Main Woodworking Reviews Software Monitor/Video Maximus Arcade
Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Project Announcements Artwork Consoles Buy/Sell/Trade Meet Up
Arcade Miscellaneous Everything Else Politics n Religion Forum Discussion Wiki Discussion GroovyMAME
DOS/WinCab Merit/JVL Touchscreen Automated Projects Driving & Racing Project Arcade Old Boards
Linux Restorations Pinball MaLa Frontend controls.dat Old Archives

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Arcade | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS


  

Author Topic: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC  (Read 20825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« on: February 03, 2007, 09:24:04 am »
I know there have been many questions about this, so I thought I would post my own.   Please take a look at Retroblast.com and check out their new review for more details.  I have been bugging them for months, and I am finally glad to see the review.  Here are my experiences.

*update*  It looks like the website changes the resolution to 640x480 from 800x600.   So the best bet is to download and then magnify to see the change.  It is hard to see the difference here, but it is well worth it if you are curious.




I am using a 19 inch LCD monitor with DVI Input.
The comparison is using Direct 3D with Hardware stretch vs Direct Draw with Resolution to fill the screen.
First Picture is 800x600 second picture is 352x288
 
Pacman had a resolution of 224x288 so the difference in the Horizontal is attributed to the fact that the "borders" have to be accounted for.   This gives the biggest picture while maintaining the original aspect ration.
 
End result is no blurring...etc.    I like to look at the Big Power up.   The points on the slant aren't even distinguishable in the 800x600 model.   Stretching and native old Windows mode doesn't allow for that accuracy.
 
Notice the bleeding with the Reds like in "Blinky".  I am wondering if this was an effect from the old game.   I seem to remember something of that, but I attribute this more to my work experience.   Reds seem to be very dominant.  Having them closer together to me is likely to have the effect of say a clock with red LED's or specifically the effect of the ones in the hand held football game of the 80's.




Again, I am using a 19 inch LCD monitor with DVI Input.
The comparison is using Direct 3D with Hardware stretch vs Direct Draw with Resolution to fill the screen.
 
Mortal Kombat is again in 800x600 in the original shot and the second shot is 401x256.
 
MK was orignally 400x254 so there is a couple of pixel difference.   I read somewhere why they did that with this new video card, but 2 pixels are hard to distinguish....unless they are shifting,for example screen burn protection, which was something the HDTV did and I could see it.   I can't really tell at all in this case though.  Afterall a pixel on a 19 inch screen is quite a bit smaller then one on a 42 inch!
 
   I can however tell the 90 pixel difference in height when you do the proportion calculation comparing the relationship between the 2 resolutions.   If using the height from the original  the resolution should have been 800x510, that is almost 100 pixels of fake resolution!    Street Fighter II is actually worse in this regard because it has a weird resolution of 384x224...so the compensation on that height is equivalent to 800x466.  That is 134 of faked resolution.    I always though that game was screwed up in look on MAME.  Unfortunetly the only resolution I can use to achieve the best quality is 384x288.   Still a 64 pixel differnce is better then 134 plus again, I don't have to buy a perfect monitor to at least come closer.   Pretty cool card when you think of it.
 
I did explain the difference and I do think the softer resolution in some ways benefit MK because of more accurate rounding i.e. Raidens face and every other human aspect when you understand full motion rendering.   
 
Though looking at "Raiden" as the name on the top or the score, it has the same Pacman problem.    Rounding does not help in those instances. 
 
Though rounding may give you more desired results.   Like in Calculus with an integral APPROXIMATION, that is all it is.
 
At least now it is more accurate.    That and I got a pretty good graphics card with 128 mb of ram as opposed to my 32 mb stock that came with my computer!!   I am glad that this company made the effort.   It is a nice poor mans solution to the problem of having an emulator that has almost 7000 games now with so many different properties without having an Arcade monitor.   Computers sure have come a long way!

« Last Edit: February 03, 2007, 09:37:44 am by genesim »

Anubis_au

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2007, 06:21:13 pm »
What MAME / front end / OS are you using with this setup?

shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2007, 11:55:54 pm »
You know, with D3D you can increase the pre-scaling, and DD you can use RGB sharp, and get very sharp pictures, especially on an LCD. (Not a recommended monitor, but....) The only thing I've found sharper, and I have no idea why, is using my integrated graphics (Intel 915 board, 215mb max graphics memory) with some kind of specific resolution and switchres. If it's able to put out the resolution right - usually if it doesn't have to do the 15khz refresh - it'll be damn sharp.  Probly too sharp. I'm still working with my avga, so no new info on that.

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2007, 01:11:47 pm »
Those look like MAME screenshots, not photographs of your screen (which would be more useful).  Also, even though you run MAME at a low resolution, your LCD will just upconvert the image to the native resolution of the monitor (ie invent pixels).  If it's just the blurring you are trying to get rid of, you don't need an ArcadeVGA.  Just select directdraw and disable 'hardware stretch'.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2007, 07:30:35 pm »
I think you guys are totally missing the point.

It is a faked resolution.   It is true that there is a upsampling occuring, but it is with a LOWER resolution.

The added effect is that lower resoluting fits the screen to the correct ratio over just having the approximation with an incorrect ration.

You cannot get the desired effect with a lowest setting of 800x600.    Even with direct draw, it is still that resolution at best.

Ultimarc Arcade VGA rectifies this.

I tried to get pictures, but it is damn near impossible to capture.    There is abolutely no comparison though.   Each to their own, but the screen shots above prove this.

shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2007, 04:13:11 pm »
At this point I'm not sure what your point is. And, a whole lot of fuss over a terrible monitor choice.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2007, 12:19:16 pm »
And the flaming begins ::)

First of all, for my uses....along with alot of others, and LCD is an excellent choice.   No screen burn and able to handle most a variety of displays.

Secondly, I am happy to say with a 4ms response, I get absolutely no blurring.

So horrible??   How do you figure, by your standards??

I have done comparisons with my LCD side by side with friends of mine that have arcade monitors, and the difference is minimal when running Arcade VGA.

Most of your criticism comes from ignorance.    Have you seen what the card can do yourself??  Or are you just assuming based on the emperor's clothes attitude that nothing is better then an arcade monitor.

My choice isn't horrible and this is coming from a veteran of the arcades.   Most of the gushing over old monitors comes from nostalgia and nothing more.

The Ultimarc Arcade VGA(new version) is a god send.    Screen shots can't even begin to explain how great this picture is.   

But anyway back to the subject at hand, how about offering constructive criticism over blantant crap retorts.

Disprove what I say, and go from there.    What I said was not unclear.

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2007, 01:28:56 pm »
Why are pictures of your monitor "damn near impossible"?  My point was that displaying screenshots from MAME as evidence of an improved LCD picture is just silly.  I'd honestly like to see the difference between the two on your LCD screen.  Also if you can, take some pictures of the Robotron high score screen.

sirwoogie

  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
  • It's Hollyfeld in a Winnebago!
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2007, 01:41:09 pm »
And the flaming begins ::)
[snip]
Disprove what I say, and go from there.    What I said was not unclear.

At this point I'm not sure what your point is. And, a whole lot of fuss over a terrible monitor choice.

There is no need all around to criticize one choice over an other. You have to find what best works for you: to your eyes, your ego, and your budget.

Some people like LCD, some people like CRT monitor, some others like exact video resolution and sync with an arcade monitor. Be happy with what you have and don't put down people that made "the wrong choice in your opinion."

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2007, 07:21:05 pm »
Exactly my point.

LCD's have come a long way.   Response time has been the biggest bottle neck.   That to me, is perfected especially on a smaller 19 inch display which is what I got.

The onlyproblem I have is the "blacker then black" problem.    LCD's by disign just don't do it 100%.

Now do I care that much...no.   Because the trade off is that High resolution games like Marvel VS Capcom 2 or Soul Caliber on the dreamcast look fantastic!

