Will the arcade monitor die out? Will it soon be impossible to get hold of a new one (especially low-res ones)?
My hope is that SED technology (or something similar) will be practical by the time CRTs are completely gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
My hope is that SED technology will be practical by the time CRTs are completely gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
I heard this week that Best Buy no longer carries CRT's (USA). I guess CRT's will slowly disappear.
.
It's a shame, but we will witness the end of the CRT over the next 10 years.
There is another possibility (for emulation) which is software. I imagine there will be a point where one can just apply a 'filter' that accurately recreates the exact softness/scanlines/etc of a CGA arcade monitor using a high resolution display. Of course this doesn't help those with actual arcade cabinets. :'(
This is incorrect. Best Buy is no longer carrying TV sets with analog tuners. All sets they sell now will have digital tuners specifically for digital cable. These sets will not have any inputs for analog signals at all.
That's the rub though. In order to obtain accurate representation of a CGA arcade monitor by filtering, the display resolution would have to be much much denser then what we can conceive of at this time. To tell you the truth, I don't think we'll ever reach that point for a variety of reasons.
what's a CRT :dunno
Cheap CRT TVs should still be available for years to come, although they will one day disappear.
I recently picked up an old TV from my brother-in-law. It was useless to them as the tuner was busted, but I want to try an experiment on it: connect the sync from the pc to an AV input, and wire in the RGB signal straight to the back of the tube. I'll share any findings. If it works, then you can have a genuine arcade monitor for as long as you can get a CRT TV.
Pixel Shaders will come save us
Good riddance to CRT.
Higher resolution is a good thing, not bad.
I've said it before, I've yet to see an arcade cab that uses a widescreen picture, whether pc monitor or TV (CRT or LCD). But the day will surely come...
Its amazing how people forget how vector graphics came and went.
Vector graphics have not came and went, only the vector monitors. Vector development have continued on to be refined and improved.
Good riddance to CRT.
I'll miss CRT for an arcade monitor when they are gone. An arcade game on a CGA CRT is the authentic way to view these old, classic games, and it will be a sad day when that is no longer possible.
LCD is an improvement in almost every way. Great technology and as artifact stated...it is only getting better. Higher resolution is a good thing, not bad.
Higher resolution is a good thing, not bad.
I know I'm potentially opening a can of worms here, disagreeing with genesim on this topic ;D, but:
Genesim, I have nothing wrong with higher res when I want higher res. Like when using Windows. But when I want to play a classic arcade game, higher res just makes the game look too sharp, and I prefer the lower res blurry pic in all its imperfections. And so would most gamers here, I'd say...
(post #300 for me :))
I definitely don't see current LCDs running 18 hours a day for years at a time.
Vector graphics have not came and went, only the vector monitors. Vector development have continued on to be refined and improved.Could you elaborate on what projects you're referring to here?
I definitely don't see current LCDs running 18 hours a day for years at a time.
Fair enough :cheers:
How about every single 3D video card on the market? Every 3D video game? Every 3D software? Every vector graphics file in use by architects, artists, engineers, etc?
Barring the backlight burning out, what's the estimated life expectency of your average LCD screen? I've spotted a few "industrial" LCD screens here and there and I imagine their life expectency isn't all that different from your average home consumer model.
Strip out the raster and what do you have left? You're still adopting a point to point system to a line by line system.
Strip out the raster and what do you have left? You're still adopting a point to point system to a line by line system.
Right. They are the same in the end product in that they are both based on lines. So is everything, really... if you want to break it down everything visual is basic geometry. That doesn't make the design process similar by any means. It's a vastly different process to do the math yourself for an X-y wireframe presentation than it is to design an object in an IDE and have a processing engine render that object for you. The divergence between the type of effort required is so early that it is hard to say they are anything alike.
Actually I'm looking at the beginning too. I'm looking at what I have to do to design a vector game vs what I have to do to design a raster game... the whole approach I'd take diverges pretty heavily before I even got to the keyboard.
Vector graphics have not came and went, only the vector monitors. Vector development have continued on to be refined and improved.
What point are you trying to compare? It seems to me that you're comparing a process from 1980 to one used today. I'm trying to tell you that the modern techniques has evolved from the 1980's techniques.
Using a different tool doesn't change what lies underneath.
