You too can do KILLER vectors at 15khz!!

[Ummon]

Okay, 16.5khz. Remember to click inside each image after clicking on them.

[telengard]

Do tell, do tell...   

Black Widow is one of my favorites!

Even without the tweaks I like vectors on my arcade monitor better than on the PC monitor for some reason.  The games with background art don't look so great though (Asteroids Deluxe, etc).

~telengard

[Level42]

?

All I see is jaggy lines like any vector game on a raster monitor.

[CheffoJeffo]

Monitor looks nice enough, buy those are hardly killer vectors.

[ChadTower]

?

All I see is jaggy lines like any vector game on a raster monitor.

It should be pretty clear by now this guy is a troll. 

[Ginsu Victim]

It DOES look nicer than how most vector games turn out on a CRT.

[RayB]

Would be nice if the guy bothered to post more than just a series of snapshots which all look the same to me. 

[Malenko]

Monitor looks nice enough, but those are hardly killer vectors.

x2

EDIT:Fixed Cheffo's typo, lol

[FrizzleFried]

Unimpressed frankly.   

[RandyT]

Needs more interlace....

[Jack Burton]

That's a high quality image, but nothing like a Vector monitor. 

But I see that you have maximized the abilities of a arcade raster monitor.  Is 16.5 the absolute highest resolution you could push your monitor to Ummon?  I wonder if a few other monitors out there are capable of slightly more?  Or how it would look interlaced, but at higher resolutions?

[Level42]

Resistance is futile. And so is trying to emulate a vector.

[RandyT]

Resistance is futile. And so is trying to emulate a vector.

I don't know that I would go THAT far.  Some of the newer technologies are capable of some pretty bright images, and they are already doing it above the resolution associated with the coarse dot-pitch of the monitors that were used (remember, we are talking about color vector, not mono).

I'd like to see one of those LED backlit LCD panels doing vector emulation.  I'll bet it's a real treat.

RandyT

[genesim]

When people say that it doesn't look that impressive....have we forgot that we are looking at the effect through different monitors?

Getting back, the new Sony 120hz LCD's with super white are pretty dang bright.    So much so, that at times I get a brightness that feels like I am looking into the sun.   Never tried vector graphics, but I suspect it might have positive results.   I know this much, I had to turn down my HDTV's brightness.

[CheffoJeffo]

When people say that it doesn't look that impressive....have we forgot that we are looking at the effect through different monitors?

Monitor looks nice enough, buy those are hardly killer vectors.

That's a high quality image, but nothing like a Vector monitor. 

Monitor looks nice enough, but those are hardly killer vectors.

x2

EDIT:Fixed Cheffo's typo, lol

Resistance is futile. And so is trying to emulate a vector.

I don't know that I would go THAT far.  Some of the newer technologies are capable of some pretty bright images, and they are already doing it above the resolution associated with the coarse dot-pitch of the monitors that were used (remember, we are talking about color vector, not mono).

I'd like to see one of those LED backlit LCD panels doing vector emulation.  I'll bet it's a real treat.

RandyT

No, it would seem that it EXACTLY what we are talking about ... so far, there really aren't any options that compare to a true vector monitor, although I agree with RandyT that some of the newer stuff coming may be much nicer that we have seen before.

[RayB]

Getting back, the new Sony 120hz LCD's with super white are pretty dang bright.    So much so, that at times I get a brightness that feels like I am looking into the sun.   Never tried vector graphics, but I suspect it might have positive results.   I know this much, I had to turn down my HDTV's brightness.

You probably still have it in "store mode". For some reason they have store demo modes where the contrast is super exagerrated. But your point still stands. They ARE capable of very bright imagery.

I agree with RandyT that some of the newer stuff coming may be much nicer that we have seen before.

Not coming... but available NOW. Check out Geometry Wars 2 on an XBOX connected to a good 1080i or 1080p LCD TV. It's as pretty and convincing as a real vector arcade game.

[RandyT]

Not coming... but available NOW. Check out Geometry Wars 2 on an XBOX connected to a good 1080i or 1080p LCD TV. It's as pretty and convincing as a real vector arcade game.

The reason I mention the LED backlit stuff is that they are capable of true blacks.  So marrying the super bright, hi-res output of an LCD panel, with a contrast level not possible before, and you are liable to get a heck of a simulation.  Normal LCD panels don't have the black levels to pull it off at high brightness.

RandyT

[1UP]

I wish Ummon would explain what we're looking at here.  If the screen is interlacing to get sharper vectors, it's not apparent and will probably be hard to capture with a camera unless you set it to the same refresh as the screen (1/60 sec for example).

[Ummon]

Ahem. Most people claim that vector games seen at 15khz, or say on a TV, blow. Well they do (on the latter, and regular mame can't even fit them to the screen at 15khz)....unless you have the proper emulator to display them with. Advancemame, of course.

This isn't 'hey, look how good this is compared to a PC monitor or LCD', let alone a vector monitor. It's 'look how good it can be if you're constrained to CGA resolutions'.

Do tell, do tell...   

Black Widow is one of my favorites!

Even without the tweaks I like vectors on my arcade monitor better than on the PC monitor for some reason.  The games with background art don't look so great though (Asteroids Deluxe, etc).

~telengard

Mmm, I hadn't thought of that. It's not something I concern myself with much, as mostly I run vectors at 640x480 and am fine with that aspect at that resolution. Admittedly, at a lower res it ain't great, but it's the best you can get with a CGA monitor.

[pinballwizard79]

I dont know what any of this tech talk is.

Me well I just like to get drunk & play games. My concerns are more about authentic controls, cool artwork & a properly running rom.

So Ummon I agree that looks good, no need for a vector.

[genesim]

Though this is likely to start another LCD war...from what I understand the newer LCD's have contrast ratios well over 50,000:1 so that whole black isn't as black crap isn't true anymore.

For my money, I had a 2000 dollar Plasma and I currently have a 3000 dollar LCD and the differenc in blacks was NADA.   

But the light on the Plasma was not near the quality because I don't remember it ever hurting my eyes and I turned it all the way up for my own reference.

I know one thing the habit of many is to quote stats from years ago in regards to LCD instead of  paying attention to new technology that has greatly improved the capability in as little as a years time.

I do get the concept though that a light shining behind a filter is going to be hard to produce black as dark as it should be...but at the same time it sure looks great.

[genesim]

I guess the end result is this...LCD's will produce a better bright setting and the black difference is neglible if you get a high end model.

Yet a Plasma which supposedly gives you the best picture is going to produce a better black.   Tit for tat, I think the brightess of the Vector graphic matters the most.

The newest LCD's produce better image overall IMHO.   This is from owning all of the above visual display units and not just repeating what I hear.

[pinballwizard79]

You are starting trouble

[Xiaou2]

 A Laser (or set of lasers)  would be a much better Vector display alternative.

[DJ_Izumi]

The forum moderators either need to ban genesim or ban all discussions of monitors because clearly the two can't coexist. :/

[XeviouS]

What I would like to know is how do you achieve bright clear white vector lines with Asteroids on an LCD monitor?

I can't even see the bullets on my screen 

[genesim]

Sorry but when Randy quotes the old mantra that LCD's cannot produce deep blacks, I am going to call it.

50,000:1 contrast ratio IMHO is dark enough.

I don't know how that equates to that I should be banned.   

xxxxx

What I would like to know is how do you achieve bright clear white vector lines with Asteroids on an LCD monitor?

I can't even see the bullets on my screen

What is your model number and I will tell you how.     One LCD is not the same as another.   700:1 contrast is not going to give you the same results.