To me, getting a old arcade to blur the image to be more "authentic" is going backward.    Kind of like running a vector graphic monitor...yeah its best, but is it really worth burning your eyes out for?

I cannot say enough how much the Arcade VGA looks awesome on my LCD.   Someone posted pics earlier of the "blocky" look.     That is what I want, because that is how it should be.     Letter and scores get the most from this.   If you want "blurring" go with Direct 3d stretched, but it won't be authentic.   Having an arcade monitor may be closer, but even with that you are sacrficing because there are thousands of arcade monitors and no "one" will do it.

Each to their own, and I certaintly don't begrudge anyone for making the old style work.    For me, it just isn't my taste.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2007, 07:22:52 pm »
By the way, I am going to take pictures when I get the zoom figured out(new camera).

I do realize the mame shots were not the best, but I still think you can see it if you save and look.


shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2007, 05:09:22 pm »
The point of taking actual pictures is that whatever display is being used will look different than a screenshot. As for my earlier comment, you (and woogie) mistake my meaning:

1. really, I wasn't and am still not sure what your point is. Just honesty.

2. I got rid of an LCD monitor for general use cos it screwed my vision up. Even more so, for raster (and particularly, classic) games, the problems (ones I've mentioned before) with LCD's are a) they don't seem to present graphics in as detailed a fashion - they make approximations; b) their contrast ratio doesn't match the capabilities of a good CRT; c) possibly related to b: the side lights inherent in the technology.

On a and b, I actually called and talked for a good spell with a tech at Samsung. He confirmed my observations of LCDs with information such as contrast ratio and bandwidth of CRTs being better than them. Point c isn't as much an issue, and probably hardly an issue with current LCDs, if the game is '85 or newer (note, most of your preferred games are 90's up) where the screen is graphics-saturated. But anything classic, where the screen is largely black, and the glare from the side lights is unbearable.

I'm not at all a purist. I don't generally prefer native resolutions. I just want something that will display cleanly and with good deflection angle. I don't care what technology it is, and actually await the advent of OLEDs.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2007, 09:41:33 pm »
I will take your points one by one.

1.   My point is and still remains that the arcade vga by ultimarc improves the picture particularly on an LCD screen.   It creates the same picture that direct draw creates except for the fact that it fills up the screen.

How does it do this...by using multiple pixels to create one representation.   Now when you say it just upscales it all, what you don't understand that it is upscaling a more accurate reprentation of the orginal pixel count.

This is because all the resolutions cannot be mathmatically/evenly divided into the discret native resolution of 1024x768 (like my monitor is).

Now that said, as in a calculus integral, the more samples(i.e. the numerous pixels representing one pixel) the closer you can get to the actual value.    This be beyond what the human eye can see.

You say what is the point, well the point is that it fills up the screen in a very accurate way, in some cases beyond what the original arcade screen captured.

Now direct 3d doesn't do this right because it takes an arbitrary resolution like 800x600 as the minimum which means the pixels are artificially "stretched" to fill the screen which causes blurring.    This makes for a horrible picture because most of it is not the original graphics!    This can be easily seen with good pictures that others have posted.

The problem with direct draw alone is that it doesn't fill the screen.

So you say what is the point, PLENTY.   

2.   I don't know about your vision, but some of what you said doesn't make sense.   

a)  LCD don't present games in a detailed fashion?   Many have said it is TOO detailed.    As it stands, I don't get either logic.   One, LCD's of today can completely capture every pixel, in multiple fashion as described above.    The fact that it is native is a good thing in these regards.   Some games with strange resolutions don't translate as well, but neither do they on most multisync monitors because they don't have those resolutions either, and they stretch the image only by doing so, they use a crappier display(which I will get into in a bit).    But as I said, the "approximations" are what all monitors do, but with this card they are even better!   Some cases it is even close to one to one if the pixel count divides evenly.

b)   I wish I had a nickel everytime the so called experts dissed a new technology.    Many make a judgement on a young demo and won't even see past the first observation.  The contrast ratio of LCD's have been a problem in the past,  but at the same time, theory is one thing, and what the human eye can see is another.   

To me, the black looks pretty freakin black compared to my plasma which captures it even better then CRT.

There is no "side lights" or bandwidth problem.    The LCD by design has nothing to do with either of those observations.    If anything a properly designed LCD should be all "light" not just part of it.    Are you getting this confused with lamps?????    If you got leakage of light, then you really had a crappy LCD.    As for bandwidth...being purely digital, there is actually alot more information.  Video games in MAME are digtal, bottom line.

My LCD has a 4ms response.   This is WAAAAAY beyond even a movie which runs at 24frames per second.    The blurring is no longer an issue.   At 12 ms it cannot be seen.   

Now lets take a look at all analog signals like CRT.     Not only is it no longer one to one which is what it should be, you actually lose signal when compared to a good DVI connection.     Video games were meant for pure digital.      Analog by design loses signal.   

Want to talk about blurring, how about the color bleeding or the side distortion of ALL CRT's!!    Google how they work, LCD's do not have this problem.   

Now you want to talk about lost signal, what about arcade scan lines.    With every scan, you have lost information.    this is not true with an LCD because it like digital, it is either all on, or all off(for the most part).    With an incredible fast "refresh", you cannot tell the difference.

Scan lines are like singing in the shower...we all think we sound great because we are muffled by th sound of water, but the facts are scan lines only disguise the limitations of the original hardware.    An LCD exploits what most of us already knew.   Crappy graphics.   But at least LCD's are accurate(using multiple pixels).

Oh and by the way, about the angle viewing.    Anthing beyond 45 degrees doesn't matter anyway on an arcade.    LCD's have gotten alot better about this.   The design of the pixels though are not as good as CRT's because they do not provide blurry angular functions.    Yeah you can see better, but at what cost!   Again, this is mostly myth with the new LCD's though.

Now as for the personal comment, you don't know me or what I have played.   Only the games I have mentioned that I like as well.    I am an old school gamer and I have had lots of experience with older monitors.    I have been playing as young as 4 because my dad was hard core even back to pong.    I got an atari when there was literally no games.   



shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2007, 01:32:02 am »
1. Contrast ratio of CRTs to most LCDs is still an order of magnitude difference. There are a few that are over one thousand. But this is eclipsed by...

2. side lights. I've called manufacturers and asked if there's a way to turn these off. There isn't. It's inherent in the technology. When the unit is displaying very little, there is glare from this.

3. deflection angle is still an issue. If I move an inch or three in any direction, it matters. I notice that stuff. It's disconcerting. Let's say someone else is playing or a game demo is running - then it's really noticable.

4. personal comment?...I referred to those you mentioned, largely 90s and up: soul caliber, etc. Which is not the point, anyway. As I said, anything that's graphics-saturated will drown out the side light glare.

5. I know how the avga works. I have one. I've seen it in all PC monitor applications but with an LCD. However, Mame itself on the 12ms LCD I had wasn't great. There was slight ghosting. Plus, the colors were weird - both on mine and my friend's $500 Sony LCD. They're pastel-like. On a non-switching CRT, it makes the image sharper than with special features in Mame, but like I said in early posts, you can use newer Mame with D3D and bilinear filtering off and it's just as sharp. And if there's any artifacting, I don't see it. Now, as for 'how it was or is supposed to be', I think it's just a matter of what it was. If you want it how it was, then you want 'authentic'. If not, then you want it different.

I went to an arcade, recently and some old games, like Gyruss, Moon Patrol, Robotron and Joust were very focused. No scanlines but the image was soft enough to smooth out the pixels. Smash TV, on the other hand, looked blurry. Both, D3D without bilinear filtering and the avga make it look very blocky. If you like that, fine. No need to explain it. And (while D3D sans bilinear filtering may or may not be different from using the avga) you're obviously obviously willing to pay a whole bunch for it.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 02:33:06 pm by shorthair »

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2007, 06:32:09 pm »
1.   My point is and still remains that the arcade vga by ultimarc improves the picture particularly on an LCD screen.   It creates the same picture that direct draw creates except for the fact that it fills up the screen.

