Original graphics Vs. Improved graphics.

[Xiaou2]

bboysnj -

 Ohh bboy... you really hurt my feelings.  Im going to have to
write a book about how cool you are now.  Cause you really are my hero.
Everybody should think that too!   I better spread the word so the Whole World
does not miss out on such golden comments as these.   The literary loss
to the generations would be both an academic, and poetic tragedy, to be missed...

 Please Great BBoy, make fun of me some more.   Show the others how
Lame they are in comparison to your almighty greatness...

 Ohh BBoy, dont let us down.  Show us how COOL you really are!

[Ummon]

Actually, isn't it 'shou(t) to' ?

[genesim]

A Pixel does Not get distorted when displayed from the left, middle or right.

This is wrong.  A CRT monitor has geometric distortion.  ALL OF THEM.   LCD's(or plasma for that matter) do not have this problem.   If you aren't ready to accept physics 101 then how can we get to the other faults of a CRT monitor?

When I hear "a bunch of lightbulbs" me wonders if you understand how the monitor works.    3 Electron beams pointed off center will have distortion on the pixel.  There is color bleeding, keystoning, and overall inaccuracy on even the colors that are projected.   All of this because of the very nature of the flawed technology.

After you accept that all of the above does exist what is your opinion in relation to the likely fact that programmers did not account for this?

I suggest you look up how a CRT works before you debate against me further.

bboysnj,

I take it very personally when I am attacked.   I am not wrong for being offended at the behavior.  That said I do consider the source and I enjoy actually calling a person for what they are.   

[Jack Burton]

Even with image distortion, color bleeding, and glare, I still think a high quality CRT monitor looks a million times better than an LCD screen for any classic arcade game.  The contrast, softness, curve, and glow of a CRT just looks better to me.

I don't care about the developers intent.  Although I do think like to think that if I grabbed Toru Iwatani by the arm and showed him my best efforts to display his game with a CRT and with an LCD he would agree with me. 

Hmm, maybe we could actually settle this dispute with some hard evidence.  We could contact Dona Bailey.  She was a programmer on Centipede, and currently teaches game design at the University of Kansas. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona_Bailey

[genesim]

Cenitipede??  You are going to use Centipede as an example??

Peference vs reality, that is what we are determining.

I pefer consistent color, color separation, no glare..etc.

Do I see the benefits of certain CRT displays, absolutely.   But when I hear someone say it can't be done because of computer power I want to laugh out of control.

Keep in mind that even if a look seems 3D it can also be your mind finishing the rest of the story vs actually being shown what was coded.   A CRT display does have a 3D type look because it is actually covering part of the code with its inherent problems.   LCD shows the original code in all its ugly glory.

But know this.   Your "proof" doesn't stand a chance to this fact.   Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

Though her/his(not sure here) input would be very interesting, it isn't the be all end all.  What she prefers could be indicative of nostalgia and nothing more.   But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

[Ginsu Victim]

But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

Where the hell do you think you are? 

[CheffoJeffo]

Where the hell do you think you are? 

He made it very clear that he is GENESIM, and only GENESIM. Please keep up.

[genesim]

But Centipede is a poor example anyway.    Its not like 3D effects are jumping out at you..just like with Donkey Kong above.

Where the hell do you think you are? 

Um a place that talks about thousands of video games....and who has people that are smart enough to figure out that said examples above are not very good ones when comparing the limitations of an arcade monitor being somehow an improvement over current ones.

Still, there are going to be exceptions.

[CheffoJeffo]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

I won't go as far as agreeing with the premise that displays were manufactured to match the limitations of the code (since std res monitors pretty much conform to NTSC and weren't designed in relationship to the code), but there definitely were monitors capable of displaying higher resolutions than used in games.

In fact the same monitors were capable of displaying higher resolutions than used in many games.

The combination is probably why it isn't discussed.

Randy Fromm's Understanding Monitor Resolution article does a good job of explaining the issues.

EDIT: For poorly written portion.

[genesim]

Wow a thoughtful response...please keep it up.

I will be the first to admit that Xiaou2 example is exactly how an artist could have made the code.    I have never stated otherwise.

What is different though is that LCD can actually produce the code more accurately because of non color bleeding and the like.   Even if desired...it has still never been shown for what it truly was.

I stand by the answer being a real emulation study of the original pixel design of the archaic monitors.   For example, multiple pixel representation of the original less then stellar monitors.

Computer processing power can certaintly handle it and the Arcade VGA has the first part entirely right. 