[XeviouS]

What is your model number and I will tell you how.     One LCD is not the same as another.   700:1 contrast is not going to give you the same results.

It was a cheapie at the time I bought it about 5 years ago. I just revisited the game a few moments ago - it's not as bad as I seemed to remember it. The asteroids are a bit dim mainly because they flicker somewhat as they are moving across the screen, but the main problem is still the bullets as they only seem to consist of one pixel each. The players ship and the enemy space ships are very vivid and easy to see. I'm guessing that my problem is that the monitor is just not up to scratch - all other games look great on it though!

Model: CMV poyview V293
    *  Device Type Flat panel display / TFT active matrix
    * Diagonal Size 19"
    * Viewable Size 19"
    * Max Resolution 1280 x 1024 / SXGA
    * Brightness 330cd/m2
    * Response time 21ms (Tr+Tf)
    * Compliant Standards TCO '99
    * Power Consumption Operational 51 Watt
    * Colour Support Up to 16.2 million colors
    * Colour Silver
    * Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch 0.26 mm
    * Built in Stereo Speakers 2 x 2.5W
    * Contrast Ratio 800:1
    * Dimensions (WxDxH) 418 x 431 x 232 mm
    * Weight 4.6 kg
    * Power AC 110/230 V ( 50/60 Hz ) 19VDC 3.42A

*update*: just worked out the game is much more playable at night time with all the lights are turned out - much easier to see the bullets (though still small and dim)

[Xiaou2]

 
Xevious,    it could be the most new and expensive LCD on the planet... and
you would still have the same problem with the bullets being dim.

 A vector monitor draws completely different.  I believe they re-draw the bullet
a lot more times per second than any other object... and when a vector beam is
left in one spot for a long time... it will be incredibly bright.     This does not happen
on an LCD.

 There should at least be a simulated effect added to mame that people can enable...
where as the bullets are brighter, and the rest of the objects drawn a little dimmer.
A tranlucent Glow could also be added around the bullets. Collision would still be
for the one pixel.


 Also, for the record,  I dont think the contrast levels will surpass tube tvs.  Especially vectors.  Their brightness levels are insane.   Heck...My sony CRT hdtv is so bright
that when showing people "Weld"  things (OCC) - that I have to look away... else I feel my eyes are going to burn up.

[XeviouS]

Xevious,    it could be the most new and expensive LCD on the planet... and
you would still have the same problem with the bullets being dim.

 A vector monitor draws completely different.  I believe they re-draw the bullet
a lot more times per second than any other object... and when a vector beam is
left in one spot for a long time... it will be incredibly bright.     This does not happen
on an LCD.

 There should at least be a simulated effect added to mame that people can enable...
where as the bullets are brighter, and the rest of the objects drawn a little dimmer.
A tranlucent Glow could also be added around the bullets. Collision would still be
for the one pixel.


 Also, for the record,  I dont think the contrast levels will surpass tube tvs.  Especially vectors.  Their brightness levels are insane.   Heck...My sony CRT hdtv is so bright
that when showing people "Weld"  things (OCC) - that I have to look away... else I feel my eyes are going to burn up.

Thanks for the reply X, that makes me feel a whole lot better about using a cheap/old monitor in my cabinet. I was thinking the same thing about how the Mame Guru's should add a "LCD enhance" option to the settings of these vector games for exactly these reasons. Well, it's only one game out of thousands and the rest of the games look great on my monitor, so I'll quit my complaining. 

[genesim]

I jacked up the gamma to the highest setting and all I can say is WOW.   My cheapie LCD has a better image when done this way, but not near my 120hz LCD.

From playing Asteroids many times this is as close as I have seen.

Also for the black levels, again I have several tv sets and CRT's in the house and putting them side by side...there is no difference in black level.  NONE.  But the light levels not even close. 

I guess we all can all believe what we want, but I have owned all of them and I am speaking from physical experience.   

The brightness on the LCD is the best I have ever seen.    Of course having the software that truly utilized it is another story.   Alot of bluray's I understand are encoded to take advantage of the "superwhite" but I admit this is beyond my experience.   I just turn it on.   Certain Planet Earth scenes sure look bright.    If this isn't bright enough, then call me satisfied anyway.   

[XeviouS]

I jacked up the gamma to the highest setting and all I can say is WOW.   My cheapie LCD has a better image when done this way, but not near my 120hz LCD.

I went looking for a gamma setting on my monitor and there wasn't one. There was however a menu item called "Phase" which I have never touched before, and adjusting this setting altered the focus of the vector graphics making them noticably sharper. Now the bullets are quite easy to see compared to what they were (though still not as bright as I'd like them). Bottom line is the game is now quite playable, so thanks for leading me in the right direction! 

As an aside, just played a game of "Rip Off". The vector graphics on that one look sweet on the LCD, with clear and obvious bullets - if they can do it on Rip Off, why can't they do it on Asteroids............

[genesim]

Glad things worked out.   

It finally hit me what people meant by "bullets".   

In the back of my mind I always thought there were harder to see, but with the new settings I was paying attention to all the other stuff more that I didn't look harder at the stuff coming out of the ship on Asteroids!

Yes it is indeed improved.    Though I have never had a problem with my cheap LCD.   The black is not as black as it should be, but I still like how it looks without glare.    I cut a hole in my bezel and got it to have zero glare that way.   But it sacrfices safety, but I don't plan on throwing anything at it and with LCD's going for less then a hundred, I will take my chances.

[TheShanMan]

Ahem. Most people claim that vector games seen at 15khz, or say on a TV, blow. Well they do (on the latter, and regular mame can't even fit them to the screen at 15khz)....unless you have the proper emulator to display them with. Advancemame, of course.

This isn't 'hey, look how good this is compared to a PC monitor or LCD', let alone a vector monitor. It's 'look how good it can be if you're constrained to CGA resolutions'.

You didn't explain yourself, hence the responses. You said "killer vectors" without saying that you're comparing it to what you'd normally see in mame. So of course you're going to get a lot of responses from vector purists saying they aren't so killer.

[CheffoJeffo]

Ahem. Most people claim that vector games seen at 15khz, or say on a TV, blow. Well they do (on the latter, and regular mame can't even fit them to the screen at 15khz)....unless you have the proper emulator to display them with. Advancemame, of course.

This isn't 'hey, look how good this is compared to a PC monitor or LCD', let alone a vector monitor. It's 'look how good it can be if you're constrained to CGA resolutions'.

You didn't explain yourself, hence the responses. You said "killer vectors" without saying that you're comparing it to what you'd normally see in mame. So of course you're going to get a lot of responses from vector purists saying they aren't so killer.

It is interesting that at least one of those purists once posted an opinion very similar to Ummon's and I replied that he should play on a real vector monitor, then come back and tell me how awesome vector games are on a Std Res raster monitor. Now that he has owned a couple of vectors his opinion has changed.

For my part, if you are satisfied with your display, then that is great. Hell, I've been playing Major Havoc on a G07 because I only have one emulator machine with appropriate controls right now -- it ain't bad and it looks OK considering what I am working with, but it ain't anything like a real vector monitor ... or even a nice LCD.

[EwJ]

What I would like to know is how do you achieve bright clear white vector lines with Asteroids on an LCD monitor?

I can't even see the bullets on my screen 

Please ignore if you have already played with these basic settings:

Have you played with the vector beam width and intensity settings in mame?
With a value of about 3.00 for both, Asteroids looks (what I consider) 'acceptable' on my particular LCD.
The bullets are definitely visible and all lines clear and bright.