Since you seem to know about calculus and integrals, then you must surely understand that if Mortal Kombat (401x256 or 1.57:1 aspect ratio) completely fills up your 4:3 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio LCD display without black bars, then you have an inaccurately stretched picture.  Your mortal kombat characters will all look skinny (stretched more vertically).  This is why I wanted to see a picture of the LCD, not a MAME screenshot which has the correct aspect.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 06:34:28 pm by ahofle »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2007, 02:44:40 pm »
First of all, guys at Ultimarc came up with a specific way to exhibit the resolution.    So it is not as easy as saying...it doesn't divide, so it cannot be.

So lets take a hypothetical.   401 is approx 2.55 to 1 when it comes to 1024 resolution.   Is it really that hard to write a program to ignore the left over?  I don't know how they come up with the distinct resolution, but according to Andy it is possible.  Specific software can do alot of things.

While 256 divides evenly into
768.    So in essence pixel count can be merely be tripled.  Which means you have 3 pixels making an approximation for every pixel!!!

Because there a million mathematical ways that one can arrive at the totals.   It depends on how the pixels are configured.   Matter of fact did you ever stop to consider how they arrived at 401 which doesn't divide evenly at all?  I remember the reason why, which had to do with bypassing windows, but all I know is that they did it.

BUT lets take it to simpleton terms.    Lets say they did it simple 512 x256 which would be 2 pixels to draw the horizontal with 3 pixels to draw the vertical.    That would mean that there would be 131072 pixels total.

Mortal Kombat had 102400 which is 28,672 pixels that would be upscaled from the original resolution.    As opposed to using  800x600(the lowest windows default)which has 480000 or 640x480 which has 307200 pixels.   You see easily that there is  a hell of alot more to compromise with newer resolutions.

Still, these are hypothetical, and with the limited information I got from Andy, it comes down to the fact that it is special software that gets it alot closer then even that.

All I know is what I see, and it exhibits the exact same results of Direct Draw(which is the most accurate) without the compromise of screen size.

Meanwhile you guys are ignoring the inherent problem of conventional cards and thier rounding effects.

Now back to short hair:

1.  Actually LCD's have 5000+ now.   Go to any decent TV store for this.   Just google.  I could care less, because the difference is not that great.  Even with lower contrast ratios....the trade off shown below are much more detrimental when in it comes to CRT.

2.  Side lights...still don't know what you are speaking of, even after google.   Please don't repeat it again, and just explain this phenomenon.    I seriously don't know what it is.

3.  Inches...BULL.   Even with my crap LCD of a few years ago it is difficult to see fade until damn near beside it.   You are living in the past.    New LCD's virtually have no problem in this regard.    Besides, like I said before.   This is an Arcade we are speaking of, if people have side viewing areas for big screen LCD's for multiple viewers, how could "inches" be exceptable.    New tech, gets better results.    At least spend a little more, and you might be more satisfied.  That and the fact that if you are standing that far to the side your arcade is built like a fool.

4.  You hinted that my "preferred" games are 90's and up, when I merely mentioned that old monitors cannot display said games very well.    Though still clueless on this "side lights" thing.   Are you meaning Pacman type games with the side that isn't dark enough to your taste?    I compare plasma to LCD(and crt for that matter) and the black levels are just fine.     Side by side, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.   I play tons of old games all the time, and they look beautiful...especially these games with this card.   The difference is astounding.   The pepsi challenge with Direct 3D blows it away!

5.   You say you know how it works..but then you say things like "up sampling" so therefore why all the fuss???    It leads me to believe you have no understanding when you make remarks like that.    First of all, you haven't seen it on an LCD which by design is where it shines.   The pixel replication makes for a more accurate picture.

The problem is that it is too accurate to someone that likes Direct 3D with bilinefilters.    Which hinders accuracy because of all the faked resolution.    You cannot polish a turd.    Just because it appears better(through averaging) does not mean it is more accurate.   I prefer ORIGINAL UNALTERED IMAGE over handy dandy new fix its.

As I said before even original ANALOG arcades faked it because of their limited monitor.    Original roms are digital, which can be accurately represented on new monitors with said technology.  I think you confuse something giving the results you want as "sharp"...no it is BLURRED and the original arcades did the same thing.

LCD's in the past were not the best.    Still 12ms is even beyond what the human I can see.   Isn't film at 24 frames per second???

Still all this said, lets take a look at a CRT, I noticed you ignored my point about image distortion by the very nature of design.    LCD does not have this problem.    Scan lines.   LCD does not have this problem.   Reflections.   LCD does not have this.   Color bleeding.   LCD does not have this....on and on and on.

Blocky is accurate.   SMOOTH is not.     The original arcades may have appeared better but this was because they masked the flaws of the source.    There have been many pictures around the net showing this fact.

The new arcadeVGA rectifies all these problems and gives you a much closer representation of the original picture, not using Dircet3D which deosn't even get you in the ball park.

What resolution are your setting at anyway???




shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2007, 07:24:09 pm »
Heheheheh, fussy are we?

1. LCD TVs are distinguished from PC monitors. They're much higher performance. Most PC monitors still aren't above 1000:1 contrast ratio.

2. delfection angle: I notice it. I've been to arcades with (particularly large) LCD displays...and they have TERRIBLE deflection angle. Just standing in front of them, the image seems washed out....although it would help if there were no ambient lighting. Now, I agree, current LCD TVs are better...but I don't think they're good enough. And the LCD PC monitors I was referring to are only about a year and a half old; of course, they're under a thousand (or two thousand) dollars.

3. side lights: try this - In Windows, set your screensaver to 'blank' and set your display to turn off a minute after this. Then turn off the lights in the room and draw the shades/curtains/blinds, whatever you got. When the screensaver engages, and you should notice a slight overall glow on the screen. Then watch as the display turns off a minute later, and you'll see it turn off. This is the side lights in action. As long as the display is on, these are on.

4. my point on the card, vs using Mame (with either ddraw and hardware stretch with the effect used being 'RGB sharp', or D3D with bilinear filtering on and prescaling set at '2') is that it's plenty sharp enough. But with D3D and bilinear filtering off, it's as sharp as using the avga. Granted, this is on a CRT...and I think it's overkill. Using an LCD on top of that would be blocky as hell.

What it comes down to: I don't like blocky (or very blocky); you do (and you're willing to pay a lot of money for it). Fine. All you had to say was something like, 'the avga makes things very very sharp and blocky...I like this'. Telling us that it's the most signal-accurate rendition I think few if any here care about. If you haven't noticed, most people here are quite the reverse.

In any case, it's not correct. Scanlines are a natural result of the native resolutions. If an LCD was made to run at such low resolutions, you'd see scanlines, because the display would be fed that signal. There's a reason the DVI port of the avga is for PC monitors: it doesn't deliver the low timings an arcade or multi-sync monitor can handle, the original timings of the games. It's not even a matter of pixel accuracy but scanrate. So, actually, the digital signal is not correct. On top of that, there are ways to get native-like resolutions using high refresh rates. I've found this using soft-15khz. Look in that thread in 'Software' for details.

As to my general Mame set-up: I run either ddraw - hardware stretch - effect= RGB sharp; or D3D with prescaling set at 2. In both cases, I the resolution is defaulted to the desktop resolution, which in this case is 1024x768. Yes, the image looks different than using the avga, but I don't see any artifacting, and there are no scanlines (which I generally don't prefer, though they are a certain novelty to me).

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2007, 08:54:04 pm »
1.   And WHO CARES.   If you can really tell good for you...but me thinks you fall into the category of listening to what other people say over using your own eyes..i.e. writing off what a VGA card does with specific technology before you have even seen it!   Even Andy says you have to see it to believe it on LCD, I tried taking pictures, and it just doesn't capture it even after trying so many different lighting schemes.

