You too can do KILLER vectors at 15khz!!

[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.