Specs:Mame32 v0.105
Mame32 Resolution settings set to monitor's native res/refresh,
Stretch using h/w set to monitors aspect ratio (16:10).
Full Screen Brightness: 1.00
Dell 2405FPW (DVI)

Of course this is after setting up the basics  - running in native res, digital connection, adjust settings through monitor's menu, adjust settings through display properties for vid. card - brightness, contrast, gamma, etc .

[genesim]

I jacked up the Gamma and Contrast with great results.   The default MAME are way too dull.  Bullets look awesome on my high end LCD but the lower end is still very acceptable.

[XeviouS]

Have you played with the vector beam width and intensity settings in mame?
With a value of about 3.00 for both, Asteroids looks (what I consider) 'acceptable' on my particular LCD.
The bullets are definitely visible and all lines clear and bright.

I'm not running Mame 32, just standard Mame with Maximus Arcade frontend. Is there any way of adjusting the vector settings without Mame 32 ?

[EwJ]

I'm not running Mame 32, just standard Mame with Maximus Arcade frontend. Is there any way of adjusting the vector settings without Mame 32 ?

Should be in your mame.ini - look near the bottom for vector options.

To add to this - from John Hardy's mame32 pages from about 5 yrs ago regarding an LCD:
"Note: When you use an LCD and Mame32 remember to deselect the switch res and switch color depth so you can run at native desktop resolution.  No mode switching and no interpolation from lower resolutions."

These should be somewhere in the  ini as well (video options?).


Applicable to larger screens: "The increase in vertical resolution allows for better integer stretching in Mame32 too, so you can for instance run at desktop resolution and choose the scanlines options and have the image take up more room than at 1024 vertical."
And Widescreens(16:10): "It's necessary of course to set Mame32 to 16:10 otherwise you'll get a squat stretched picture.  Since most arcade games are 4:3 standard resolution, you're going to get black bars on the left and right in a letterbox style. "

[XeviouS]

Should be in your mame.ini - look near the bottom for vector options.

You sir, are a genius. After working out how to create a mame.ini file, I found the vector option just like you said. Tried various figures and found a value of 1.5 (default was 1) boosted the brightness of vector lines and bullets beautifully!

This has been bugging me ever since I built my cabinet and it's a relief to finally have a solution. Thanks very much for your help! 

[RayB]

Black levels don't really matter or become noticable except when viewing at night/dark room.

[TOK]

Black levels don't really matter or become noticable except when viewing at night/dark room.

That is exactly the way I always want my gameroom. I can't tell if you're saying the black level is important or not. 

To me, its crucial. A tinted bezel helped the black level on mine considerably.

[genesim]

Even in pitch black I don't see what the fuss is all about...even my worst LCD looks pretty darn black.

As far as my top end LCD I watch movies at night and Dark Night is one of the blackest movies I know....black is frickin' black.   

[1UP]

Even in pitch black I don't see what the fuss is all about...even my worst LCD looks pretty darn black.

As far as my top end LCD I watch movies at night and Dark Night is one of the blackest movies I know....black is frickin' black.   

Put on a movie that is letterboxed, something really widescreen like 2.2:1 where you can see the bars on a 16:9 screen.  Or play Asteroids.  If you can see a difference between the black of your screen and the black of the bezel, then it's not that black.  You'll see it when watching digital TV a lot--dark scenes where there is a lot of discolored blocky garbage in the blacks, which can be compensated for somewhat by upping the contrast a bit.  (I have to laugh when companies claim "blu-ray quality" on their HD channels since there is a huge difference between resolution and quality.)

For blu-ray movies it's not that big a deal since the quality is much better than TV, and even film rarely gets completely black, but with old games that have mostly black screens, there's a big difference between an LCD screen that is trying to cover the backlight with black pixels, and a vector tube that is not projecting light in the black areas at all, with vectors that are blazingly bright because they are being drawn by an electron beam aiming at your face.   

[Ummon]

Black levels don't really matter or become noticable except when viewing at night/dark room.

I can see it, even in a brightly-lit room.

The forum moderators either need to ban genesim or ban all discussions of monitors because clearly the two can't coexist. :/

Hahahahah. Something like that. He totally interjected and ejaculated irrelevant data into this thread.

Ahem. Most people claim that vector games seen at 15khz, or say on a TV, blow. Well they do (on the latter, and regular mame can't even fit them to the screen at 15khz)....unless you have the proper emulator to display them with. Advancemame, of course.

This isn't 'hey, look how good this is compared to a PC monitor or LCD', let alone a vector monitor. It's 'look how good it can be if you're constrained to CGA resolutions'.

You didn't explain yourself, hence the responses. You said "killer vectors" without saying that you're comparing it to what you'd normally see in mame. So of course you're going to get a lot of responses from vector purists saying they aren't so killer.

The data was all there. Reading comprehension: "at 15khz". Next were the tab menu shots. Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

[CheffoJeffo]

Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

Funny how most of the people who remarked about the vectors not being *KILLER* are folks that I think *are* in the know regarding monitors ... 

[genesim]

1up do you realize what you are saying?

If black is more on the boarder then is on the film that doesn't mean SQUAT.    Did the LCD suddenly not become an LCD on the corners?  If it showing a deeper black...uh then it is showing a deeper black.    Kind of kills the whole arguement that an LCD can't do it doesn't it?

But yes limitations of the source is a big problem.

For the record when I play Asteroids I cannot see the borders.   Now why would you see the differences in black with something like Dark Knight but not a video game...something called detail.   Again not the limitations of the monitor but the source...in Dark Knights case this is not a limitations, it is actually not supposed to be a completely black movie obviously.

[wp34]

I'd like to see one of those LED backlit LCD panels doing vector emulation.  I'll bet it's a real treat.

RandyT

I did checkout a Samsung LED panel at Best Buy today.  I had not seen one in person yet.  They were playing Cars on Blueray.  All I can say is wow.  It was like seeing the movie for the first time.

[genesim]

This is hard to keep up!   What is the advantage of LED backlight?

[TheShanMan]

The data was all there. Reading comprehension: "at 15khz". Next were the tab menu shots. Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

So kind of you to criticize the reading comprehension of the people who commented on your claim as well as mine. But really I don't think it's so much a comprehension problem as it is a failure to communicate effectively, followed by abandoning the thread for a surprisingly long time.

[1UP]

1up do you realize what you are saying?

If black is more on the boarder then is on the film that doesn't mean SQUAT.    Did the LCD suddenly not become an LCD on the corners?  If it showing a deeper black...uh then it is showing a deeper black.    Kind of kills the whole arguement that an LCD can't do it doesn't it?

I know exactly what I'm saying, sorry you didn't get it.  I'm saying that the black plastic frame of your TV is as black as you can get under the lighting in a given room, so it's a good comparison.  If the black bars on a letterboxed movie look like a dark grey in comparision, then they aren't really that black, are they?  But they should be, because there is no color value in those pixels, they should be an RGB value of 0,0,0.

This is hard to keep up!   What is the advantage of LED backlight?

The advantage is obvious.  Basically, a normal LCD screen is always white, uniformly lit by one big backlight, and the LCD pixels try to cover it up with colors.  It's kind of like printing on paper, you're removing transmitted light by covering it with ink.  This is why you can't get a true black, because there is always a blaring white light behind it all, and the LCD is always going to be slightly translucent.  A screen lit by LEDs is lit on a pixel-by-pixel basis, much like a CRT screen.  Only the pixels that are turned on are lit (actually, blocks of pixels as Randy points out below).  So black areas are actually as black as they can be (taking room lighting into consideration) since NO LIGHT is coming from these pixels.

Makes sense?