2.   But you don't seem to notice the REFLECTION on CRT's which does impair vision.   You go to the store and just try to see a glare on an LCD, it doesn't happen.    Now are you seriously going to compare a crap LCD in the arcades???  RGB monitors had problems, what makes you think first generation LCD's are going to be any better.

3.   I tried your trick and I didn't see it.    SERIOUSLY.   I tried several times, and believe me, I can see 1 pixel shift on the Plasma screen saver.   Sorry.   I'll keep researching, but noone I know seems to know what you are talking about.  Documentation would help.

4.  Ok so if you think it is plenty sharp enough try this.    Look at my amateur picture and put pacman on and pause the power pellet.   If you get ANY blur at all and it doesn't look exactly like my artwork(as bad as it is), then you have compromised the original design.    My monitor now shows this(with the ultimarc arcade card) distinctly with no compromise.

If it is hard to tell the peaks(which I know it is because I have used D3D and direct draw for years on several crt's) on the power pellet then you got to know that you are missing out on the true potential of your computer.



Scan lines are not NATURAL, there are a limitation and screwed up the original graphics to begin with.   Don't confuse lack of technology with intent.    For the first time in history we are able to get pure original picture without sacrfising aspect ratio.   

It is true that alot of MAME lovers are looking for that crap blurry look to replicate what they saw in the arcades.   The facts are though, that what they saw in the arcades were compromised to begin with.

Actually you keep bringing up how I am willing to spend so much money.   Not true.   I needed a minimal graphics card to replace my on board.   The added benefit was way worth the price.    Though you aren't exactly on even ground.   I have seen the results, you have not.     When I find a way to capture it, I will, but as it stands it isn't too hard to imagine.   Though if you prefer blur, then I can't help you.     Though don't tell me this was how the programmers intended.   Code is code, and I don't care how many dev's think it to be so.   It is an urban legend, and far too many monitors have screwed up what the programmers wanted.    That is why MK machines were converted to SFII.   Different monitors that hurt the game visuals.   

Pacman has to be seen to be believed.   The improvement is drastic, and after comparing it with Direct Draw alone, it BLOWS IT AWAY.   

If you run at 1024x768 without the card, you have compromised already.    You have a generic approach that makes most games lower then their potential.    It is like having all the workers on the same pay scale...for some it might work, but for most it doesn't exactly reflect how it should be!

But seriously, have we got off this my monitor is crap issue.   It would be nice if you would at least comment on some of my points that I have repeated over and over.   You seem to want to ignore the distortion problems with CRT as well as color bleeding etc...

"There's a reason the DVI port of the avga is for PC monitors: it doesn't deliver the low timings an arcade or multi-sync monitor can handle, the original timings of the games. It's not even a matter of pixel accuracy but scanrate."

This simply isn't true.   If calculated proberly and using software you can get a very close approximation that can be hard for the human eyes to tell.    When you say that LCD tv's aren't there yet, I gotta laugh.   Just how much faster do they need to get?   How much more wide do you need then 170 degrees with no change??

You compare a arcade monitor as if that is the be all end all...not to mention the fact that most LCD monitors in the arcade were PROJECTED.    If that is the case(which it probably was when and if they isanely would use an expensive LCD), then your rationalization for reflective problems, doesn't exactly hold water.

shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2007, 04:39:54 pm »
visual distortion, etc: no, I just didn't see any need to address it as that's a given.

power pellet: yes, I know what you mean. I see it to differing degress depending upon what mode I'm using. Like I said, I don't necessarily like it too sharp. I don't like blurry graphics - which for example is what I see with regular Mame without RBG sharp effect, or D3D without pre-scaling - but I don't want them blocky.

contrast ratio of LCD PC monitors vs TVs: um, well, that was a point we were discussing. You can dismiss it if you want. Again, I generally play with low or no ambient lighting, so reflection isn't an issue in my case. However, LCDs with a plastic or glass covering will have reflection, too. As for the side light thing, obviously I'd have to show you in person. Though, I have seen it talked about in articles. Anyway, whatever.

I have seen newer games using LCDs and they look pretty good...but they're not in dimly-lit arcades and they're not displaying classic games. That's my point on that.

As for scanlines, well, this is one of my sources:

http://www.ultimarc.com/monfaq.html

I agree they're an obstruction, though there is also the point (I don't know if anyone's noticed or thought of this) that scanlines give an optical illusion of the graphics, particularly text, as looking like it's 'embossed'. Like it stands out. There is a certain appeal to this as things will appear to have a very slight dimension of depth, though again this is mostly on classic games.

Heheh, on the 'I'm just going with what other people say' thing....um, okay. And I never said only an arcade monitor, but rather a CRT. Remember, I said I have an arcade monitor (multi-sync, actually, which is a little different) and a presentation monitor, the latter being very much like the former rather than a PC monitor.

Relax.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2007, 09:14:25 am »
Yes, that link is an old one.   Of course you have to get to the update of UNTIL NOW!

http://www.ultimarc.com/avgainf.html

I am sure you saw the pics, but take a good look at the dots.   Do you know why they look "boxy" compared to garbled mess that is Direct 3D.....because PIXELS ON ARCADES WERE SQUARE TO BEGIN WITH!   :cheers:

Thats right, the blurred crap you see with arcade monitors and such are an illusion based on the fact that you have poor connections along with compromise of the original digital code. 

Does your picture look like the one above without blur?   If it doesn't then you have compromised the picture.    There isn't any if's and's or but's about this.    This is a verifiable fact.

What cracks me up is that you accept approximations with Direct 3D which is say 1024x768 compared to 224x288 of original pacman and you get 721000+FAKED resolution and you talk about LCD upscaling??

You don't seem to understand how much the new card does with and LCD, look at the link and understand the wonders of the new 352x288 resolution.   Like I said, multiple pixels draw a more accurate picture with NO "upscaling".     Direct 3D is based on upscaling.   

Your damn right scan lines give an illusion just like low resolution monitors.  They cover up the flaws of the source.   Well guess what I like PURE resolution over again FAKED Direct 3D bilinear(thats right, I had that throttled on my pictures, and you can tell the difference).   Look at the first posts, look closely at how blurry the power pellet looks, look at your own for crying out loud, can you honestly say that soft look was how it was supposed to be????

BLOCKY was true to the original.   Were you not there in the arcades?   Even scanlines could not cover up this fact, and like I said, I have actually compared one to one.     

Just admit it, you like your stuff blurry and appearing better.     But don't come off telling me my monitor is crappy and the card has no point.    The pictures speak for themselves.   The in person visual is even more so.    I am betting if you actually saw it, you would be singing a different tune as well.

As it stands you are criticizing something you have not seen, and in effect deterring people without ever letting Andy's hard work get a chance.

I on the other hand, have compared, and if you stick to the idea that you are seeing absolutely no blur, then you must have a direct 3D crt image different from the rest of us, and a MAME snapshot would suffice on proving this.    I await this find.   Just pause on the Power pellet in Pacman and I am sure it will be surprising.   Me guesses picture number one on the Ultimarc site is closer to the truth though.

By the way, are you seriously going to compare glare from and outside housing?   That is like me saying CRT's don't look better because of a booger on the screen.  ::)   

LCD's do not have glare PERIOD.   They don't need specific lighting because of their design.   Still wondering what the hell this "side lights" thing is.  If you find a link to this please pass it on, because I am finding NOTHING on it.    Which is strange with even wikipedia.    Much less it being some widespread phenomenon that hurts vision???

P.S.   As for calming down...I try, but I am finishing my arcade with consoles built in and it can be frustrating.    I just soldered an arcade button to the digital/analog source connector...not exactly easy.

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5480
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2007, 10:30:05 am »
I am sure you saw the pics, but take a good look at the dots.   Do you know why they look "boxy" compared to garbled mess that is Direct 3D.....because PIXELS ON ARCADES WERE SQUARE TO BEGIN WITH!   :cheers:

No, they were not.  The images stored within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display and were never intended to be seen block for block.  I pushed plenty of pixels in the 80's and that is the first thing I learned.

