New arcade vga on pc monitor pics, Not impressed at all.

[rlemmon]

Hi guys. I got my new pci arcade vga card today and I thought I would share the results. I have to say I an really disappointed. 
I had high hopes for this.  Each game is displayed in its proper resolution. The settings are all correct to use the card and set as follows. Direct draw on. Hardware stretch off, and Switch resolutions to fit on.

The program is mame 32 v. 102. I also tested mame 32 v. 108  The results were the same. Basically what it boils down to is that it looks like what happens when you run a game on any graphics card with direct draw on without using hardware stretch. Except the screen fills the monitor. Although some games I tried didn't fill the screen

I really thought the games would look better using the card and not having to rely on hardware stretch. But there quite hard on the eyes they look very choppy and pixelie. Maybe my hopes were too high but I at least though it would offer some improvement over my pc's graphic card.

Don't get me wrong i'm not dissing Andy. All of his other products I have tried are great and he has done wonders for the community. I'm just not happy with this product when used with a pc monitor.

As for the pics, you need to click them to see the detail. The top pics are taken with hardware stretch using direct draw ( basicly without using the power of the card)
the bottom pics are with the avga with the proper resolutions and settings. Let me know what you think.

[rdowdy95]

Wish your pics worked?

[rlemmon]

They work fine here. Try hitting refresh or using these direct links 

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=priragebc0.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=priragewvgahd0.jpg


http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=robowoutavgasl2.jpg

http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=robowavgayn9.jpg


http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supwoutavgala9.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supwavgayw8.jpg

[bvicarious]

Looks good to me... what did you expect the card to do? It's not meant for PC monitors, so the real test would be arcadevga vs. regular video card with no stretch on an arcade monitor.

[rlemmon]

Looks good to me... what did you expect the card to do? It's not meant for PC monitors, so the real test would be arcadevga vs. regular video card with no stretch on an arcade monitor.

It is ment for pc monitors. A quote from ultimarcs site "Now also for pc monitors ! For the first time ever run classic games in there native resolutionson a pc svga monitor in windows !"

I just thought it would look better than the generic graphics card my pc came with. 

[horseboy]

It's not meant for PC monitors

Ummmm... actually, I think that it is. That is what all of the hoopla and excitement over this card has been about. The original ArcadeVGA wasn't for PC monitors. Like rlemmon said, this one is supposed to display at correct resolutions on a PC monitor.

[rlemmon]

Thanks horseboy. Here is another quote from ultimarc's site
 
It is important to note that using a PC monitor will NOT produce an arcade monitor-like picture as PC monitors have a much higher dot pitch and finer scan width than arcade monitors. But using the ArcadeVGA will give a much better quality picture than an ordinary VGA card, at the lower resolutions. You will not see scanlines on a PC monitor with the ArcadeVGA card but do you really want these anyway?

[johnvv]

I used the following settings with my AVGA2 AGP tests.  Andy confirmed that these should be optimal for the card:

   Display tab
      - run in window: off
      - start maximized: on
      - enforce aspect ratio: on
      - Clean Stretch: Auto
      - Use Scanlines: off
   Advanced tab:
      - Use DirectDraw: on
      - Triple buffering: on
      - Match game refresh: on if using auto resolution settings, off if forcing resolution settings
      - sync to monitor refresh: off
      - wait for vertical sync: off
      - switch resolutions to fit: on
      - switch color depths to fit: off
      - Resolution: auto or set to the known resolution for your selected game.
      - Stretch using hardware: off
   Direct3D tab:
      - Use Direct3D: off

[daywane]

I have never figured out all the hoopla over a arcade monitor VS PC monitor
I have a real arcade Nintendo Vs and Mame cabs
put side by side Super Mario ( Nintendo VS , Real Nintendo Arcade monitor)
Mame cab running same game. Yes there is a differance. But if you do not put them side by side so people can see the differance. Most people would never even notice

I will just stick with 21 inch PC monitors or larger TV with Svid and be happy

[pointdablame]

you're running these games at their native resolution on a PC monitor that is capable of displaying resolutions far above the game resolutions.  The WILL look pixely because they ARE pixely.

The card is meant for PC monitors, in that it displays the correct resolutions for the games, but the card doesn't magicially make the games look better... they make them look similar to what they looked like originallly.

That was always my take on the PC monitor compatibility.  It displays at original res and as clost to original quality as possible... which would be pixely, especially on a PC monitor that wants to use a much much higher res.