But I can tell you now, the example I said is completely true.   No programmer accounted for the differences with pixel distortion in relationship to the pixels in the center.   Instead of calling me names and putting me down for the love of your religion, how about giving me credit where it is due?    These are undeniable facts and if you follow the logic, it is impossible to disprove me with the current code that is represented in MAME or straight from the circuit boards.

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

When I see hoofprints I think horses not zebras.    Most of what we are debating was cost.   Programmers didn't have the money to truly program to the specific monitor standard in that way.

Turbo is certaintly a compelling answer and just may be part of quite a few exceptions, but most of it was no doubt in the "good enough" category.   The idea was draw it fast and send it out.    The pixels being in a rectangle was not on purpose, it was the limitations in technology.    Nothing more, nothing less.

[genesim]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

A circle even when blurred up...even when masked off is still a circle.   Sometimes the artist that coded the video game are given just a little bit too much credit.

They made a pixel representation and said...now lets see if it sells!   I brought up Splash screens before being proof of this.

[CheffoJeffo]

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

Since the first video games actually used modified consumer television sets, it is natural that the NTSC standard was adopted as the defacto standard for our industry.

Who do I believe, genesim, who apparently has never even owned an arcade monitor, or Randy Fromm who has taught classes on this stuff since the 1980s ?  

I guess it is mere coincidence that Atari's video game standards cite the vertical resolution (Std Res) at 240 and that NTSC's Std Res is also 240.  

Obviously arcade monitors were manufactured specifically for arcade cabinets (arcades are places where there are arcade cabinets).

Where you are wrong is believing that monitors were manufactured specifically to match the specific resolution that a particular programmer used for a particular game. That is why I can, for the most part, mix and match standard res monitors in my games (some exceptions for differences in available/required sync connections).

EDIT: I suppose that I should acknowledge that exceptions also exist for Nintendo games as they use 100V, inverted video and have the sound amplifier on the monitor itself. So, not plug-and-play directly, but require modification to swap into another cabinet or to swap another monitor into a Nintendo cabinet.

[Barry Barcrest]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

As for the displays...you really don't think the rectangular monitors were made specifically for the arcades like in Donkey Kong or Pacman??   Oh really, so the programmers were matching the codes to this oh so popular monitor that just happened to fall right into the cabinets?

You are wrong here or just not getting it, no one said the monitors were specifically made for the code only you..... It's like VGA Monitors, i'm not talking about SVGA but back when VGA's we common place. Most people had pretty much the same monitor (Different manu's but same set up), it was a VGA monitor of a specific dot pitch and the resolution was going to be 640 x 480. You could write code for graphics knowing exactly what they would like on a VGA screen at 640 x 480. There were Higher Resolution monitors and better dot pitch VGA monitors but you would code for the most common place. You with me so far?

So lets go back to the old arcade monitors, yes there were higher resolution monitors but the cost was disproportionatly high and the processing power at the time would have struggled with running games as such reolutions. So they went for a standard resolution monitor that was availble off the shelf knowing that was what would be put into the cabs and coded acordingly for that display.

Where does that say the monitor was made for the code? It doesn't and no one has said this. The code was written for that specific monitor standard. The coder wouldn't care what it looked like on a more expensive better quality monitor because it wasn't designed to be run on such a screen, so the only way you can see it as the coder intended is to run it on what it was designed for.

[CheffoJeffo]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

[Ginsu Victim]

Incidently, if there was the capability to make a circle instead of a octagonal power pellet in Pacman it would have been done.  It makes no damn sense the way it is.

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

 

[ahofle]

If you don't like the octagon, you can always use an arcade monitor ...

 

It's funny how he complains about CRT 'bleeding' in one sentence and then complains about a Pacman power pellet being blocky in another.

[clok]

This has turned into a argument because some of you dislike the people debating. Both sides just need to talk about the issue, not the people, both sides need to "let it go".

One thing, I have seen some of the old design documents, and yes they where done on graph paper (well sorta) and no, not everyone did it that way. I think Genes point was, when designing the game, they probably started on paper. AND most arcade games where not designed on the hardware (monitors, etc) they ended up being on, so the Bleed and such was probably not Incorporated into the design. I would bet many noticed it and did think about it and use it sometimes, but I wonder if it was used allot or a little? I know I have read many interviews and heard "a effect we didn't forsee but we liked and left in" or words to that effect. One thing to think about is CRTs have allot of adjustments (allot more then the standard color ones your old TV had sticking out the back or on the remote) that are set once at factory, and many times very badly. SO I tend to think designing for BLEED would have been somewhat hard as no two would bleed alike. Most CRTs do bleed and look very much alike, but I have seen TVs/arcade CRTs of the same machine where the ghosting is above the lettering, below the lettering or to the side. So planning for this would be hard in my opinion. Once again, I am pretty sure some did.