Quote
Thats right, the blurred crap you see with arcade monitors and such are an illusion based on the fact that you have poor connections along with compromise of the original digital code. 

No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT.  "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.

Quote
Does your picture look like the one above without blur?   If it doesn't then you have compromised the picture.    There isn't any if's and's or but's about this.    This is a verifiable fact.

You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.  Many times there are pixels in a low res image designed for CRT display that were never intended to be seen directly, rather it was the effect they had when combined with surrounding areas and viewed on the target display that was intended to be seen.  Anti-aliasing is the modern day equivalent that started when displays were much lower res.

Quote
You don't seem to understand how much the new card does with and LCD, look at the link and understand the wonders of the new 352x288 resolution.   Like I said, multiple pixels draw a more accurate picture with NO "upscaling".     Direct 3D is based on upscaling.   

You don't seem to understand how LCD panels work.  I can't comment on the card, nor will I for a number of reasons.  But I will tell you this:  LCD panels have very specific pixel counts which are what gives you the "native resolution" of the display.  Suppose your displays native resolution is 1024x768 and you want to display an image that is 352x288.  Those numbers will not go evenly into the native resolution of your screen, so one of three things must occur.  Either you 1) live with an approximation of pixel sizes that cause some pixels to be larger than others (also known as artifacting from upscaling), 2) you use only the portion of the screen into which the image resolution can be evenly divided and accept a smaller on-screen image.  In this case it would be 704x576 assuming proper aspect ratios.  Or 3) crop the screen to remove the remainder of pixels which cannot be displayed, in this case resulting in a loss of 32 vertical and 96 lines horizontal.  It's also important to note that without some means of communicating the native resolution of the LCD panel to the drivers (which can scale just as readily as D3D, BTW) methods 2 and 3 couldn't be used as there are many different "native resolutions" out there.

Quote
Look at the first posts, look closely at how blurry the power pellet looks, look at your own for crying out loud, can you honestly say that soft look was how it was supposed to be????

BLOCKY was true to the original.   Were you not there in the arcades?   Even scanlines could not cover up this fact, and like I said, I have actually compared one to one.     

Yes, the power pellet was supposed to appear round, not like the thing you drew.  The softer smoother look was the intention of the artist, but the low resolution of the display hardware limited what he was able to do there.  You are making bizarre assumptions based on something I'm afraid I cannot begin to fathom.

Quote
Still wondering what the hell this "side lights" thing is.  If you find a link to this please pass it on, because I am finding NOTHING on it.    Which is strange with even wikipedia.    Much less it being some widespread phenomenon that hurts vision???

I worked in the glasses-free 3D business for about 5 years and part of my job was to find and evaluate LCD screens to be used with the technology.  I have seen many, many LCD panels, all with different pros and cons.  One of the "cons" is the brightness and / or color shift one gets depending on the viewing angle.  Some panels also "bleed" light at the edges, causing uneven blacks.  Some panels are better than others, and the technology is improving, but still, there are no, none, nada LCD panels that can provide the same brightness and contrast ratios as CRTs when solid black levels are required.  This is why the display industry is pushing toward newer display technologies that more closely mirror what can be delivered by CRT's.

So in short, if you like what you are seeing, that's great.  But please don't try to support "what you like" by spreading falsehoods about myriad other topics.  People come here to learn, not to be misled.

RandyT

*edit* spelling...
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 03:39:44 pm by RandyT »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2007, 11:13:55 am »
Quote
No, they were not.  The images stored in within the electronics were very boxy, but you never ever saw them that way in the arcades.  Those boxy image representations were hand tweaked by the artists to take advantage of characteristics of the display...

So you admit that they were programmed that way....next, are we now trying to delve into the mind of all the programmers??

Quote
No, it was a side effect of using a large dot-pitch dot-triad CRT.  "square" pixels were a technical impossibility.

That side effect is blurred crap.   Though I don't get your last part.   Pixels were square PERIOD.

Quote
You may have compromised what the artist put on his graph paper, but his graph paper was never intended to be viewed as such.

Again...going into the inner minds of the programmers...  Can you at least admit that achieving close to this PRE crapped out low res monitor would be more effective in getting the original image?

Quote
You don't seem to understand how LCD panels work.  I can't comment on the card, nor will I for a number of reasons.

Based on what???   Have I not said over and over that LCD's have a native resolution of 1024x768 and that several pixels are used to create one?   So why do you proceed to explain to me what I alread knew??

Quote
Either you 1) live with an approximation of pixel sizes that cause some pixels to be larger than others (also known as artifacting from upscaling)

So the alternative direct 3D upscale is better where it upscales ALL of them??



Quote
2) you use only the portion of the screen into which the image resolution can be evenly divided and accept a smaller on-screen image.

But of course the image isn't smaller on the arcade VGA so that point is moot.

Quote
In this case it would be 704x576 assuming proper aspect ratios.

Actually 352 x 288 was used, how they got there, I don't pretend to know, but seeing is believing.    Theores alone just don't cut it.

Quote
3) crop the screen to remove the remainder of pixels which cannot be displayed, in this case resulting in a loss of 32 vertical and 96 lines horizontal.  It's also important to note that without some means of communicating the native resolution of the LCD panel to the drivers (which can scale just as readily as D3D, BTW) methods 2 and 3 couldn't be used as there are many different "native resolutions" out there.

As far as I can see no cropping has occured.   Incidently, are you hip to the fact that Arcade VGA has to be configured for each and every resolution separately???    If you were, you might not have made that last statement.

Quote
Yes, the power pellet was supposed to appear round, not like the thing you drew.  The softer smoother look was the intention of the artist, but the low resolution of the display hardware limited what he was able to do there.  You are making bizarre assumptions based on something I'm afraid I cannot begin to fathom.

How bizarre is it to fathom the code was discreet and is rendered in the EXACT way it was programmed???    You keep assuming that you know what the original programmer wanted, yet have you actually asked this?    Do you know for sure?    The "thing" I drew(bad artwork aside) is exactly how the power pellet is shapped with NO BLUR.    It makes me wonder how you are the key whiz and you can't grasp this concept.   I don't mean to be rude because you do have plenty of knowledge, but geez is this really that obscure??

Quote
I worked in the glasses-free 3D business for about 5 years and part of my job was to find and evaluate LCD screens to be used with the technology.  I have seen many, many LCD panels, all with different pros and cons.

Yada yada...and how long ago was that?   So meanwhile the technology has grown leaps and bounds and only a fool would argue that a top end LCD does anything but TROUNCE a CRT display.   Come up with facts, and I will counter, but how you "feel" doesn't cut it.

Refresh rates are beyond the human eye as fast as 2 ms(which is way overkill), there is no glare, the viewing angles have improved so much they are a non issue, blurring is a myth on current LCD's...etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Quote
But please don't try to support "what you like" by spreading falsehoods about myriad other topics.  People come here to learn, not to be mislead.

RandyT

What false hoods??   So far you have actually proved me right on a hundred different levels.    Point out where I was wrong and I will happily admit it.   But if you think your reading minds attitude is going to "prove" anything, you are mistaken.    It would be like the MAME dev's not rendering code accurately because of what they "think" of what the programmers wanted.

Square is accurate.    Blurring is approximations, and unclear at that.    You sacrifice clarity for what "appears" to be better.    The original arcade monitors were the same way.     

But just because you think you are seeing more...i.e. a person who prefers a full screen display vs progressive widescreen, because they THINK it looks better.     Yet ignore the fact that their screen is effectively cut off.    Same goes for every single blurring image.    IT AIN'T REAL!!!

Some of your response/prejudices toward the card mirror this.



« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 11:18:55 am by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5480
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2007, 11:23:40 am »

wow.... :dunno


RandyT

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2007, 11:26:39 am »
Lets take a look at my pictures when zoomed(that is all I did).