[krick]

I really thought the games would look better using the card and not having to rely on hardware stretch. But there quite hard on the eyes they look very choppy and pixelie. Maybe my hopes were too high but I at least though it would offer some improvement over my pc's graphic card.

News flash:  they look pixelly because the games ran at very low resolutions and they *were* pixelly.  I don't know what you were expecting the card to do.  It's not going to magically increase the resolution of the original game and add pixel data where it didn't exist. 

I think the output looks awesome.  Use the ArcadeVGA2 and compare the output on a PC monitor and an arcade monitor.  That's the comparison you should be making.

[rlemmon]

"News flash:  they look pixelly because the games ran at very low resolutions and they *were* pixelly.  I don't know what you were expecting the card to do.  It's not going to magically increase the resolution of the original game and add pixel data where it didn't exist." 

I realize they were pixelly. I really wasn't expecting the card to increase the resolution but I did expect it to offer a better overall picture than you would get using hardware stretch and a regular graphics card. I didn't think things would be quite so blocky. I have played many of real arcade games and they didn't look so choppy. Click on the two robocop's do you really think the second one ( it uses the avga) looks better overall. ?

"I think the output looks awesome"

I think it would definitely look awesome on a real arcade monitor, but i disagree about they way it performs on a PC monitor.

[rlemmon]

sorry double post

[Kremmit]

I didn't think things would be quite so blocky. I have played many of real arcade games and they didn't look so choppy.

That's because real arcade monitors had much lower resolution and would "blur" the edges of the pixel blocks.  Graphics designers of the time took advantage of this, and counted on the blur effect to make their sprites seem more rounded and the color transitions seem less abrupt. 

That is the real reason to use an ArcadeVGA- so you can drive a real arcade monitor and have the games look like they ought to.  Old games are always going to look overly pixelated on computer monitors that are designed to show 1600x1200 and above with razor-sharp edges.

[rlemmon]

"That's because real arcade monitors had much lower resolution and would "blur" the edges of the pixel blocks.  Graphics designers of the time took advantage of this, and counted on the blur effect to make their sprites seem more rounded and the color transitions seem less abrupt. 

That is the real reason to use an ArcadeVGA- so you can drive a real arcade monitor and have the games look like they ought to.  Old games are always going to look overly pixelated on computer monitors that are designed to show 1600x1200 and above with razor-sharp edges."



That makes allot of sense. I guess maybe I should look into how to hack a VGA cable and get a arcade monitor.

[Negativecreep0]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also? If so then whats the point of buying those monitors anymore now that arcadevga2 does the same thing on regular monitors?

[ahofle]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

[horseboy]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

[Havok]

I think the lesson here is stick to a regular video card, unless you have an arcade monitor...

[ahofle]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

Can you give a link (I'm not too familiar with PC multisync monitors)?  I'm guessing if its max resolution goes much above 800x600 (ie smaller dot pitch) it won't look as good (but that's just a guess).  Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer this...

[horseboy]

so let me ask you this, what about the multi sync monitors like betson and billabs? Will the images look overly sharp also?

Don't have one yet, but looking into it.

No, if run at the native game resolution on a multi-sync, the games should look arcade perfect.

What about a PC multisync monitor?

Can you give a link (I'm not too familiar with PC multisync monitors)?  I'm guessing if its max resolution goes much above 800x600 (ie smaller dot pitch) it won't look as good (but that's just a guess).  Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer this...

[RayB]

I think the advantage here, (and maybe Andy should clarify it a bit in his marketing texts) is that we're no longer stuck with "signal out of range" when we're trying to set up software on a PC monitor. To me THAT is the advantage here.

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

PS: To quote people, just click QUOTE.

[rlemmon]

I think the lesson here is stick to a regular video card, unless you have an arcade monitor...

I agree

I think the advantage here, (and maybe Andy should clarify it a bit in his marketing texts) is that we're no longer stuck with "signal out of range" when we're trying to set up software on a PC monitor. To me THAT is the advantage here.

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

PS: To quote people, just click QUOTE.

I tried using scanlines it didn't make any difference. Also the ultimarc site says scanlines should be turned off.

[Lutus]

If you don't want it I am in the market to aquire one.  PM me if you want to get rid of it.   

[bvicarious]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

[Havok]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

Or, don't believe the hype...

 

[Rocky]

The bottom line is don't buy hardware if you're not sure about what it does 

Wrong answer!

We count on these early adaptors to check out all the new stuff

[u_rebelscum]

Also rlemmon, why don't you turn on the scanline effects and all that to simulate arcade monitor blur?