QuoteUsing a different tool doesn't change what lies underneath.
No, it doesn't, but it completely changes the way you get there, and what skills you need to do it. Today's developers are a completely different breed from those in 1985.
Auditing someone elses code just downright sucks.
Ever try writing vector display code? I did a little stuff for the Vectrex a while back and it took forever just to get it to write my damn name on the screen. :laugh2:
I've said it before, I've yet to see an arcade cab that uses a widescreen picture, whether pc monitor or TV (CRT or LCD). But the day will surely come...
Pixel Shaders will come save us
Surely there'll still be a problem with matching the low refresh rates though?
as long as we get HIGH DENSITY (~200+ DPI) LCD (and OLED, etc) displays, and actually FAST rate, the "right coders" will be able to create a (set of) pixel shaders and geometry shaders that could exactly emulate all of these analog behaviors - including the low refresh rates
... again I am absolutely puzzled at how the mamedev guys are using D3D today... D3D gets a bad name for it but in fact it IS possible to get as good a result as they have reached with their old DDRAW implementation... "going OpenGL" (as I've seen mentioned a few times as a solution) ain't going to fix the way their scaling/blur looks... D3D can do a lot better.
Ahh, the good old analog/digital debate...
Currently, LCDs don't hold a candle to CRTs for purity and contrast.
I've also yet to see a curved LCD screen...
Here's a screenshot of what Pacman on an LCD would look like after a few weeks at that rate.
It's sad when it takes a "reality engine" to faithfully reproduce something originally done on the equivalent of a 1mhz 8-bit C-64.
RandyT
Digital refers to digital transmission and digital storage. Any screen technology is still analog.
as long as we get HIGH DENSITY (~200+ DPI) LCD (and OLED, etc) displays, and actually FAST rate, the "right coders" will be able to create a (set of) pixel shaders and geometry shaders that could exactly emulate all of these analog behaviors - including the low refresh rates
We have been through this a hundred times. Very nice results have already happened as I have shown you with screen shots. There is virtually no difference between a CRT and LCD when multiple pixel technology is used.
Furthermore, it wasn't me "saying it", I took the pictures and the results were obvious.
On a side note, as if an isolated instant is indicative of the whole.
For every LCD that supposedly went so bad, there are CRTS that are complete junk and are filling up the landfills as we speak.
CRT's have serious problems that anyone going to the arcade of old could see in just a few months. Burn in is real.
Burn in is real.
CRT love is a religion that is hard to reason with. Most just like it...because they like it, and no amount of tech talk will convince otherwise.
So the total absence of glare is all to do with a COATING as opposed to the very nature of the technology which uses individual lit pixels vs a projection??
get out of the 80's.
Randy T is saying that the light from the CRT Tube is not just that?
It is not being projected?
He is as wrong as Chad Tower??
Here people, try this link...and also look around for info about Randy T saying that pixels on an LCD aren't indivdually lit.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/03/20/how_crt_and_lcd_monitors_work/2
The only thing left is the fact that the resolution/dotpitch is not one to one. I know this, but yet I also know what I do get is drawn perfectly. Unlike a CRT which was never correct.
Genesim, please understand the distinction between authentic and correct.
to me the goal is to make people think you've got something 'authentic'.. and that means a big curved, bright, soft image CRT!
Its amazing how people forget how vector graphics came and went.
The problem is that every pixel that a programmer has made with the original code is congruent with each other.
i.e. Pacman has square pixels that are even in playing field no matter if moving left or right.
So as Pacman moves farther to the left or right, the pixel is different on a CRT monitor(even if miniscule), then the pixel in the middle.
This is the nature of a CRT display. This is not accurate to the original code.
Don't confuse intentions of the programmer, to simply compromising because it is all they had to work with.
So what if they came and went. So did tube-radio's, I still love them (AND their sound !)....
Nothing beats a tube-amp.
AND they are still in production :) !
QuoteGenesim, please understand the distinction between authentic and correct.
I do, I do.
The problem is that every pixel that a programmer has made with the original code is congruent with each other.
i.e. Pacman has square pixels that are even in playing field no matter if moving left or right.
So as Pacman moves farther to the left or right, the pixel is different on a CRT monitor(even if miniscule), then the pixel in the middle.
This is the nature of a CRT display. This is not accurate to the original code.