Which is really more accurate.    First is Direct 3D using a bilinear filter.



Now here is Direct draw using the original approximation of true resolution.






genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2007, 11:29:03 am »
Damn it...it won't display properly.

Just download those pellets and look for your self.    Put it on your viewer and you will know the "thing" that I drew.

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2007, 12:30:33 pm »
You know what hyenas do.....hang around an pick up scraps.

The problem with this scenario is that there is nothing to get because when I shred I leave nothing behind.

Disprove what I say and go from there.   Being a smartass isn't virtue.

I have sat back and devoured every debate, and key whiz, while being very interesting, essentially spends him time being a "know it all" with virtually no substance.

It's all smoke an mirrors.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2007, 01:49:58 pm »
You know, instead of arguing with me, why not try to find out how the resolution was achieved instead of writing it off completely??

Multiple pixels representing one is not a bad thing is it?    If you have say 3 pixels for every one, I would say that is a very good estimate of what the true nature of that pixel is.

What I can't understand is that my screen shots are EXACTLY how I put them in the options.    That MK screen shot is exactly 401 x 256.    Besides it looking awesome, how in the hell is this done?   I understand that the pixels don't divide evenly, but yet, it is there.

I wonder if some are bigger by one pixel and others are smaller??   It doesn't look like it when I zoom in.  No cropping either.

Say with pacman.   352 only doubles..so that would mean that 320 pixels are left over...which of course is a hell of alot better then Direct 3D alone.  I wish I knew how it was done!

shorthair

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2007, 02:40:25 pm »
<BIG SIGH> genesim....that ultimarc link I provided is not on the avga. It's called the monitor faq, and talks about native resolutions and stuff.

I saved your images and compared them at the same magnification. They're like I originally thought: the 'blurry' (I would say out of focus) ones look like regular Mame without effects; yours look like a D3D image with bilinear filtering turned off. That's what I see. I like it in-between: Mame with ddraw - RGB sharp, or D3D with pre-scaling at 2.

On the other half of your point - your monitor - since none of us can view it in person, let's just say there's no reason discussing it. However, the main point of the AVGA is for arcade monitors. I don't know why Andy added the PC monitor feature, but it's not the main feature of the card, and Andy even explained this in another thread some time ago. You might ask him about all this or do a thread search.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2007, 09:50:57 pm »
Actually, the screen shots from MAME are an exact representation of the what the monitor does.

I reupped the picture using DIRECT 3D with BILINE FILTERING.

How about doing the same yourself.

Then again, I guess the ultimarc guys are lying as well?   Did you not see the caption?   It is obvious from the picture that the exact same settings were used.

Post your own pics so I can see how much different your Direct 3D is with biline filtering.

But you say you like your pics in between.   Hmmmm so again, you like your picture DISTORTED.    The UN BLEMISHED picture is true resolution.     How many more times do I have to hammer this in??     If you like it that way fine.

Still answer this.    Is my second picture not true resolution, or do you think there is some kind of flaw with the original code.    Did Key Whiz not give up the same information???    If he can admit it, why can't you??

The difference with him is that he thinks that yes its that way, but it wasn't meant to be seen that way.....small steps, but at least he acknowledges that is how the original code was rendered.   

BLURRY IS FAKE.    BLURRY IS FAKE.   

p.s.   I do resent you calling me a lyer though.    The picture was Direct 3d with biline filtering.     Though the resolution was 800x600.    I remember I turned it down to get as close as I could to the original using new techniques.

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5480
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
MAME on LCD
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2007, 12:49:23 am »
I have sat back and devoured every debate, and key whiz, while being very interesting, essentially spends him time being a "know it all" with virtually no substance.
It's all smoke an mirrors.

I guess some people just need pictures....

RE: Artist's intention


This is a close-up photo of a section of the actual control panel showing the real world version of what the programmer was shooting for.  Note:  No little squares or pointy objects like the ones on your LCD or the one in your drawing.  Round and smooth, as I stated earlier.  The artist did what he could to approximate it, and fortunately the bit of blur produced by the coarse dot-pitch of the monitor gave him the softness needed to pull it off.  All computer artists of the day, to include myself, took the soft output properties of the CRT into consideration because it was all they had to work with.  If you assume differently, I'm afraid you are just incorrect and there are plenty of folks here who will tell you the same thing.

Now I'm going to give you something that you've failed to provide.  An actual photo, not a screencap,  taken from a full screen display (not cropped or reduced in size) on one of my LCD panels.  It's a pretty mediocre 1280x1024 LCD with a standard analog connection attached to a less than mediocre nVidia Vanta mobo based video chipset.  In other words, pretty much the bottom of the bottom by today's standards.  Whatever glow you see is mostly due to the camera, with a tiny amount caused by the non-digital connection.  It looks much sharper in real life than in the photo.


Now my question to you is, what is it that you do not understand about what people have been telling you here?  If you don't like the effect provided by the filtering, turn it off!  If you think the pixels aren't being 100% accurately portrayed then fix the settings to do what you want them to.  And BTW, as stated before,  you aren't getting 100% accurate pixel representation unless the native LCD resolution can be evenly divided by the target resolution.  If your assertion is anything other, then you are mistaken on that front as well.  However, a high resolution LCD will look much better in this regard as the native pixels are much smaller and extras are less detectable.  IOW, what would look very bad on a 640x480 LCD would be hardly noticeable on one that was 1600x1280, but a purist such as yourself might still be able to find fault.

As for my "prejudice", that statement was just a "low blow" and would assume that I have an opinion one way or the other about the hardware. I do not.  I'm sure it's a dandy piece of kit that takes headaches out of the process.  This discussion is entirely about getting you to provide some sort of backing for what a good number of the knowledgeable folks here will view, at best, as uninformed conclusions and at worst, flat out deliberate obfuscation.

Be sure to click on the images if you want to see them better.

RandyT
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 01:05:37 am by RandyT »

Naru

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2007, 01:22:07 am »
Hmmm...
What can I add to this...
I have both types of monitors.
I love the LCD because of it's slim and sexy figure.
I love the CRT because she's got curves, and that nice thick caboose.
Hmmm... doesn't look like I have anything to add after all.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2007, 05:32:22 am »
Man you are not only prejudice, but you have thrown out all reasoning???!!!

Now let me get this straight.   You are pointing to a PICTURE(??!!) and saying that is what the original code was supposed to be???    Gee and can we do the same for the pacman that is not pictured directly to its left?

Hey while were at it, why don't we make other "improvements".

Fact CODE is CODE.    This is non-debatable(though you seem to think this can be).

The programmers intention....all OPINIONS.

Do I need to spell it out even more?   Can you imagine if the MAME team took your approach and just arbitrarily added things to make it fit what you THINK the programmers wanted??    I am sure Night Driver was programmed with the car in mind, but do we add it at base level?

NO.   If you want accuracy, then you render the graphics FIRST, then apply the smoke or whatever.

You keep saying my screen shots in some way take away from my point.    How do you figure??    My first attack is at least getting it through some skulls that the ORIGINAL code should not be tampered with before it gets to the source.    Filters change this, and are not real.   The screen shots first posted are the EXACT resolution of the screen shot of what code was rendered through MAME.   Any other size is an estimate.   Nothing to do with the screen, but everything to do with what the Arcade VGA is putting out.

Direct 3D even without filters also has the same problem.   FAKED resolution.    I can tell you for damn straight that Pacman was not meant to be played on 640x480 which is the lowest that windows allows(though I have heard of other cards that allow different resolutions, but that is another story).

Why can you not grasp this fact??   Even if you don't buy that the Arcade VGA can achieve this, how can you defend the matter by saying it is as simple as unselecting the filters???

Now lets get to this point that you say...uh if it doesn't divide evenly, then it can't possible be more accurate.