I tried using scanlines it didn't make any difference.  Also the ultimarc site says scanlines should be turned off.

That's because scanlines needs extra lines to work.  If you run at ~4 times the res (1024x768 to 1600x1200), then the lines can be drawn between the "real" game image lines.  That means if you run at the orignal res, the faked scanlines cannot be drawn.  But the reason for the arcade VGA is so you can run them at the original res.

To restate:
Run at original res, scanlines don't work.
Run at higher than original res, scanlines might help simulate the orignal look.
ArcadeVGA helps run the games at the original resolutions.

[Xiaou2]

 Btw - As far as Ive seen and know..   there is no such thing as a 'scanline'.

 Its just an attempt to simulate the mesh of the monitor
which is called a " Shadow Mask ".

 http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv3.htm



 The older monitors used much more primitive masks.. which were much larger
and thus more visible to the eye.   

 

 As you can see from the closeup of the Turbo car...  the mask appears to look
wavy and crooked.   Its an optical illusion.   The pixels can illuminate half of any space..
and can also be so bright as to project over the mask - thus making it appear that the
mask isnt there or is wavy.

 The mask coupled with other factors such as where the actual r,g,b locations are
in relation to position..  create a look that is far different than any simulation currently.

 There is color bleeding, and blending..  and this is also not simulated.   Which is why
the colors in the arcade monitors look so very different from mame on a pc display.

 Hopefully someday, someone will create a program that will accurately simulate this effect
in realtime.    Being that we now have dual core processors..  its actually a proposition thats
probably feasable now.   Or, it might be something that sepearate hardware could do...

[NickG]

 Btw - As far as Ive seen and know..   there is no such thing as a 'scanline'.

Let's not misinform anybody here;  Horizontal scanlines are present in any horizontal raster video signal, but not in vector.  Whether or not you can visually detect them is up to the quality of the signal and the quality of monitor.   

Its just an attempt to simulate the mesh of the monitor
which is called a " Shadow Mask ".

Closer attempts to simulate the mesh of  monitors such as the aperture effects and rgb group effects (triad quad, etc.)  are available now with some versions of mame.  They don't bleed or vibrate like real shadow masks or aperture grills, though.

Or, don't believe the hype...

 

Yeah, what he said.

[Xiaou2]

Nick G,

 Define Scanliine.   Looking at my arcade monitors under magnification, and there is not such
lines seen.

 The only thing that I consider a scanline might be when you see a video game or pc monitor video-taped and displayed on tv.  You see the 'line' of the monitor refresh.   And that looks Nothing like what is shown in the effects in mame.   The lines shown in mame are the ones you actually see on a monitor - which is the shadow mask.

 Shadow masks do not vibrate.   It simply is a divider which seperates each of the
Red,Green, & Blue phosphors "clusters" (or pixels).

  Shadow masks are fairly thick in arcade monitors and older tvs.  They can be seen as black
lines when viewed closely.  And under magnification, you can see the actual grill cells.

 As far as I recall last time using the RGB effect.. there was no shadow mask added to the effect.
Not to mention, they just dont come close to looking and behaving correctly.  I wouldnt call them
"Close" at all.

 Apperature Grill?   I believe that you mean shadow mask.   

 The bleed is not from the mask..  but the actual RGB phosphors brightnesses.  Thier light expands beyond the mask and bleeds and blends with the nearby colors.

  http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv10.htm




 
   

[NickG]

As per Xiaou2's suggestion here are some nice definitions of scan line and aperture grille.  He has done an excellent job defining shadow mask already.

The following info is from wikipedia, sorry if I am getting OT at all here.

"A scan line is one line, or row, in a raster scaning pattern, such as a video line on a Cathode ray tube (CRT) display of a television or computer. A scan line represents a row of picture elements (pixels) in the image being displayed."

"An aperture grille is one of two major technologies used to manufacture cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and computer displays; the other is shadow mask.


Fine vertical wires behind the front glass of the display screen separate the different colors of phosphors into strips. Depending on the size of the display, one or two horizontal stabilizing wires are also used, and may be visible as fine lines across the face of the screen, providing the easiest way to distinguish aperture grille and shadow mask displays at a glance. Additionally, aperture grille displays tend to be vertically flat and are often horizontally flat as well, while shadow mask displays usually have a spherical curvature."


It is the aperture grille which is susceptible to vibration.  A Shadow mask, being one piece is not.  I don't see scanlines either, Xiaou2,  merely wished to confirm that they do exist in the signal of any scan line - rendered game.