Other advantages would be less heat, brighter whites, and a light source that doesn't burn out after just a few years.  The screens also look to be about 1/3 as thick as current "flat panels".  Depending on the LEDs used, you could even have a screen that's bright and clear even in direct sunlight.  I'd like that kind of screen for my laptop,

[RandyT]

A screen lit by LEDs is lit on a pixel-by-pixel basis, much like a CRT screen.  Only the pixels that are turned on are lit.  So black areas are actually as black as they can be (taking room lighting into consideration) since NO LIGHT is coming from these pixels.

Everything is correct but this last part is confusing.  The LEDs are not small enough to have perfect pixel representation, so the lighting is based on groups of pixels.  This is why I stated earlier that the drawback is "blooming" around small, bright objects because you have to illuminate the area of the pixels, rather than just the pixels.  The blacks are so dead next to the illuminated parts, it's easier to notice it.  Much like it's easier to notice the difference between black screen area and black plastic frames.  But it should make vectors look pretty darn good.

RandyT

[1UP]

Hehe, sounds even more like a CRT.     My bad.  But the basic concept is still that you're point-lighting rather than illuminating the whole screen at once.  I'll have to get a look at one of these up close.  I'll bet eventually we'll have LED-only screens or something similar, where the pixels are actually lit one by one.

[genesim]

1up,

Sorry I misintrepeted what you said.   I do see your point.   I guess I don't see the raging difference.  When I turn out the lights I don't see it.   

Still there is some things on CRT that are also a problem with me.

Glare, color bleed etc..but one other point brought up.

This whole business about the shuttering effect of CRT being beneficial.    There is a phenomenon called "glow" where the color doesn't go back to "black" because of the phospher that is hit by the electron having an after effect, so while LCD supposedly has blur(even though the 120hz refresh negates that),  this part actually to me is even more troubling.

Kind of like turning off your regular  television and seeing the obvious after glow.    This is the nature of a CRT mechanism.

I'll bet eventually we'll have LED-only screens or something similar, where the pixels are actually lit one by one.

Ahhh and then a whole new set of debates will start.    As it stands Liquid Crstal Displays are quite nice to my eyes and I guess I am pretty satisfied thus far.    But it all makes me curious...

Most of the problems that people have are their displays are not calibrated correctly...the sources vary so much..etc.   

[genesim]

Incidently on my final point a Plasma already used similar technology of individual lit pixels except it uses a gas.   

Doesn't a stagnate picture mechanism give way to screen burn in?  I hear LCD's do it too...but not nearly as bad...and I hear not permanent.

But as it stands I don't know if I buy that a dissapating back light is really all that detrimental to a display as far as illuminating goes.    I certaintly don't buy that you could actually see the difference in quality...it is still a back light on a LED, just a a more direct way.   

[CheffoJeffo]

Oi, saint -- where is the bloody :tommy smiley when I need it?

gene -- for the love of all things holy, can you keep you keep it in your pants for a change and stop hijacking thread after thread to push your love of LCDs and your disdain for CRTs ?

If you keep whipping it out and being ridiculous, people are going to go back to stepping on it and, as I recall, you didn't like that much.

In the case of vector graphics, vector monitor (e.g. CRT) >>>> anything else, regardless of how many times you mention 120Hz refresh rates.

[Xiaou2]

Gen, 

 Take the best picture of an LCD with Asteroids from about 2 to 3 ft away.. and
try to compare to this picture.

 No editing / photoshopping.  No camera over-exposures. No tricks.

 And realize that the image captured here isnt even as intense as what
you would see on a real vector monitor.

 Nor do you see the Crispness of the lines - as the camera blurs things like
this due to the contrast, motion, and capture speeds.

[1UP]

Doesn't a stagnate picture mechanism give way to screen burn in?  I hear LCD's do it too...but not nearly as bad...and I hear not permanent

We have some very badly, permanently burned-in monitors here at work that would disagree...the Win XP logo screensaver absolutely kills LCDs    Best way around it is to keep the brightness at less than 90% and turn them off when not used.  I believe it is the backlight that is the culprit, baking static images into the screen.

[genesim]

1up,

Thats why I went with what I hear.   Just never seen it myself.   It is true that you should take care of your monitors..that said it is not as severe as Plasma or LCD because here at my job they leave them on for years with no burn in.

xxxxxx

For the commenter that said I hijacked a thread with LCD talk, actually I wasn't the first to bring it up and I do not have "disdain" for CRT but I am also not blind to their shortcomings.   Facts are annoying to those that it doesn't champion their cause.

That said, I don't take kindly to threats and whatever it is you think you can do then I welcome you to try it again.   I don't really care.  Of course you have never really changed your way to begin with.

Xiaou2,

I just may do that when I have the time.   Though I for one have never said your pictures didn't look good.

[DJ_Izumi]

We have some very badly, permanently burned-in monitors here at work that would disagree...the Win XP logo screensaver absolutely kills LCDs    Best way around it is to keep the brightness at less than 90% and turn them off when not used.  I believe it is the backlight that is the culprit, baking static images into the screen.

Cause the best screensaver is 'Turn monitor off after 5mins'.  Also saves power and thusly money/resources.

[genesim]

I never undestood why people think it is a good idea to keep their computer on all the time.  I love my electronics too much to abuse them.

xxx

Quick note, as far as screen shots go, a big problem...how are many here going to see the benefits of a high end LCD when most of them are looking at it through a mediocre monitor?   

Most of us don't spend thousands on a Monitor that is inches from our face, so comparing screen shots isn't really going to tell us much.

Still, I have thought of posting up because the brightness is very beneficial to Asteroids and I am truly amazed at the qulity which surpasses any CRT/LCD/Plasma/NTSC/Black and white/Green monocrhome monitor that I have ever owned.

[TOK]

I never undestood why people think it is a good idea to keep their computer on all the time.  I love my electronics too much to abuse them.

The theory is that the hot/cold cycle is harder on them than the idle. I don't know if either argument has ever been proven, but the computer I use for a server has been on for roughly 5 years. The only time it gets shut off is when I'm working on it or if it's unplugged for wicked thunderstorms.

I do have the monitor go into standy, but the computer itself always runs.

[genesim]

A monitor though?    I can't imagine that being good at all.   It certaintly doesn't extend its life.

As for unbridled love to the internet, that is reason #1 for me not to keep the computer on.   As for the hot/cold, I can see the point...but I still think a rest isn't bad for the computer.

[isucamper]

Facts are annoying to those that it doesn't champion their cause.

In all of your tirads, I don't think you've mentioned a single fact.  You've just spread false information and made it sound like fact.  In all honesty, you're hurting the integrity of this board.

And please, tell me how I am absolutely wrong in every possible respect.

[CheffoJeffo]

Facts are I am annoying to those that it doesn't because all I do is continually try to champion their my cause, topic or facts be damned!

Fixt.

 

[XeviouS]

.

[1UP]

Cause the best screensaver is 'Turn monitor off after 5mins'.  Also saves power and thusly money/resources.

No kidding, that's what I've been telling the tech guys here for years after I noticed the burn-ins were always right where the WinXP logo pops up.  Stupidest screen saver ever, yeah, it jumps around, but always to the same 8 locations.  Ever seen a Pac-Man monitor?  Silly MS.    We do CG for film and commercials, so tech is more worried about the monitors losing calibration by being turned off, which I think is rubbish when talking about LCDs.  Most of the monitors here aren't calibrated properly anyway, so I've just been shutting mine off at night.  So far, no burn in on mine (and no loss of calibration), but the guys around me are looking pretty bad.  See below.

[Ummon]

Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

Funny how most of the people who remarked about the vectors not being *KILLER* are folks that I think *are* in the know regarding monitors ... 