Don't confuse intentions of the programmer, to simply compromising because it is all they had to work with.
I can understand completely with wanting original design. Hell I like Mortal Kombat so much that I like the original Marquee in all its tackiness. Yet there have been cool designs that no doubt are very well done....but not the original.
So that is understandable. It is just when people say that LCD is incapable that I have a problem. In the end, there really isn't a right and wrong, just different perceptions. LCD's have their shortcomings, but at the same time CRT has its faults too...and thats right back to the original code. There are many examples of this, that I already described before.
While it is easy to say a programmer meant for this to be, in reality they worked with what they had.
Someone mentioned George Lucas and his changes. While I don't agree with all of them, I certaintly do agree that he made compromises in the beginning based on lack of hardware and money. I absolutely think the same is true with older games on crappy monitors.
As LCD's get cheaper and cheaper, and computers get faster and faster, this little arguement will be less and less relevant. Though instead of hording the older technology, maybe some people should take a hard look at the new possiblities. After all, how are we going to ever improve with ideas?
I know I have, because I am a serious gamer. Been there from PONG when I was little and been following every since.
Yes I hate things like Galaxian having aweful emulated sound. Yes I hate how the warez kiddies don't care about the history, but still a lot of great ideas have kept the older games alive.
I am not suggesting that quality be completely sacrficed...because if given a choice AND being able to play the maximum amount of games....yes I would go with a one to one relationship.
But for me, CRT's have too many drawbacks, and me being very very skeptical of LCD technology have been thoroughly blown away by the new trends.
Now, through all this, I am got some admissions. People want CRT's because it what they remember. That is fine, now that it is admitted. Perhaps new gamers can take something from that. It sure gives them a choice instead of saying "this is the only way".
syph007,
I feel your pain, and I don't know why LCD's aren't given the fullscreen treatment like they have with widescreen. Yet that 32 inch looks damn nice with its 21 inch height.Quoteto me the goal is to make people think you've got something 'authentic'.. and that means a big curved, bright, soft image CRT!
And that is your goal. I guess mine is for people to go wow...how many games can you play with that? Even new ones??? Even the whole frickin history of arcade/pc/cosole games...NICE!
I find it somewhat ironic that you can cite an authentic CRT from the exact period (which is what the game was specifically designed to run on) as "inaccurate" while you are running the game in an emulator on a PC.
I can think of more than a few who haven't and nothing (yet) compares to a real vector monitor. You might be surprised to learn how many folks there are here with authentic vector games and/or VectorMAME cabs (I was surprised at the number of VectorMAME cabs and I love vectors).
This is the nature of a CRT display. This is not accurate to the original code.
QuoteI find it somewhat ironic that you can cite an authentic CRT from the exact period (which is what the game was specifically designed to run on) as "inaccurate" while you are running the game in an emulator on a PC.
I say this with all honesty. I don't think you are reading all that I have wrote.
While it is easy to say a programmer meant for this to be, in reality they worked with what they had.
And that is your goal. I guess mine is for people to go wow...how many games can you play with that? Even new ones??? Even the whole frickin history of arcade/pc/cosole games...NICE!
I will give you the best example I can think of. Lets say a music artist records a demo. They tranfer the music from the original master tapes to a record. YET years later we go back to those original master tapes and use better equipment to pick up bits of sound that were never transferred to the metal record master. Would you say that records are the best, because that was how you originaly heard them, or perhaps would you enjoy the new sound that was picked up from the original master and understand this was better then even the people that bought the records back in the day could ever dream!
Q: Nice cabinet. How come the screen is so small?
A: With my budget, I had a choice between a good 20" LCD panel or a 27" Multi-Sync. I think LCD Panels are way better.
But this is my question: Is there some reason you think the latest games can't be played on a CRT monitor?
So your assumption is that the programmers worked with CRT because they had nothing better,
I did read everything -- and I still find it ironic that you use "accuracy" to the code (which you seem to have defined unilaterally) as a benchmark to judge the superior display technology, but disregard the accuracy issues involved with emulation on a PC and not using original hardware.
You have chosen an interesting windmill to tilt at -- a few microns of display distortion which are typically viewed from a distance (and will be perceived differently by everybody who views them, so is virtually impossible to actually assess in a meaningful fashion).