My guess (yes just a guess) is most games where designed on a fairly well calibrated CRT where bleed is minimal (but still there) and they did "what looked good" on the CRT it was developed on. Most games where designed quickly (if you read some of the old stories, whoa boy, quick is almost an understatement) and with very little time making it look good, I know they wanted it as good as possible, but I just don't think they spent the time to check how the bleed looked and such. I look at Frogger, its a excellent game, but even for its time the graphics are sorta, ho hum... the frog even with the monitors and pixel counts they used back then, could have looked better (but then again, that's an opinion).

I do agree DK and centipede are probably poor choices to show blending and bleed effects. gauntlet, Ghost & goblins they do allot of blending and are fairly old school games.

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like. I'm a game player, I HATED the fuzzy effects MAME32 had when run on a high res CRT, I like the clean blocky look, but that is opinion only, I just like to be able to play um easy without firing up a cab.

If the world was perfect I would have a Huge building with far to many machines running 24/7, i would let anybody come play and spend way to much time doing it myself. But i cant, I have an APT so i cant keep more then 1 cab ( i have owned 8-10, and regret selling EVERY SINGLE ONE) but i cant keep um.

Last thought, its easy to get annoyed with peoples opinions and comments, i do it all the time (both ways, get annoyed and annoy others). I find that if I DONT reply for a few hours, i just don't care, my "poster rage" has gone. But I'm still human and post when i shouldn't.. maybe just did..

[FrizzleFried]

Displays were more then likely made in relationship to the LIMITATIONS of the original code, and not the other way around.    Higher resolution monitors were there, but the computers couldn't match them.    This is something that is never even discussed here.   

Incorrect.  EGA resolutions weren't introduced until 1984 and VGA resolutions weren't introduced until 1987.  Prior to 1984 CGA (standard resolution) was all that was available.

[CheffoJeffo]

Don't forget Extended Resolution ...

[FrizzleFried]

You mean the additional resolutions that CGA monitors can display?

[RayB]

WTF... how do you make a perfect circle when you only have 4x4 fat pixels to work with, and a limited color palette (meaning no ability to anti-alias) ??!  

[CheffoJeffo]

You mean the additional resolutions that CGA monitors can display?

I dunno if a different monitor was required for extended or even which games were extended resolution.

[CheffoJeffo]

This has turned into a argument because some of you dislike the people debating. Both sides just need to talk about the issue, not the people, both sides need to "let it go".

See earlier post about tempests and teacups.

Most CRTs do bleed and look very much alike, but I have seen TVs/arcade CRTs of the same machine where the ghosting is above the lettering, below the lettering or to the side. So planning for this would be hard in my opinion. Once again, I am pretty sure some did.

I think that both you and genesim need to look at a properly converged and configured monitor if you think that these situations are the norm.

My guess (yes just a guess) is most games where designed on a fairly well calibrated CRT where bleed is minimal (but still there) and they did "what looked good" on the CRT it was developed on. Most games where designed quickly (if you read some of the old stories, whoa boy, quick is almost an understatement) and with very little time making it look good, I know they wanted it as good as possible, but I just don't think they spent the time to check how the bleed looked and such. I look at Frogger, its a excellent game, but even for its time the graphics are sorta, ho hum... the frog even with the monitors and pixel counts they used back then, could have looked better (but then again, that's an opinion).

While they did not have tons of dedicated artists like the games pushed out today, they did give considerable thought to making things look good on screen (as stated by developers at the time and evidenced by Xiaou2's pics). Hell, a number of these guys designed the artwork for the cabinets.

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like. I'm a game player, I HATED the fuzzy effects MAME32 had when run on a high res CRT, I like the clean blocky look, but that is opinion only, I just like to be able to play um easy without firing up a cab.

See earlier post about "If you don't have a problem with how the games look or play, then you don't have a problem with the way the games look or play."

Last thought, its easy to get annoyed with peoples opinions and comments, i do it all the time (both ways, get annoyed and annoy others). I find that if I DONT reply for a few hours, i just don't care, my "poster rage" has gone. But I'm still human and post when i shouldn't.. maybe just did..