I know. I was a little surprised.

The data was all there. Reading comprehension: "at 15khz". Next were the tab menu shots. Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

So kind of you to criticize the reading comprehension of the people who commented on your claim as well as mine. But really I don't think it's so much a comprehension problem as it is a failure to communicate effectively, followed by abandoning the thread for a surprisingly long time.

Possibly on the first, no on the latter. I was gone two days. Ooooooo. Anyways, don't take things personal.

Oi, saint -- where is the bloody :tommy smiley when I need it?

gene -- for the love of all things holy, can you keep you keep it in your pants for a change and stop hijacking thread after thread to push your love of LCDs and your disdain for CRTs ?

If you keep whipping it out and being ridiculous, people are going to go back to stepping on it and, as I recall, you didn't like that much.

In the case of vector graphics, vector monitor (e.g. CRT) >>>> anything else, regardless of how many times you mention 120Hz refresh rates.

Hahahahahahah. However, though it may've been mere coincidence, the Shouter appeared right after your last words. ..........


I just use 'BLANK' for a screen saver....but that'd probly confuse people. They'd think it was off or something was wrong with it.

[DJ_Izumi]

I had a friend once, his father gave him second hand, he flat out could not figure out why his computer would blue screen when he wasn't looking at it.  He dismantled it, swapped RAM and components, opened the case and pointed a fan at it.

Turns out his dad had a BSOD screen saver enabled.

[genesim]

isucamper your reply is dissapointing, I thought you were better then that.

If you don't think I have posted facts...cool by me.

So lets review, LCD does not refresh faster then the human eye, CRT Phosphers do not produce an after glow, CRT and Plasma's are not more prone to burn in , and of course I was the one that first mentioned LCD's and it was me that "hijacked" the thread.

Sorry, I guess I have posted nothing but lies, no facts at all...and it really hurts that I have been exposed for this. 

[Jack Burton]

*thread derail

The whole CRT refreshing faster than the human eye at 60 seems bogus to me.  If that were true then their would be no way for me to tell the difference between 60 and 120 when looking at a static desktop, and I can definitely tell a difference. 

[genesim]

So I guess you can also see the frame shutter on a 24 frames per second movie too?   

What the human mind can "detect" is a hell of alot different from what the human eye can consisently see.   But hey, keep telling yourself that.

Of course lets ignore the blatant problem with a refresh rate that isn't an even divisor...like a 24 frame film only showing part of a frame every refresh on a 60hz display.    This is much more likely the thing you "see"...same with video games.   A non native resolution will obviously have tearing problems unless software is applied. 

The human mind can detect something inconsistent, not the same as actually "seeing".   Only after minutes of data streamed to your head do you truly put it together.

A divisor....heck no.   You will never truly see the difference.   

[isucamper]

I made a new thread in the monitor area so we could debate the whole LCD blur thing without bothering everyone else.

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=92950.0

[TheShanMan]

The data was all there. Reading comprehension: "at 15khz". Next were the tab menu shots. Admittedly, the title was a slight melodramatic, but those in the know regarding monitors and all should've understood the sentence.

So kind of you to criticize the reading comprehension of the people who commented on your claim as well as mine. But really I don't think it's so much a comprehension problem as it is a failure to communicate effectively, followed by abandoning the thread for a surprisingly long time.

Possibly on the first, no on the latter. I was gone two days. Ooooooo. Anyways, don't take things personal.

Actually, yes. It's the fact that you started a thread with essentially no body other than pictures and then left for 2 days. The 2 days seems much more like abandonment in that case. Don't worry - I learned a long time ago to not take things personally on internet boards. But at the same time, when you treat people like that, you're not exactly making friends.

[Ummon]

..........     Heheheheheheheh. Okay, Shan. It does come to mind that, in an odd manner, there is perhaps some comfort in the fact that pictures alone weren't enough to satisfy.....oh hell, that's just sounding BAD - HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH.

[genesim]

The debate didn't go well.  Some people can't take it.   Goodbye all, there is no future here, I hope I am banned.

[quot]I'm at work so I'm going to make this short:

This is a hobby for me. It comes after my work, family, and personal life. I like to think this site is my way of giving something back to the Internet for everything I get out of it. You asked why I hadn't stepped in earlier to settle what is essentially a bunch of personal squabbles. It's because this hobby is not first, second, or even third priority in my life. If something here is enough of a problem that it interferes with my work or home life then it needs to be dealt with quickly and be done with. Note I'm writing this from work now.

I tend to leave these situations alone and expect people to work things out like adults. If I have to step in it usually means someone probably needs to be banned permanently. Note that weekend ban I put on you wasn't a ban like that - it was because I was going out of town and didn't want things exploding in my absence.

I don't allow personal feelings to dictate my permanent bans. You may see that there have been a few people who have been critical of or even downright nasty to me and how I run things that haven't been banned. I really do try to use the posted rules as my guidelines. You don't have to like me to be a member here - you just have to not cause me more problems than having you here is worth.

If one of my users is having problems with many of my users, the most logical conclusion is the problem is with the one user. It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not or if you think it's fair or not, the easiest solution is to remove the one user. I don't want to do that but it is my next step if this one doesn't help.

Going forward I want you to not get into arguments with other users. No sarcasm, pot shots, name calling, insulting intelligence, etc. If you think they're taking personal potshots at you blow it off. It'll take a while before people forget about this and start treating you like anyone else. You probably should avoid the monitor threads but if you think you can participate in them and not get into it with anyone feel free.

This forum is basically an extension of my home. You're welcome here as a guest in my home if you're willing to abide by the few rules I've set for the forum and the way I choose to enforce them. I think we have a pretty good community here, and frankly I was interested in your input in the LCD/CRT threads until they got nasty. I don't know that I agreed with you but I was interested in the discussion.

If you can't abide by the above then BYOAC isn't the place for you. There are other communities out there that may suit you better. If you can abide by the above then you're more than welcome to stay here. The choice, ultimately, is up to you.

--- saint[/quote]

Sorry, I am not playing the game.   This is unfair and I won't abide by "special" rules.   

[genesim]

I'm at work so I'm going to make this short:

This is a hobby for me. It comes after my work, family, and personal life. I like to think this site is my way of giving something back to the Internet for everything I get out of it. You asked why I hadn't stepped in earlier to settle what is essentially a bunch of personal squabbles. It's because this hobby is not first, second, or even third priority in my life. If something here is enough of a problem that it interferes with my work or home life then it needs to be dealt with quickly and be done with. Note I'm writing this from work now.

I tend to leave these situations alone and expect people to work things out like adults. If I have to step in it usually means someone probably needs to be banned permanently. Note that weekend ban I put on you wasn't a ban like that - it was because I was going out of town and didn't want things exploding in my absence.

I don't allow personal feelings to dictate my permanent bans. You may see that there have been a few people who have been critical of or even downright nasty to me and how I run things that haven't been banned. I really do try to use the posted rules as my guidelines. You don't have to like me to be a member here - you just have to not cause me more problems than having you here is worth.

If one of my users is having problems with many of my users, the most logical conclusion is the problem is with the one user. It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not or if you think it's fair or not, the easiest solution is to remove the one user. I don't want to do that but it is my next step if this one doesn't help.

Going forward I want you to not get into arguments with other users. No sarcasm, pot shots, name calling, insulting intelligence, etc. If you think they're taking personal potshots at you blow it off. It'll take a while before people forget about this and start treating you like anyone else. You probably should avoid the monitor threads but if you think you can participate in them and not get into it with anyone feel free.