For me, the most important issue of accuracy with respect to a game like Pac Man is controls -- everything else is a distant second.
Oh ... and unless you are channeling Toru Itawani, then you might want to scale back your representations as to the intentions of the programmer or the code. Just a thought.
In your recording analogy you are correct that the new media (LCD in your analogy) would pick up more from the original analog master tapes (in your analogy I assume the master recording represents the code) and likely be a more accurate representation of the recording. The problem is music engineers of the time placed mikes and processed sound going into the master knowing what the limitations of the vinyl lp (CRT in your analogy) were.
RandyT's point has been that the programmers were like the recording engineers and would place pixels where given the limitations of the display would result in a more pleasing picture even if on graph paper this wouldn't have been your choice.
What you in fact have created is a situation where you get an accurate recording but not an accurate representation of the music that was played (ie., the vision of the artist). This is a fundamental point. You believe the former (i.e., the recording - the programming code) is the most important to be represented accurately whereas many others believe it is the latter (i.e., the music - the artists vision).
A good example is to look at the DVD version of Star Wars. During the final battle due to the extreme ability of the DVD media to display detail, you can now see matting (dark shaded boxes) around the x-wing fighters. To be sure it is a more accurate representation of the picture, but there is no way seeing this was George's intent even IF it were more accurate to what was captured on film.
These situations are why there are remasters on CD (for argument here I am only referring to stereo remasters and not remastering into 5.1 surround)...not because the original recording was bad, but because the choices made then to best represent the music on vinyl (here a CRT) are NOT the same choices you would make for a CD, DVD-A, SACD, etc (here LCD).
I imagine that when Star Wars is eventually released in some HD format, George will revisit the final battle in Star Wars as what was previously undetectable, now noticeable, will be unbearable and no longer represent the intent of George.
Cheffo Jeffo,QuoteI did read everything -- and I still find it ironic that you use "accuracy" to the code (which you seem to have defined unilaterally) as a benchmark to judge the superior display technology, but disregard the accuracy issues involved with emulation on a PC and not using original hardware.
Again, this is not true. I do not disregard accuracy issues involved with PC. I don't know where you got this at all?? I look at cost vs result. I know that MAME and other emulators aren't perfect, but there are very obvious reasons that I don't want all the original arcade boards.
QuoteOh ... and unless you are channeling Toru Itawani, then you might want to scale back your representations as to the intentions of the programmer or the code. Just a thought.
Why would I need to do that? It is obvious when using deductive reasoning. A.It is proven that he did not have LCD's available to him in the current model with the affordable price range and B. Each pixel was represented the same when moving across the board.
Good riddance to CRT.
In fact, by extension of that argument, wouldn't you also conclude that emulation on a high-end PC is more accurate, because the programmer didn't have one.
As for your point B, I *do* see your point (and now appreciate that it is a different argument than you made before about pixel shape) and understand that you are saying that you believe that a perfectly flat and equidistant representation is more a accurate representation of the theoretical constructs within the code.
We could argue that and, should you want to, I think that we would need to extend the concept to include the realization of the image to the brain, rather than leaving it at the display device. However, let's not ... it ain't making my top 10 list for deciding on a display technology.
good riddance to CRT
but relies on the initial premise (which, if not accurate or relevant, renders the result useless or at least questionable) and requires that you know the outcomes before any conclusion can be made.
... actually it reminds me of that former member and how he hated arcade cabinets ... hmmm ...
I didn't expect that ... I thought the only thing that was questionable in my post was saying that you call people sheep ... and you did.
I was trying to be rational and logical in the discussion and to present my objections/observations in a coherent and inoffensive manner. ...
..., although I do now see certain similarities between you.
The problem here is that you think because people don't agree with you, they don't understand your argument.
We all understand what you are saying just fine.
And if they had it to do over in the world of color, would the dress not be red, rather than gray? This is the purpose of re-mastering for new media. The clothing was grey because it carried better on the media for which it was destined.
Chadtower,
How is it arrogant and condescending if it is TRUE!
You assume that I haven't thought about it to great length, but yet post NO EVIDENCE.
And you call me a "belligerent Koolaid Man".