You do realize that with any screen that is not exactly to the Pacman specifications there has to be black bars on the side.    Lets say for instance that those black bars are where the rest of the "left over" resolutions reside.   Black is black...who cares how many pixels represent it.     As long as the picture is centered, and it is close to the horizontal resolution.    This would be a drastic improvement over just assigning a generic resolution for all games which is what Direct 3D does.

Oh by the way, to smoke out all this crap about Programmers dealing with the limitations of the CRT monitor.

Isn't it true that Pacman was developed on a single chip processor.   Gee that wouldn't have anything to do with the display adapter not even coming CLOSE to filling up the CRT technology of the time.

CRT monitors have been around at much higher resolutions since the 40's.   The problem is the chip communication.    If they could have made it rounder they wouldhave.     Don't be rediculous.   

In closing....

All I tried to do is share what the Arcade VGA did admirably.    It FILLS UP THE SCREEN with a direct draw like results(actually it looks better then that to me, which is unimagineable).

I wasn't really trying to sell an LCD screen, though it is wonderful for an arcade experience that doubles for regular computer applications along with high res consoles.    What I was trying to do was share the direct pixel to pixel relationship that the software seems to render well.

In the end, those that appreciate original code, will see that there is alot that can be done with this.    If they feel they need scanlines, put them on.   If they don't like it "blocky"(which is still funny to me because that was how it originally was before it reaches the computer), then don't buy this card and stick to NON AUTHENTIC averages....or put more effects on, at least you have a more accurate representation then at the lowest...640x480.    I can't believe someone like short hair would actually prefer that garbled mess at the highest resolution??

We can split hairs( :laugh:) to the end of time, but it won't get us anywhere.   Those that want to belive in low res compromising image is best, will continue to do so.   The facts don't support it(unless it is a one to one relationship which no arcade monitor can do for every game!!).     Multiple pixels representing an image can produce very close to the original.    In some cases it is actually one to one.     If it isn't, like Key Whiz said, the human eye may not even tell.

For me, the card is wonderful, and I am glad that I spent the pitiful chump change to get it.    I needed a decent video card for minimal tasks, and I got that.    I needed something that would display Direct Draw like results full screen, and I got that.    I am happy, and I just wanted to share the wealth.   

The rest is for the horses to drink.   
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 05:50:35 am by genesim »

ryantheleach

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • I'm a llama!
    • My Personal Blog
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2007, 06:03:08 am »
ermm, dont screenshots save from what mame says is going to the video card, not what the video card is actually processing, im probably very way off here but it seems to me a screenshot is a screenshot regardless of what hardware is used.

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2007, 06:39:51 am »
Yeah, and just exactly how do you save a screenshot without it displaying?

The information is one to one.    If it displays, then that is what is produced. 

Now please tell me, how do you get 401 x 256 on your regular card.....

Do you see the black bars on the top and bottom on the first Mortal Kombat pic, that is 640x480.    Do you see any black bars at all on the second picture...NOPE that is 401x256.    A one to one relationship on what is put out on my monitors screen.   

Don't believe me, right click and see.   I suggest saving liking I did way back when and then zoom to see the attrocities of filters with Direct 3D that supposedly fills up your screen.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 06:46:01 am by genesim »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5480
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: MAME on LCD
« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2007, 10:57:17 am »
Now let me get this straight.   You are pointing to a PICTURE(??!!) and saying that is what the original code was supposed to be???    Gee and can we do the same for the pacman that is not pictured directly to its left?

A pie with a slice cut out of it as a character on the side of an arcade machine is too abstract,  so they gave it feet and eyes.  Apples and oranges.

Quote
Fact CODE is CODE.    This is non-debatable(though you seem to think this can be).

The programmers intention....all OPINIONS.

Which mean mine are as valid as yours, I suppose.  But here is one absolutely undeniable fact: without the display, all that code is just 1's and 0's.  It doesn't become the Pac-Man that lived in your local arcade until it is coupled with a display like that which was used in the original machine; a 15khz, RGB, large dot-pitch CRT monitor...oriented vertically.  Anything else is, using your vernacular, "faked".  Not saying that it's bad, just that it's not what you are trying to convince yourself of it as being.

Quote
Do I need to spell it out even more?   Can you imagine if the MAME team took your approach and just arbitrarily added things to make it fit what you THINK the programmers wanted??

It's not about what anyone thinks the programmers wanted, rather an attempt at re-creating the original look of the game as it existed in the arcade.  And that is exactly what many of those filters are there for.

Quote
You keep saying my screen shots in some way take away from my point.    How do you figure??    My first attack is at least getting it through some skulls that the ORIGINAL code should not be tampered with before it gets to the source.    Filters change this, and are not real.   The screen shots first posted are the EXACT resolution of the screen shot of what code was rendered through MAME.   Any other size is an estimate.   Nothing to do with the screen, but everything to do with what the Arcade VGA is putting out.

Quite simply, your "screen shots" don't have enough pixels in them to fill the screen.  So if MAME isn't scaling then something else has to be.  And I am assuming that something to be hardware scaling on the video card, which equally fits your definition of "tampering".  IOW, you are throwing up the source as evidence of  a great output system that hasn't even touched it yet.  Nonsensical, to say the least.  It's literally as silly as telling everyone about a great painting you did, and then for proof, you show them the photo you used for inspiration.

Quote
Direct 3D even without filters also has the same problem.   FAKED resolution.    I can tell you for damn straight that Pacman was not meant to be played on 640x480 which is the lowest that windows allows(though I have heard of other cards that allow different resolutions, but that is another story).

Your LCD doesn't go below that either.  "Faked" is "Faked".  But don't take my word for it.  Hit the menu button on your LCD while a game is running and tell me the resolution and the frequency that is being reported on the input.  And if you'd like, do some math and report to us how those numbers interact with the points you have been trying to make.

Quote
Now lets get to this point that you say...uh if it doesn't divide evenly, then it can't possible be more accurate.

You do realize that with any screen that is not exactly to the Pacman specifications there has to be black bars on the side.    Lets say for instance that those black bars are where the rest of the "left over" resolutions reside.   Black is black...who cares how many pixels represent it.     As long as the picture is centered, and it is close to the horizontal resolution.    This would be a drastic improvement over just assigning a generic resolution for all games which is what Direct 3D does.

Talking about the empty space on the sides of a vertical game is just more obfuscation and doesn't relate to the point.... If the vertical resolution is the limiting factor, consider it and it alone.   Again, if you don't like what Direct3D does to your screen, turn it off.  That's what I did when I took the photograph.

Quote
Isn't it true that Pacman was developed on a single chip processor.   Gee that wouldn't have anything to do with the display adapter not even coming CLOSE to filling up the CRT technology of the time. CRT monitors have been around at much higher resolutions since the 40's.   The problem is the chip communication.    If they could have made it rounder they wouldhave.     Don't be rediculous.   

You seem to be dancing all around the point, yet never seem to get your feet wet in it.  A complete system cannot exist without all the parts that comprise it.  Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.  But the neat thing about artistic types is that you can hand them a stick, a bic lighter and a sheet of paper and you get a result that is much greater than the sum of the physical components.  To say that an artist does not take advantage of the traits inherent to his medium only tells me that you aren't one.

Quote
The rest is for the horses to drink.   

What do you have against horses? :)

RandyT

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: MAME on LCD
« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2007, 11:47:08 am »
And BTW, as stated before,  you aren't getting 100% accurate pixel representation unless the native LCD resolution can be evenly divided by the target resolution.  If your assertion is anything other, then you are mistaken on that front as well. 

This is obviously the reason he "can't figure out" how to take a simple picture of his monitor so we can demonstrate his incorrect aspect ratio on Mortal Kombat.  Although maybe his LCD magically physically morphs into a 1.57x1 aspect ratio display to eliminate black bars?

Quote
Yeah, and just exactly how do you save a screenshot without it displaying?

The information is one to one.    If it displays, then that is what is produced. 