This forum is basically an extension of my home. You're welcome here as a guest in my home if you're willing to abide by the few rules I've set for the forum and the way I choose to enforce them. I think we have a pretty good community here, and frankly I was interested in your input in the LCD/CRT threads until they got nasty. I don't know that I agreed with you but I was interested in the discussion.

If you can't abide by the above then BYOAC isn't the place for you. There are other communities out there that may suit you better. If you can abide by the above then you're more than welcome to stay here. The choice, ultimately, is up to you.

--- saint

I hope I get banned because anyone with a brain can see how unfair this is.   To the idiots F U 2!  There is no future being a member here!

p.s.  Posted twice since I can't edit for God knows why!

[genesim]

For the record I did abide and I sent pm the problem STARTED.

IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE.  Not one answer till this stupid PM condemning me.

Then you got jackasssses lik Cheffo and Hoopz who straight up lie saying I talked about the handicaps of kids???  LOW LIFE SCUM BUCKETS.   

Threaten me...I GET BANNED? 

I hate doing this, but it must be told.    Watch what they have done to others for proof.

[Ginsu Victim]

Why the ---fudgesicle--- are you cross-posting this?

[CheffoJeffo]

Then you got jackasssses lik Cheffo and Hoopz who straight up lie saying I talked about the handicaps of kids???  LOW LIFE SCUM BUCKETS.   

Gene -- why don't you sober up a bit before posting ?

I voluntarily left you alone, hoping that we could more of your interesting ideas and less of you being incorrect and insulting.

Are you *really* looking to pick fights with everybody who ever disagreed with you ? That line is getting longer by the minute and I'm not sure you have the stamina.

I not even sure that you have the stamina to make it through this current pathetic attempt at a flameout.

Lame.

[Hoopz]

Why the ---fudgesicle--- are you cross-posting this?

Cross posting or cross dressing?   

Seriously, it'd be fun to watch Genesim and Maximrecoil get into it.  Or Howard and Genesim.  It's like two great, ah interesting, sports teams that never play each other.  You're always wondering how things would go.....

[Hoopz]

Then you got jackasssses lik Cheffo and Hoopz who straight up lie saying I talked about the handicaps of kids???  LOW LIFE SCUM BUCKETS.   

You probably need to pay attention to the rules too.  You're not supposed to try and avoid the auto-censor as this is supposed to be a family friendly sight.  I realize your spelling skills are poor, but surely you realize that there aren't that many S's in jackass?  Notice how the auto-censor handles jackass?  Have you had a chance to read the rules?  I can post them if you like or show you how to find them.   

And yes I do realize that I don't need the apostrophe in "S's".  It's just something I did to show plural not possessive.  Don't try and grammar me to death, old buddy. 

 

[Hoopz]

And how come you posted it twice?  I realize you totally fubar'd the quote, but why not just go back in and edit the code?  It's not rocket (or dna) science!

 

[saint]

Per Gene's request his account will be deleted (actually in these cases I just institute a complete ban. If people really want to delete their account there is a delete button). I don't normally do this (think this is a first?) but since he posted my PM to him and subsequently has posted something along the lines of believing he'll be banned, I thought it prudent to do so:

Delete my account now.  Forget you and this board.

I held my tongue on the reply you made to me, but you have no concept of fair.   I will not have people lying on me and starting trouble with no policing from a worthless moderator.   

I have been totally treated unfair and you sit back on your butt and do nothing.

You say you are giving back to the community..take a good look.  You obviously pander to the majority and have no idea how detrimental that can be.   Enjoy your screwed up board, and I demand all accounts be wiped.

You say that this is not your first interest..obviously..not your second not your 3rd..not your tenth.   I suggest you retire and get someone real that knows how to moderate.   

You had trouble in the past with others....gee why?  Ever ask yourself that??   This has probably been said to you before.

So goodbye and I mean it, take out my account.  genesim does not want to exist anymore..you got your wish.

I regret it did not work out for Gene here.

--- saint

[CheffoJeffo]

 

[Malenko]

whats so unfair about the PM you sent him? sounds like the rules that I abide by everyday. 

[Ginsu Victim]

whats so unfair about the PM you sent him? sounds like the rules that I abide by everyday. 

Aside from the poll from the other day....   

[ChadTower]

He got way more chances here than he would have at most other forums, that's for sure.

[Ginsu Victim]

Wow, his number of ignores went up by two since the ban!

[DJ_Izumi]

All right!  We can talk about monitors with some sense of objectiveness and practical considderations agian!

[SirPeale]

For the record, I agree with Saint; if many people have a problem with one person, guess what?  It's that one that's the problem.  Take a look in the mirror.  You may not like what you see.

[HaRuMaN]

whats so unfair about the PM you sent him? sounds like the rules that I abide by everyday. 

Aside from the poll from the other day....   

Hey, I voted for Tommy / Hemi in that poll... 

[Ginsu Victim]

Then you voted OTHER, since they weren't listed. There was a time when Hemi would've got my vote, that's for sure, but we can't have polls like that.

[FrizzleFried]

Gene WHO?

[Jack Burton]

Oh happy day!

Now, perhaps a topic relevant post is in order.

Vectors on a 15khz monitor....hmmm.

Well, Ummon has pushed his monitor to the limit by using the extended resolution of 16.5.  He says this makes his vectors look better.  Why is this?

Well, for the uninformed, Vector monitors don't draw graphics like a regular monitor, which is side to side in lines of pixels.  That is called a raster monitor by the way.  They instead draw them straight from point to point.  At least that is my  understanding.

What does this mean?  It means that Vector graphics will appear very smooth and very bright.  There should be no visible "scanlines".  When Vector games are played through an emulator on a raster monitor they will be visible, and the image will be dim, and pixelated compared to a vector monitor.  What is the solution to this?  To try to remove as much interlacing and scanlines as possible.  Higher resolutions are the solution. 

This is what Ummon has done here.  He has pushed his monitor the highest resolution possible for the best Vector emulating effects. 

Well, that was my quick summary.  I'm sure someone else can do better, but I do think it should be added to the beginning of the thread for those who are not in the know and would like to know what is going on here.  Perhaps a new thread Ummon, and retire this corrupted one?

[Level42]

I never really liked Kiss anyway.....

[Xiaou2]

While Im not exactly unhappy that Genes moved on...

 "if many people have a problem with one person, guess what?  It's that one that's the problem.  Take a look in the mirror.  You may not like what you see."

 This statement is not necessarily truth.

 The Nazi party was quite Huge... and the few within their own countries that disagreed
were not the problem.

 Just as the majority of people thought the Earth was flat... and woah... They were
wrong too.

 We can see entire countries fighting endlessly with each other.  Perpetual hate and
revenge that continues to get passed down....  and yet, the few who can see past
this are Not the problem.

=====
 
 Btw Jack,  are you really so certain about that?  A scanline travels at split second
rates.  It appears that only a high speed shutter can capture the drawing process...
where as the eye can not clearly see it.

 (Exception,  ((If Im understanding things correctly))  : If the dot pitch of the monitor is much higher than the games resolutional size...  the graphics will be spaced apart
to spread the image.  There then will be larger spaces of emptiness that is visible) 

 I think many people mistake the Scanline effect for the actual Shadowmask itself.  The mask being actual Dark lines in between the phosphors themselves.   The older the monitor... the thicker the mask is... thus the more visible it is.

 Black and White vectors are the brightest... as they have no shadowmask.

 I think color vectors do actually have a shadowmask.  The main difference with them,
vs a typical crt, is the way in which the drawing takes place. (as you stated)

 Hmmm:  WikiPedia entry:

 =====

Vector displays or vector monitors is a display device used for early computers. It is a type of CRT similar to the oscilloscope but typically using magnetic, rather than electrostatic, deflection.[citation needed] Here, the beam traces straight lines between arbitrary points, repeatedly refreshing the display as quickly as possible.