Aperture grille close up

You can compare the difference with the shadow mask close up in Xiaou2 post with the car close up.   As the caption mentions "arcade rgb monitor"  yes the shadow mask is much more common to arcade monitors than aperture grilles.  So back on topic his close up is probably the effect most of us are after here.

On another subtopic here, I use a multisync  presentation type monitor (NEC XM29) that syncs to jamma and a standard resolution arcade monitor.  From a non-magnified playing/viewing position my jamma games look great on both monitors. 

[RandyT]

Scanlines don't exist......riiiiight.


I'm here to inform you that they most certainly and absolutely do.  Normal raster tubes draw horizontal lines onto phosphor with varying persistence properties, using a focused electron beam guided by magnetic fields.  It starts at the top of the screen, drawing line by line until it reaches the bottom, where it snaps back up to the top to start again.

The higher the horizontal frequency, the more lines there are to "paint" on the phosphor, and therefore the less space present between the lines.  A low horizontal scanning frequency, as used by CGA or NTSC monitors, will have very visible black lines between the scanlines.

If there were no such things as scanlines, your NTSC TV couldn't uses interlace to vertically offset the starting point of the scan in order to fill the spaces in between them.

If you don't clearly see horizontal (or vertical in the case of a vertically oriented screen) scan lines on your low-res arcade monitor, the EB gun is out of focus... or your eyes are.

RandyT

[AndyWarne]

I would not disagree with most of what has been said on this thread.
Yes the graphics certainly do look more "blocky" because the original games were such a low resolution and they are not being smoothed out by the effect of stretching.
I think actually there are two categories of game.
The first type are the games where the designer drew out the character sprites on squared paper and then they were mapped into a ROM. Galaga, Pacman etc.
I believe these games are simply better at native resolutions with the AVGA, no question about that in my mind. On my 31Khz monitor in my Sega cabinet these games look fantastic. Horizontal movements are much smoother as well which is another benefit of the native mode: correct vertical refresh rate.
The second type are the games where artwork has been produced and then scanned at a fairly low resolution. If these are run at native resolution they do appear to be more blocky and for these graphics using stretch blurs the picture slightly but smooths out the blocks and gives a picture which is easier on the eye.
The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I will try to explain the benefits more clearly on the site to ensure people are not being misled.
Andy

[RandyT]

I think actually there are two categories of game.
The first type are the games where the designer drew out the character sprites on squared paper and then they were mapped into a ROM. Galaga, Pacman etc.
I believe these games are simply better at native resolutions with the AVGA, no question about that in my mind. On my 31Khz monitor in my Sega cabinet these games look fantastic.

The second type ....<snip>

It's not surprising that they look great on the 31khz monitor in your Sega cab (Sanwa is it?)  There is a big difference between the dot pitch of an arcade monitor and that of PC monitor.  On larger arcade monitors the dot pitch is somewhere around .75mm.  Most PC monitors have a dot pitch that is roughly one third of that.  The large dot pitch allows the edges of the pixels to blur together and that just doesn't happen with a modern PC monitor, even though both are capable of scanning at the same 31.5khz frequency.

This is true regardless of the way the game was designed.  Either the graphics were intended for the gross dot pitch of an arcade monitor, or they were not.

Horizontal movements are much smoother as well which is another benefit of the native mode: correct vertical refresh rate.

No argument there.

The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with this analogy.  The PC monitor is the "HD-TV" and the arcade graphics (all low-res arcade graphics, in fact) would be considered the "poor source".  A good HD TV will incorporate some rather impressive upscaling technology to smooth out a low-res source.  It doesn't try to sharpen the blocky edges.

RandyT

[Kremmit]

The difference is akin to HD-TV against conventional. HD looks great with the right kind of source but with a poor source, lower definition might be better for some people.

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with this analogy.  The PC monitor is the "HD-TV" and the arcade graphics (all low-res arcade graphics, in fact) would be considered the "poor source".  A good HD TV will incorporate some rather impressive upscaling technology to smooth out a low-res source.  It doesn't try to sharpen the blocky edges.

My dad recently bought a nice big HD Plasma, because I've been teasing him about his old 27" CRT.  When he watches an HD channel, it looks really, really good.  But when he watches a plain-jane 4:3 pic from a non-HD show, it looks la lot like trying to watch a Youtube video fullscreen- all pixelated due to the digital upscaling. 

Low-Res is better than High-Res in such a case.  "Hogan's Heroes" reruns will always look better on my 35" Standard-Definition CRT than they ever do on an HDTV Plasma or LCD, because they won't have all the digital artifacts on my tv. 