From what I can see, the person who is annoyed is genesim.

[ahofle]

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like.

That's a pretty poor analogy.  Running Gauntlet on a C2D vs a Pentium 3 looks and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME.  Running it on an LCD vs a arcade monitor looks totally different.  Emulation is about accurately simulating hardware and software, not simply 'running it on different hardware'.  I don't think anyone can argue that emulating arcade games on an LCD looks more like the 'real thing' than with an arcade monitor.  The only thing debatable is whether or not looking the same is preferable (or even something worth caring about).

[Ginsu Victim]

If the debate is about restoration, CRTs are the way to go, if its about Emulation, well.. inst emulation about getting the original stuff to run on the different hardware? We can run a ROM on a Core2Duo, but not a LCD? If its about what looks best to you, well, sorry that's not a debate, you like what you like.

That's a pretty poor analogy.  Running Gauntlet on a C2D vs a Pentium 3 looks and sounds EXACTLY THE SAME.  Running it on an LCD vs a arcade monitor looks totally different.  Emulation is about accurately simulating hardware and software, not simply 'running it on different hardware'.  I don't think anyone can argue that emulating arcade games on an LCD looks more like the 'real thing' than with an arcade monitor.  The only thing debatable is whether or not looking the same is preferable (or even something worth caring about).

 

[Xiaou2]

when designing the game, they probably started on paper. AND most arcade games where not designed on the hardware (monitors, etc) they ended up being on, so the Bleed and such was probably not Incorporated into the design.

 A lot of these guys were coding using the equivalent of a Calculator!  Zeros and Ones,
no monitor.  A print out only!  (as far as I recall from the documentary I saw long ago)
 
 If that was the case... do you really think that they spent a lot of time on
higher res monitors?

 If they did in fact do so... then that was probably at a later time period. Maybe late
80s to 90s.   And even IF they did it from the start... it wouldnt matter.   The
whole idea is that the game designers Knew that their creations would be
displayed on a lowres monitor... so made the graphics to suit that display from the
very start to the very finish.

 We are not talking Concepts here.  Its known that some designers, such as
the game Joust... were envisioned in true 3d.   Gladly, they didnt have the
power to do such things with the hardware back then.
 


 It was argued that because the beams were shot at angles.. it would cause distortions.
The isnt really all that true... because its not the beam you are seeing.  You are seeing
a Glowing Phosphor Dot light up.   The angle of the beam that Hits the Phosphor
matters very little.  In fact, the Shadowmask is Designed for just that purpose.
The mask isnt simply a mesh.  Its a 3d structure.  The rear of the mask has little
cups routed out on the rear, which catches the beams overspill on both the left
and right  angled gun beams.

 
 When anyone put an image on these lowres arcade monitors,  they would immediately
see that certain things didnt look all that good... and had to be tweaked.

 You can easily know this.. by viewing this website on a non-hdtv.

 Still, its not like what was described in the argument.  The effects of a crt shadowmask is not random. The effects are equally duplicated.   

 You can see such a thing when the artists realized that if they used a single pixel checkerboard pattern of black ,  could make translucent shadows.   The pattern didnt show - but the dark translucent shadow effect did.   Nobody would have known this,
unless they had not tested the images on lowres arcade monitors.   And... they couldnt
have designed the games for higher res monitors - least the player see an ugly
mesh pattern.

 The color mixing isnt random either.  There is a science to the way the colors
bleed, mix and fade... which is duplicatable, and was used in many games.
Most especially with games where they hired actual artists to do the graphics,
instead of only the programmers doing them.
   

 To simulate this however, inst as easy as Gen believes.  It cant be done with a
simple filter effect.  It has to be done with something like a complex ruleset,
and or use of something like a raytrace routine.  Basically, 3d rendered rays
bouncing around in the simulated 3d mask.  The resolution would also have to
be insanly high to pull it off well.  Else, they effect would have to be scaled.. which
would change the entire look of it... making it all near worthless.

 
 As stated, Pac Mans pellets were designed octagonal, because that was what
looked best on a standard arcade monitor.  The way it was Designed to be viewed on.

[genesim]

Clok,

Thank you for shining some light into what I have been stating.

Sometimes I just want to beat my head up against the wall because there are serious communication breakdowns.   Most everything you guys have described have been in terms of absolutes.   I have never stated such.   Programmers aren't one way, nor hardware one way.   It is a mutual relationship.   