Vector displays for computers did not noticeably suffer from the display artifacts of Aliasing and pixelation, but were limited in that they could display only a shape's outline (advanced vector systems could provide a limited amount of shading), and only a limited amount of crudely-drawn text (the number of shapes and/or textual characters drawn was severely limited, because the speed of refresh was roughly inversely proportional to how many vectors needed to be drawn).

Vector displays were used for head-up displays in fighter aircraft, because of the brighter displays that can be achieved by moving the electron beam more slowly across the phosphorus. Brightness is critical in this application because the display must be clearly visible to the pilot in direct sunlight.

Vector monitors were also used by some late-1970s to mid-1980s arcade games such as Asteroids.[1] Atari used the term Quadrascan to describe the technology when used in their games.

[edit] Color displays

Some vector monitors are capable of displaying multiple colors, using either a typical tri-color CRT, or two phosphor layers (so-called "penetration color").[citation needed] In these dual-layer tubes, by controlling the strength of the electron beam, electrons could be made to reach (and illuminate) either or both phosphor layers, typically producing a choice of green, orange, or red. Atari used the term Color Quadrascan to describe this colour version when used in their games.

[edit] References

   1. ^ Van Burnham (2001). Supercade: A Visual History of the Videogame Age, 1971-1984. MIT Press. ISBN 0262524201.

======

  Mame AFAIK, does not draw vectors in the same way as a real vector monitor.  It
would be interesting to see how it would effect the look of the picture if they did.
Obviously, it still wouldnt look anything like a true vector on a modern crt... but I do
wonder if there would be a noticeable difference...

[SirPeale]

The Nazi party was quite Huge... and the few within their own countries that disagreed
were not the problem.

And hence the argument is now over.  Thank you, Xiaou2.

[DJ_Izumi]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that there is no way for MAME to actually work with a real vector monitor.  The entire design of PC graphics from the ground up is built around the raster graphics idea.  Everything from the way the software stores the data to how the graphics card puts it out is entirely incompatable with a vector monitor.

I suppose you could come up with some crazy customized version of MAME and maybe there's some vector graphics cards out there but that'd require some serious ninjaing.  Failing that however, your vector games will be rastered.  Looking for the best presentation as accurate replication is impossible then is the way to go.  While it's true that a vector monitor would be the best way, the only practical way to get this would be to own the real machine.

However so long as you have FUN with the game and can enjoy it, that's what counts, right?

[CheffoJeffo]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that there is no way for MAME to actually work with a real vector monitor.  The entire design of PC graphics from the ground up is built around the raster graphics idea.  Everything from the way the software stores the data to how the graphics card puts it out is entirely incompatable with a vector monitor.

I suppose you could come up with some crazy customized version of MAME and maybe there's some vector graphics cards out there but that'd require some serious ninjaing.  Failing that however, your vector games will be rastered.  Looking for the best presentation as accurate replication is impossible then is the way to go.  While it's true that a vector monitor would be the best way, the only practical way to get this would be to own the real machine.

Like, say, VectorMAME driving a Zektor ZVG card ?

 

[Xiaou2]

 Where there is a will, there is a way.  Mame probably 'Could'  have a 'switch' to enable true
vector output.  However, that is very unlikely to happen.

 What I was stating... is that mame emulate the way in which a vector
draws.   A vector monitor drawing is kinda like a  'Plotter'  or a  CNC Router.

 They draw a pathway,  in a single complete Pathway.. and lift the pen/router up on
the way to the next coordinate.   If you turn up the Vector monitors voltage, you can see the entire line pathway, if I recall correctly.

 This could be simulated using raster graphics.  However, not sure if its really
worth it...because the timing may be too slow to really create any visible effect. Not sure.

 It also would probably kick up the needed horsepower required to run the vector games.
Not sure...


 For a separate emulator like AAE, it may prove to be much better doing it in a
"Vector Path" way... because then vector 'effects' could be better controlled.  As it stands... trying to use a raster picture with filters does not lead to realistic representations of a true vector monitor.

[DJ_Izumi]

Zektor ZVG card

*Googles*  Wow... Printer port.  Not how I thought such a thing would work, but yeah.  Though I imagine few go this far as there are so many raster games they'd wanna play in their cab.  But that look s pretty neat for getting as close to the real deal as possible. o.O

[Ummon]

I'll restate....or whatever....what I was showing there and all: if you have a 15khz raster CRT, and wish to have decent vector display, or vector display at all, without having to use interlace....then Advancemame is the ticket. Regular mame produces immense overscan when displaying such games at or near their 'native resolution'. I don't know why. I also don't know how Advancemame gets around this.

For the record, my favorite configuration for vector games...especially for Tempest....is mame before the re-write, at XGA or SXGA, and fullscreen brightness at 1.5 . The vector lines are a little thicker, but on my monitors it produces the brightest, as well as thickest, 'glow'. (Newer mame is sharper, but can't match the luminosity....plus, the stars are, um, weird.)

However, there is something, brightness-wise, to be said for vectors (or even raster games - particularly when using scanline effects on a 25" or above CRT, or using a PC CRT) at VGA. And as Advancemame, for some odd reason, displays vectors rather dimly at higher resolutions (even with the intensity up, it about matches pre-re-write mame at stock settings), I let it select a 31khz mode.

Incidentally, I always remembered some kind of 'scan lines' on Tempest. I think RayB said this was due to the shadow mask, but they are there, as I saw a couple years ago on a local machine.

[Jack Burton]

Color vectors use shadow masks?  Fascinating.  But I should have suspected as much. 

I have only ever seen a few Vector monitors, and that was well before I was informed of their nature and would remember the differences. 

The only Vector monitor I have seen recently was in the form of a very little Vectrex console with had to be a 8 or 9" screen.  The graphics in Asteroids were quite startling to me though in their brightness and smoothness.  I'm guessing since it was a black and white CRT that there was no shadow mask.  I can very much see how someone would want to emulate that look if they could.

[Xiaou2]

Incidentally, I always remembered some kind of 'scan lines' on Tempest. I think RayB said this was due to the shadow mask, but they are there, as I saw a couple years ago on a local machine.

 *Slaps Head*      

 Scan Lines are kinda formed from drawing each Line in rows.  (simplified)
These are not present on vector monitors, because vectors can start drawing anywhere on the screen, and follow a  shape  'pathway'.    NOT a Uniform row or column. 

 A vector monitor does not make a picture out of individual pixels/dots.  It would draw a
square in 4 movements.  Not 20 pixels from left to right, top to bottom.. such as a raster
monitor would.

 The lines you see "ARE" the Shadowmask lines.  The mask is a grill that holds the
individual color phosphors.   The black and white vector needs no mask, as the entire
monitor is simply coated in a single phosphor that glows white when excited.
 

[Level42]

Which shows that a lot of people simply don't understand how a vector monitor really works and that that is why it is impossible to recreate the look on anything other than a CRT.

I bet Genesim hadn't even ever SEEN a real vector.

What Xiaou2 says is correct. The fact that it doesn't create a raster gives a vector monitor it's impressive picture. A raster monitor scans each and every dot on the screen. Even if it gets the signal "completely dark" there is a very small signal which does light up the phosphor just a little bit.

On a vector that doesn't happen because the beam NEVER touches the phosphor where it is not steered over (that it, except for the "retrace" lines (the parts where the beam moves but is "turned off").

