans effects, or like current mame with prescale at '1'. Before this, you could get Advancemame to display at the desktop resolution, but the result was like prescale at 2 - or even more, like the 31khz output from the AVGA. A little harsh to me.

So, here we have the following settings:

image 1 (light scanlines) : magnify 2 / scan2horz / gamma = 1.20

image 2 (stronger scanlines) : magnify 3 / scan3horz / gamma = 1.30

image 3 (sorta purple girders) : magnify 3 / scan3horz / gamma = 2.0


(Again, remember to click inside the pictures after clicking on them. Or, try the same settings.)

[Ummon]

Here's something I had archived and came across:

http://jvspac.kirurg.org/?page=mame

It's about running double-pixeled and using effects. Not a new premise, but one I think everyone has forgotten about. This means you have to create specific modes for each resolution you're going to run, so that you can run at 31khz (around) while having an exact double multiple of the game's resolution.

I tried this on my digital multisync (27") with 336x240, 292x240, and 256x240 games at 640x480, and they were almost indistinguishable from running them native. Maybe not quite as bright, but very nice looking.

Incidentally, this is sorta similar to what the old Stretchmame would do, but far better looking, at least brightness-wise.

....Actually, I was just playing with this in mame .104 (ie: before the re-write), and it looks really good there, too - horizontal games at 640x480, vertical games at 800x600; 50% scanlines for both. Don't even have to change the default brightness or gamma. However, it won't work for  horizontal games above 320x240 - they don't fill the display area - I would guess because of how mame treats those resolutions.

[Ummon]

In fact, I would go so far as saying using older mame on a large CRT this way IS indistinguishable from running native on a similar CRT. Brighter display than going the new mame way.

[Ummon]

Okay, some adjustment, here. It depends on the game or type of game. Any retro, 'black background' games might need a brightness bump of .15 .  Graphics saturated games may or may not need it. Bubbles surely didn't. Anyways, the scanlines are authentic with very little if any dimming.

[CheffoJeffo]

Is it me, or is somebody talking to themselves ?

[Ummon]

Elaborate.