[Xiaou2]

 NickG,

  Thanks.  Just remember,  that  Aperture grilles  were not used in most arcade
machines. 

 Aperture grilles are the modern version of shadow mask...  as Aperture grilles can
be made much smaller, and thus finer pixels.

 
 Randy, 

   Ok scanline do exist as a term for the beam the rides each line by line
drawing.. however,  this drawing is so fast,  that its undetectable to the
eye.   Ive not seen a black line in between the pixels.   In fact, that would
be impossible,  as the thing in  between the RGB phosphors is the shadow mask.

 My guess is that it is an optical illusion.   If you can proove otherwise, Id be
interested to see.   Show us a pic and point out the black like that is Not
the shadow mask.

 Kremmit,

  Digital is not really better.. its just that it saves space.

 Analog can be a nearly infinite depth of range..  depending on the circumstances.

 If you read a Pot with a multimeter..  you get a range from X to Y..   from a
whole number & fractions of that number.    If your multimeter was set up to read
incredible detail.. its decimal placement reading would be huge...  and the data able to
be collected from a single dial turn might be in the high megabyte ranges.

 The problem with analog recording.. is that its typically prone to degradation over
time.   Also, the cost of making analog equipment that is high enough bandwidth
and sensative may cost way too much to implement and institute.

 Digital is a means to cut those readings down to managble sizes.. and maintain
non-degrading accuracy.   Its much more afforable and practical..   but that doesnt
mean better.   Digital could approach Analog, but then its data sizes would again
be insane.   In the future, this might not be a problem..   but for now.. we see the
problem.   

 Once the displays advance in resolution,  and the range of digital signal
its fed isnt the range the tv is capable of..  it shows its imperfections
because of the lack of "intermediate steps".   "pixilization".

 
 This can also be heard in music..   which is why many people still
prefer Records over Cds.  Tho its much more noticible in display
technology, to most people.
 
 Some Tvs use a method to try to scale an images digital range
by inserting newly created steps.  However, these steps are not
always what the original data was.. and also, may be
constructed inproperly.  Thus looking a bit odd and overly
blurry... and Many Details getting lost.

 

[RandyT]

My dad recently bought a nice big HD Plasma, because I've been teasing him about his old 27" CRT.  When he watches an HD channel, it looks really, really good.  But when he watches a plain-jane 4:3 pic from a non-HD show, it looks la lot like trying to watch a Youtube video fullscreen- all pixelated due to the digital upscaling. 

I don't want to get too far off topic, but not all upscaling technology is created equal.  I just recently got an HD converter from the cable company for my 2 year old Mitsubishi HD projection set.  The internal upscaler in the set is pretty good and allows a number of intelligent ways to fill the screen.  But the one upscaler available in the HD cable box is much, much better.  The stuff from Farjouda used to be top of the line and it does a really nice job with my DLP projector as well.  Not too long ago, one of the big cost differentiators of large screens used to be the quality of the technology used for the upscaling.  How this affects things nowadays, I'm not as sure, but Hogan might look pretty good with a better upscaler.

RandyT

[RandyT]

Randy, 

   Ok scanline do exist as a term for the beam the rides each line by line
drawing.. however,  this drawing is so fast,  that its undetectable to the
eye.   Ive not seen a black line in between the pixels.   In fact, that would
be impossible,  as the thing in  between the RGB phosphors is the shadow mask.

Sweet jeebus, Steve, how do you come up with this stuff?  Yes, the drawing is fast, but it's in exactly the same spot!  Care to guess as to why interlaced video flickers?  It's because every other image is placed in the blank spaces between the scanlines of the previous image and only one image can be shown at any given time.

My guess is that it is an optical illusion.   If you can proove otherwise, Id be
interested to see.   Show us a pic and point out the black like that is Not
the shadow mask.

You should stop guessing.  See the image below.  The teeny tiny lines that are offset by by one half of the adjacent vertical rectangle belong to the shadow mask.  They are hella small.  The big black horizontal lines are the spaces between the scanlines you say are an illusion. 

RandyT

[Kremmit]

 Kremmit,

  Digital is not really better.. its just that it saves space.

 Analog can be a nearly infinite depth of range..  depending on the circumstances.

 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Dude, I understand the difference between analog and digital.  And the entire point of my post is that sometimes analog is better.

...but Hogan might look pretty good with a better upscaler.

Probably so.  Now if they can just get my dad to stop stretching 4:3 pics to 16:9.  Everybody's head looks like Ernie from Sesame Street!