Wrong.  The Mortal Kombat screenshot you generated by pressing F12 in MAME has 102,656 pixels.  Your LCD has 768,432 pixels.  You neglected to show us the other 683,776 invented pixels.

I only hope the EE guys don't discover this gem of a thread and send it (and the OP) to post hell within minutes LOL.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 12:10:17 pm by ahofle »

genesim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2007, 05:11:46 pm »
ahofle,

Are you reading?   Do you even understand a damn thing as to how the card works???    Einstein, I repeat, MULTIPLE PIXELS are used to generate the resolution.

Windows display properties reports the resolution as 401 x 256 at 60Hz.

When I hit F11 on MAME it reports the refresh at 53 fps.    This leads me to believe that the computer is being "fooled".     Software can work wonders, and I am not about to try to figure out how it came to that conclusion, all I know that this is proof that it DID!

Unless of course my computer is now "lying".   

The screen shot is the exact resolution that is being sent to the card, and the fact that it plays is what is EXACTLY running.   What more can I tell you.

As for needing a picture, I can take pictures all day, and it wouldn't change the fact that the Ultimarc website has the best one.   It illustrates the point exactly, and me not being an expert in photography have added nothing to the mix.    I have taken multiple pictures and it just isn't lit well.    I am not hiding anything though, like so many accuse me of.    You want proof, go look at the link, because that is exactly what I am seeing.   I have a 7.2 megapixel camera and it still pisses me off that I can't get a non-blurry image.     I cannot reproduce what I see.   But I match colors for a living and my job is being able to see differences up to 3 decimal places, a crap resolution is not going to be my downfall.

Now seriously, get your head out of the clouds.   IF I take a snapshot, and even if my LCD doesn't report it correctly, does it change the authenticity of the snap?   I am illustrating the difference of direct draw and direct 3D, so at this point, it really doesn't even have anything to do with a monitor does it??

Not that what I said is wrong, but I can't even get some people to see one plus one.   That is how I debate.   I start from the ground up.   

Key Whiz,

Quote
Your LCD doesn't go below that either.  "Faked" is "Faked".  But don't take my word for it.  Hit the menu button on your LCD while a game is running and tell me the resolution and the frequency that is being reported on the input.  And if you'd like, do some math and report to us how those numbers interact with the points you have been trying to make.

Fake is not Fake, as I have tried to illustrate.   There are degrees of being faked.   As I said to ahofle, the widows display properties show 401x256 at 60.   That is what is being reported.   PERIOD.

Now how it got there, I don't pretend to know, but there are a million ways of doubling/tripling pixels that could produce acceptable means.    Perhaps the black lines on the side are how it is done.    You do realize that 401 lines aren't easily noticeable.   Could it really be that hard to leave off most of one line, and yet get a proportional enlargement that would be much more satisfactory as opposed to using direct 3D which upscales windows defaults of 640 x 480 as best?   

You keep going over that native resolution doesn't change for LCD, YET I have told you time and time again that I FREAKIN' KNOW THIS.    Listen broken record, I got it, and it takes nothing away from my point.    MULTIPLE PIXELS MULTIPLE PIXELS MULTIPLE PIXELS.    Am I getting through here??

Does it really matter if multiple blacks are used on the the borders of Pacman if the rest of the resolution is upscaled accordingly to present a bigger pictures while still mainting the aspect ratio(or very close to it)?    Actually when I look at the picture in startup mode, the white border of the agreement guide is cut off(before the game loads), but when Pacman starts, you only get a cut black border at most.    I have compared, and it looks like behavior like this has happened.    NO LOSS in my book.

Quote
You seem to be dancing all around the point, yet never seem to get your feet wet in it.  A complete system cannot exist without all the parts that comprise it.  Maybe color monitors of much higher resolution did exist at the time, but they cost 10x what an entire game sold for.  Memory was also very very expensive, so there were a multitude of reasons why the programmers couldn't make the graphics smoother.  But the neat thing about artistic types is that you can hand them a stick, a bic lighter and a sheet of paper and you get a result that is much greater than the sum of the physical components.  To say that an artist does not take advantage of the traits inherent to his medium only tells me that you aren't one.

I have never disputed that what you say COULD be true.   But at the same time, why would an artist CHOOSE his pellet to be that shape over a perfectly round one??    Don't you think it is more to do with the limits of the chipset over the supposed cost of a monitor(I am still reeling over this....gee I am sure that tall narrow monitor was cheaper to make then a standard model :laugh2:)??  Or do you really believe there was tons of chips laying around, and tons of ram and they just wanted to use that screen so bad, but they would rather be "arty" about it. :laugh2:

I got one even better...just maybe monitors were actually so cheap compared to the chip set, that one could do a read made of just about any resolution they wanted, so the lazy asses programmed as they saw fit rather then matching a standard.    I am not saying this was a bad thing, but if you take a look at the 101 resolutions, I highly doubt the monitor was a real problem.

What I do know, and I will say it again.    Getting the original vision right FIRST is a must.    It may be one's and zero's, but it is still repeatable.    Do you understand?    It doesn't matter how it is displayed afterwards, it matters how it is sent to the screen.    If you have an incorrect aspect ratio like 640x480, then "simply turning off direct 3D" is not going to cut it.   Direct 3D does not work with lower resolutions because most video cards do not have that to start with, and as you said LCD screens can't go below it anyway.   So can you not fathom the idea that Direct 3D would actually do more harm then good in this case.    Well I can tell you that it does.   When I  put on Direct 3D while it is in a lower then say 800x600 then actually whole rows are cut out from the "rounding".    If you have a high display like LCD, then you obviously have to write software that will correct this by using MULTIPLE PIXELS to represent one.   OR you have Direct Draw and you don't utilize the screen.    How else can I explain this?    I can say it over and over, and you just won't get it.

The artist part comes AFTER you get the resolution correct.    Not BEFORE.     You can put any effect on a correct estimation, but as they say, if you start with 640x480, you can't polish a turd.     You may get it really shiny, but a turd is a turd.

Lets face it, do we really disagree that much?    I know exactly what you mean, and I see merit in a programmer most definetly knew his hardware, but still you cannot ignore the fact that the limitations of the software were the bottle neck.     Do you really dispute this?     

I don't think an LCD player is a crappy display, and in alot of cases if done correctly it can give you closer results with clever software(or hard encoded/rigged hardware).    You don't believe so.    Cool.    Everyone has opinions.    Perhaps you may be closer to knowing what the original programmer thought.    But it doesn't matter because the documentation is there and yes....that one was a one, and that zero was a zero, and no after the fact monitor is going to change this.

Oh incidently I feel that I am an artist as well as a scientist.    Not only do I excel at abstract thinking, but the talent runs through my family, with the closest as my dad being a painter.    Still, you can learn through observance.   I don't have to be hit by a car to know what it does to you.

I hate idiotic rationale like your background lends some kind of weight to having more knowledge.    History will show you that people with absolutely no connection to x technology can know more then someone that has spent a lifetime in the field.     The greatest inventions of the world were materialized through that one guy that could make the connection.   
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 05:31:27 pm by genesim »

ahofle

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4484
    • Arcade Ambience Project
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2007, 05:48:21 pm »
I am still reeling over this....gee I am sure that tall narrow monitor was cheaper to make then a standard model :laugh2:)?? 

Oh man this is good stuff...

Wanted:
Talented scientist/artist who excels in abstract thinking to help me convert a standard 19" CGA monitor to a Pacman monitor.  I've tried looking everywhere for a replacement, but all I can find are short and fat ones (I need tall and narrow), so I've decided to try a conversion.  Please advise.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 06:12:31 pm by ahofle »

RandyT

  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5480
  • Friends don't let friends hack keyboards.
    • GroovyGameGear.com
Re: Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2007, 10:00:15 pm »

I concede because you were obviously born smarter than me and my continuing to post in this ridiculous thread is unfortunately proof of that.


RandyT

  
 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28