Because of the extremely dark picture where there's nothing on the screen compared to a raster monitor, vectors have a much more bright looking picture. This is further enhanced by either  slowing the beam down or drawing the same line quickly a couple of times. This makes that a vector has much more _contrast_ than a raster.

However, the CRT's used in a vector are _THE SAME_ as CRT's in a raster monitor. So yes, of course does a color vector have a shadow mask. How else would it be able to separate the colors ?

This also explains why a b/w vector looks more impressive than a color (IMHO). There's no shadow mask. It really looks very much like an oscilloscope.

Here is an excellent explanation by Jed Margolin, one of the creator's of games like Star Wars:

http://jedmargolin.com/xy/xymon.htm

[RandyT]

Because of the extremely dark picture where there's nothing on the screen compared to a raster monitor, vectors have a much more bright looking picture. This is further enhanced by either  slowing the beam down or drawing the same line quickly a couple of times. This makes that a vector has much more _contrast_ than a raster.

Not exactly.  A raster beam is never more than a dot...never.  When that dot needs to be in all possible places on a screen in a small fraction of a second, such as with a standard scanning display, this reduces the amount of time it can be in any one place at any given time, which reduces the duty cycle and limits brightness.   Vector monitors, on the other hand, simply paint the graphics with the raster.  This means it can spend more time energizing the phosphors and thus they glow brighter.

However, the CRT's used in a vector are _THE SAME_ as CRT's in a raster monitor. So yes, of course does a color vector have a shadow mask. How else would it be able to separate the colors ?

Don't forget "quadrascan" vector monitors.  Supposedly, there were two layers of phosphor on the things so you could get another color by pumping more energy into the phosphor and penetrating the first layer so the second would glow as well.

RandyT

[Bluedeath]

This is hard to keep up!   What is the advantage of LED backlight?

led back light can be zoned so you don't have light in the black areas, normal LCD backlight is a simple arrays of small fluorescent tubes. even the best LCD panel will allow a small percentage of light filters trough it, plus LED elements have a lifespan grater than fluorescent tubes.

But as Eldon Tyrrel would say "all of this is academic"

[Level42]

Because of the extremely dark picture where there's nothing on the screen compared to a raster monitor, vectors have a much more bright looking picture. This is further enhanced by either  slowing the beam down or drawing the same line quickly a couple of times. This makes that a vector has much more _contrast_ than a raster.

Not exactly.  A raster beam is never more than a dot...never.  When that dot needs to be in all possible places on a screen in a small fraction of a second, such as with a standard scanning display, this reduces the amount of time it can be in any one place at any given time, which reduces the duty cycle and limits brightness.   Vector monitors, on the other hand, simply paint the graphics with the raster.  This means it can spend more time energizing the phosphors and thus they glow brighter.

But........that is _exactly_ what I wrote 

Don't forget "quadrascan" vector monitors.  Supposedly, there were two layers of phosphor on the things so you could get another color by pumping more energy into the phosphor and penetrating the first layer so the second would glow as well.

Quadrascan was simply the name that Atari used for XY monitors (B/W and color). Because they were writing the "four quadrants" of the screen.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/ARCADE/S-Z/Wells%20Gardner%20Quadrascan%20%5BSpare%20Part%20List%5D%20%5BEnglish%5D.pdf

If those monitors with two phosphor layers existed, on which games were they used ?

[Edit]OK those kind of CRT's existed when they started to experiment with color TV and later they were used in avionics, but I really don't know about any games using it ?
Here's some technical info, it's called Penetron (sounds like something completely different..... ):
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Penetron

I think these tubes were probably more expensive than a regular color CRT and limited in color use. At least, the WG6100 and Amplifone's didn't use them. Of course, the Amplifone is mid-res, but it's still a regular CRT (the same CRT has been used in mid-res raster games).

[Ummon]

Incidentally, I always remembered some kind of 'scan lines' on Tempest. I think RayB said this was due to the shadow mask, but they are there, as I saw a couple years ago on a local machine.

 *Slaps Head*     

 Scan Lines are kinda formed from drawing each Line in rows.  (simplified)
These are not present on vector monitors, because vectors can start drawing anywhere on the screen, and follow a  shape  'pathway'.    NOT a Uniform row or column. 

 A vector monitor does not make a picture out of individual pixels/dots.  It would draw a
square in 4 movements.  Not 20 pixels from left to right, top to bottom.. such as a raster
monitor would.

 The lines you see "ARE" the Shadowmask lines.  The mask is a grill that holds the
individual color phosphors.   The black and white vector needs no mask, as the entire
monitor is simply coated in a single phosphor that glows white when excited.
 

I think you misunderstood that I was saying I saw something that seemed similar in appearance.

[RandyT]

But........that is _exactly_ what I wrote 

Well, not really.  Even if the vector display had phosphor so light in color that it approximated the worst raster scanning CRT in the black areas, the vector display would still far outshine it in brightness in the areas where graphics were displayed.  Your explanation seemed to focus on this difference between the bright and dark areas as being the primary reason for the enhanced display characteristics, when it is almost 100% due to the reasons I outlined.  That is why I stated "not exactly", instead of "incorrect".  Also, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that they "slow the gun".  Doing so would cause terrible flicker on everything that wasn't bright, and they were constantly battling this as more objects were placed on screen.  It's far more likely that the entire screen refreshed at a constant time-base, with brighter objects simply getting more power from the gun(s).  The reason brighter objects flicker less at the same refresh rate is because the long persistence phosphor ( the reason everything had a "trail") glows longer when blasted with more electrons.

Quadrascan was simply the name that Atari used for XY monitors (B/W and color). Because they were writing the "four quadrants" of the screen.

Then the wiki is wrong.  You should probably correct it if you know better.

Color displays

Some vector monitors are capable of displaying multiple colors, using either a typical tri-color CRT, or two phosphor layers (so-called "penetration color").[citation needed] In these dual-layer tubes, by controlling the strength of the electron beam, electrons could be made to reach (and illuminate) either or both phosphor layers, typically producing a choice of green, orange, or red. Atari used the term Color Quadrascan to describe this colour version when used in their games.

RandyT

[CheffoJeffo]

Atari used the term QuadraScan to refer to their vector monitors in general -- to my knowledge, the term QuadraScan has nothing to do with dual-layer phosphors (as evidenced by the fact that they refer to their BW vectors the same way). A quick reading of the memo to ops for the WG Color QuadraScan confirms that it uses three beams.

The particular reference that RandyT cites is WikiPedia, not the BYOAC wiki, and is written poorly enough that it seems to imply something that I don't think is true.

My understanding of the dual-layer phosphor (and I can't recall where I read about it) is that it was limited in terms of the number of colours that could be produced (which would make sense since there are only two layers, hence only two colours to blend).

[RandyT]

My understanding of the dual-layer phosphor (and I can't recall where I read about it) is that it was limited in terms of the number of colours that could be produced (which would make sense since there are only two layers, hence only two colours to blend).

Like I said, someone should change that Wiki if they know better.  The odd thing is that this is not the only reference I found stating this while digging, so it may be a wider misconception.

Also keep in mind that this could still produce quite a few colors.  The guns are analog, so a number of variations of green, yellow, orange and red could be produced with only two colors.  But no blues or violets without a third color.  So looking at it from that perspective, and unless Atari shifted gears somewhere, it doesn't seem likely that this is accurate.

Could be that someone just assumed it was different because of the different name and that the "quadra" came from X, Y and 2 levels of Z (Quad=4)

[Ummon]

Like I said, someone should change that Wiki if they know better. 

That's why relative to here I say 'the wiki', but for Wikipedia say 'Wiki', no 'the'.