But let me take it a step further. Why do I want the original Gray....well first of all, I have no proof that the DIRECTOR(artist synonym) wanted that, because often what is in the original script is not what the director wants, and lastly I have no proof because I can't get inside the directors head. Doesn't matter what Director B did, because Director A is a completely different person. And like with any art media, there is no way to know what an "artist" will do. Even if the majority back then did that.
In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.
Again, current LCD technology does not correctly produce black levels or color,
Were talking about an attempt to recreate organic matter, or how we perceive organic matter, within a non-organic medium. It's not going to be perfect either way you look at it (no pun intended).
@ saint: One vote for re-killing this thread of misinformation and petty bickering...
You are too hung up on what you think original creators "may" have wanted.
You are the one who doesn't understand,
But what I do know is using the original master is a starting point. No wait...it is THE starting point. Accuracy to the original code is the most important thing with video games. The rest is secondary...because after all, without that..NO GAMES.
A pet peeve of mine: The vinyl/CD analogy is completely incorrect in this context as it is truly analog/digital. In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.
Accuracy to the original code is the most important thing with video games. The rest is secondary...because after all, without that..NO GAMES.
Furthermore, an new graphics engine can be transplanted into that game code, giving you all the hi-resolution, fantastic color and and round edges so befitting your LCD panel. But then, it just wouldn't be the same game you played in the arcade when you were ...? ... , any more than it is the same when the original graphics are viewed on an LCD panel.
OK, so would you concede that, for any game where the code was driving the monitor directly, that using an unauthentic display device is not accurate ?
I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times. More evidence of you not reading. And you wonder why I accuse you of this?
I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times. More evidence of you not reading. And you wonder why I accuse you of this?
I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times. More evidence of you not reading. And you wonder why I accuse you of this?
If you concede that, then why do you keep insisting on using 'accuracy' as your reasoning for using an LCD? You can't use it as an argument only when you find it convenient and ignore it when you don't.
QuoteAgain, current LCD technology does not correctly produce black levels or color,
Open for much debate. 5000:1 contrast ratio is beyond the human eye. CRT's are worse at color because of my examples. These aren't opinions. LCD's don't distort color in the same way.
QuoteIn this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.
Actually I was the one that brought this up on this thread.
But you are incorrect. CRT TV's use Analog connections with analog properties. LCD's use digital connections with digital properties...i.e. uniform pixels with no deflection.
A pet peeve of mine: The vinyl/CD analogy is completely incorrect in this context as it is truly analog/digital. In this realm, we're talking digital/digital as anubis correctly stated many many posts prior.
Not sure I agree with this. As Patent Doc stated, the mastering was done with the final medium fully in mind. Had the sound engineers been mastering for digital, they would very likely have made drastic alterations to their set-ups.
Really? When was the last time you played Pac-Man with the monitor off? ;)
Next thing, you'll be arguing that matching original resolution and pixel shape/size is a requirement for accuracy!
Whether CRTs use analog connections or not, they are still transmitting digital signal.
Point of fact, you can purchase a CRT with a digital input...
I agree engineers would have altered their technique if recording for digital. However, when discussing analog vs digital audio, another world opens outside of the LCD/CRT debate. Digital sound can only sample steps of an analog soundwave, thus missing full portions of the sound spectrum...
However, when discussing analog vs digital audio, another world opens outside of the LCD/CRT debate. Digital sound can only sample steps of an analog soundwave, thus missing full portions of the sound spectrum...
Ahofle,
First of all, as for what I am conceding. An LCD is unauthentic the original arcade machine. This is true, because the original machine had that monitor. Not exactly rocket science.
The original code, I believe the original arcade monitor is more accurate because of the aspect ratio.
BUT, the original monitor is still unauthentic in some regards because of the pixel distortion issues. I.e. it isn't painting exactly what was written on the original code. Matter of fact, it isn't even uniform.
Haven't I covered this enough? Just go back and read. It shouldn't need repeated anymore.
We have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.
So, the next question is, for how many games (or perhaps better yet, in what situations) is an LCD not accurate to the game code ?
My initial answer would be that for anything vector and anything that does not precisely match the native resolution of the LCD,
I love my rig, and you love yours. COOL! Lets all just get a little more opened mind. Many of your points are well taken, and at one time I seriously thought about the CRT way. But I made my decision, and I am defending it. It is my belief and I spent alot of time and research coming to the decision.
I don't know what you are trying to do.
This is the nature of a CRT display. This is not accurate to the original code.
QuoteWe have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.
NO and I never said that.
QuoteOK, so would you concede that, for any game where the code was driving the monitor directly, that using an unauthentic display device is not accurate ?
I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times. More evidence of you not reading. And you wonder why I accuse you of this?
This is a silly question. First in direct draw mode, it is accurate for pixel display. If it can be calculated reasonably one to one, then it is really accurate. If using software to discern which to calculate up or down, then it is also very accurate.
The problem is you sound less like "defending your decision" and more like insulting those who disagree with you. If you started your posts this way, none of this would happen. Instead you liken people who prefer CRTs to sheep, religious wingnuts, etc and say things like "good riddance
FWIW, I don't see why these debates are frown upon so much (as long as they don't get into really nasty name calling, and they haven't).
This is the nature of a CRT display. This is not accurate to the original code.
Quote from: JeffoWe have established that for games that drive the monitor directly, that an LCD is not accurate.
NO and I never said that.
Quote from: JeffoOK, so would you concede that, for any game where the code was driving the monitor directly, that using an unauthentic display device is not accurate ?
I had conceded this MANY MANY MANY times. More evidence of you not reading. And you wonder why I accuse you of this?
I disagree and would like to learn why you believe me to be wrong on this aspect of the discussion.
... this is me trying to understand how you can so vehemently assert that LCDs are more accurate to the game code than CRTs.
... but I don't believe that the required hardware abstractions can allow for the LCD to be more accurate to the game code.
Quote... but I don't believe that the required hardware abstractions can allow for the LCD to be more accurate to the game code.
Oh now you want to say that I am implying that LCD is MORE accurate to the game code. Yeah thats exactly what I said. ::) Care to add any more things I supposedly said?
Care to reply on your lawyer tactics. :laugh2:
Just wondering with all that quotin what you were trying to prove.
Ok, now you want to play lawyer. Well let me clarify. Using an unauthentic display is not accurate to the AUTHENTICITY. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You got it now?
Never said they weren't. Quit lying, or implying.
FWIW, I don't see why these debates are frown upon so much (as long as they don't get into really nasty name calling, and they haven't). I'd much rather read a thread like this then a "help me design my control panel" thread. ;D
XyloSesame,
I have looked it up. I posted a link to how a CRT works. Just go with me here.
You do understand how an LCD works right? You do understand that an electron beam isn't being deflected as in a CRT rather the pixel is actually being back lit! So therefore, where is the distortion?
Where is my flaw? Why do I have to look up something, when I don't even know where I am wrong???
The only colors that LCD had trouble emluating(in the past) are dark colors. The rest is the SAME as the CRT except for the fact that by design they don't distort.
LCD's by design are capable of displaying any color a video card can put out, if using 10 bit color.
QuoteWhether CRTs use analog connections or not, they are still transmitting digital signal.
And this is where you are 1001 % WRONG. Once it goes through an analog cord, it ceases to be digital. Google that one.
A well mastered cd in 44 khz will do the job fine. Matter of fact, that is why MP3's are so prevalent. Some hear it, some don't. If done correctly, most of the world won't detect it. Analog should be dead as Julius Ceaser. But so many just keep holding on.
As resolution becomes more and more, CRT's will become less and less relevant.
But I guess it comes down to this. It is good enough for me. The display looks great, and getting better all the time.
What I have learned from this thread:
Some people prefer CRT's and a person prefers LCD
According to some person, I am a mindless sheep
I think you misunderstood. Regardless of cable or transmission, the originating data were digital. You are not dealing with an analog source, that's all I was trying to say.
Do I get an apology for your implication that I was lying ?
Probably not.
leapinlew,
;D I like my sheep
Too fast for me!
You know one thing I never understood.
Why many of us(self included) feel we got to add a useless ajective to put an exclamation point on the whole affair.
Like...Beligerant (sp) Kool Aide Man. Isn't being a Kool Aide Man enough?
You know one thing I never understood.
Why many of us(self included) feel we got to add a useless ajective to put an exclamation point on the whole affair.
Like...Beligerant (sp) Kool Aide Man. Isn't being a Kool Aide Man enough?
Or how about Mindless Sheep. Same thing.
I see this all the time. Weird.
If you stop to interact with the sheep, you'll quickly realize that they are truly mindless.
So in other words, even more fallacies.
RIGHT, so in having analog cords you are adding error.
Just so you guys know, I guess we can no longer edit. Man, I am really going to talk like an ass now. Guess I better keep it on a separate tab from now on. Damn that sucks. ;D
I honestly wasn't aware that you could abuse it??
My ban finger is getting itchy....
The rest, like Greedo shooting first is open for debate.
No, No, No, a million times NO!!! HAN SHOT FIRST!!! That scene is a defining moment of his character, and changing that scene diminished Han.
I mean seriously, what did you think he had that gun under the table for...tiddly winks? I think he had every intention of shooting Greedo, and he just needed the opportunity.
Han in the original seems to be a scoundrel of sorts....you arent' sure which way he leans except he will move with what is best for him whichever way that is. By making him shoot first you make him a gray and uncertain. He also becomes a person you don't want to trifle with. He'll kill ya just as soon as look at ou if you get in his way. By shooting second (a hero never shoots first) he is shooting only in defense ....he appears cleaner...to some this is less appealing for the character. They want to see the redemption of Han over time.
I didn't even think the Han/Greedo thing was up for debate. He did it to make the movies more 'family friendly'. And then he proceeded to film Dooku being decapitated in cold blood, Jedi children being slaughtered, and a young Anakin burning alive and screaming in part 3. :laugh2:
It goes through a QC phase (even if it's only done by the programmer) so of course the programmer will modify it to how the end result will be.
Its kind of like the argument that people made masters to fit records, when it was the BEST they had at the time? That doesn't make sense at all. Why would they have purposely left things out of the record master(like frequency response of say a drum hit, or high pitch sound) if they had a choice?
I use my ears though. And it is obvious that we are gaining alot from the original master with the clarity.
Han shoots before...after, it doesn't matter. He isn't a "goody goody" because he shot under the table.
Add to that, his shot is done so fast, I don't consider it calculated for a shot happening first. He was shooting anyway.
My belief is that the programmer like the recording engineer manipulated the product to accommodate for the limitations of the
media to arrive at his artistic vision and given a different media would have changed the manipulations.
So you will here frequencies not intended, maybe one instrument is over emphasized because on the LP it gets burried.
(which by the way is still the preferred media for recording artists).
I do know this happens as a former studio musician.
Besides, it is one thing to percieve changes, it is another thing to consistently be able to tell the difference. A small feeling in your toe doesn't count.
I say BULL when it comes to the original programmers. There is no evidence to support that pixels were changed in shape and color from the original CRT. Don't believe me, look yourself. Any CRT has some level of distortion, and Pacman can easily be counted because it is under 300 Pixels. Look closely and tell me now if the programmers meant for that to happen(referring to the "bowing" effect, as well as the color bleeding and uneven quality)
As one who contributed to the tangent ...I agree
...the sampling rate is so fast that I personally can't tell which is the true wave and which is the approximation of the area under the curve...
brass tax
It is also argued that the idiom is derived from the "Brass Tax of 1854". When the makers of clothing, shoes, instruments, tools, etc. that required brass would gather the materials and count up the cost, accounting for the brass tax was the last - and most expensive - step. Therefore the phrase "get down to brass tax" could mean to get to the last and final thing, or to get past the formalities and get down to the crux of the matter.
Yeah, this thread is over.
The earliest known use of the complete phrase in print, in the March 4, 1871 issue of the Galveston News (page 3), is "filing down to brass tacks"; hence, a shoemaker filing away too much material in excessive zeal to do a thorough job. The meaning was originally about the same as "putting too fine a point on it" or "overarguing the point." :laugh2:
Genesim's definition is certainly on the page, but it's not the first one (also note the spelling of the link, which is what I referred to).
Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, oaaaaaahhhh well, we can always BUILD YOUR OWN CRT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QBOAx3IGZ4
(let's hope he didn't get x-rayed :P)
Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, oaaaaaahhhh well, we can always BUILD YOUR OWN CRT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QBOAx3IGZ4
(let's hope he didn't get x-rayed :P)
Good riddance! I can't stand Hantarex monitors.
Still plenty of other CRT monitor makers out there.
I wonder how long before other big names follow...