At the same time when I hear people say that I don't want octagonal pellets and the like I just scream.    Instead of personal attacking me, how about reading what I actually wrote.   When did I ever that they could make circles??  When did I say it once???   

On this one thing, my point was and is still:

If the programmer had the option of making a circle the programmer would have did such.   The grid and the code did not allow this to happen.    It is about what could be maximized with TIME/COST/CAPABILITY/SPACE.    It is that simple.

You guys debate with what happened vs what was actually envisioned.    There were limits, but at the same time again see hoofprints not zebras.

The monitor was more then capable of handling a circular pellet MORE THEN CAPABLE.   

A monitor with 10 times the capability can easily simulate this.   And the computers of today can do it too.   The problem is that noone up to this point has really given the effort to do so(that I know of).   Most are too busy collecting CRT monitors instead of totally utilizing the tech to emulate the hardware.   

Old CRT's have long fell short of the newest LCD's.   The refresh rates and the contrast ratios have surpassed these(cept vector graphics..not the same at all).

My point is not a carbon copy, but a hell of alot closer.    Of course I like original hardware, but I CAN'T have them all in my living room, and I won't.   

Some people and their splitting hairs...they support MAME...but not monitors?   They cupport Ultra 360's...but not monitors... 

What is wrong with discussing what could be a better way?   

[genesim]

Xiaou2,

By the way are you ever going to answer my direct question about pixel distortion from center to the outside?

Are you still claiming that it doesn't exist?   If you think it doesn't then please disprove all others on any known CRT entry that claims otherwise.

And if you acknoledge that, are you claiming that programmers really accounted for the NON UNIFORM display parameters?

If they didn't would that not at least be one advantage(of many) of an LCD display?   Or are you claiming that you pick and choose what matters and what doesn't?

[CheffoJeffo]

Instead of personal attacking me, how about reading what I actually wrote. 

I will ... as soon as you stop writing such stupid things ... designing monitors to fit game programs ...   

[CheffoJeffo]

Xiaou2,

By the way are you ever going to answer my direct question about pixel distortion from center to the outside?

The only thing that is noticed is the reflections from the curved surface, and a
slight depth perception.   A 19"  CRT viewed at 2ft away with only a slight
round face leads very little to no Illusion related distortions.

 

[genesim]

That isn't even close to an answer.   I am talking about the mechanics of the Electron beam and the physics of time and space.   He gives me an answer on the curved surface of the screen...

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ   try again.

xxxxxxxxxx

As for the monitors, I never stated that they were designed specifically.   Go back and read.   LIMITATIONS will be your clue.   Good luck!

[CheffoJeffo]

That isn't even close to an answer.   I am talking about the mechanics of the Electron beam and the physics of time and space.   He gives me an answer on the curved surface of the screen...

It was argued that because the beams were shot at angles.. it would cause distortions.
The isnt really all that true... because its not the beam you are seeing.  You are seeing
a Glowing Phosphor Dot light up.   The angle of the beam that Hits the Phosphor
matters very little.  In fact, the Shadowmask is Designed for just that purpose.
The mask isnt simply a mesh.  Its a 3d structure.  The rear of the mask has little
cups routed out on the rear, which catches the beams overspill on both the left
and right  angled gun beams.

And, while Xiaou2 and I agree with less frequency than you and I do, he's right.

[CheffoJeffo]

As for the monitors, I never stated that they were designed specifically.   Go back and read.   LIMITATIONS will be your clue.   Good luck!

Oops ... we all misread your statement ...

You meant that the monitors were more than likely designed based on LIMITATIONS in the original code.

OK, I get it ...







































wait, no that is equally ridiculous ... the monitors were designed to conform to the industry standard, which was based on NTSC, just like Randy Fromm said.

Are you trying to tell us that *you* are right and Randy is wrong ?

[genesim]

I admit I didn't see this..and it is nice talk, but WRONG again.

The angle of the beam can change the properties of color...a little when close to the center...alot with every step to the outside.    PHYSICS 101.

Then of course when you put it together to make a picture that is one one second of a movement.    So in effect you have that many pixels that are displayed incorrectly in regards to shading, color, etc.   It distorts the image, and yes it is discernable by the human eye.   You can see it a little in a PC monitor...alot in an arcade monitor because the pixels are so much bigger.

Am I getting through?  

When you agree to the verifiable FACT, then you ask yourself did the programmer account for this.   Uh no, because the code is uniform, the display is not.

[genesim]

NO not specifially DESIGNED, specifically picked/used/manufactured.

Cost effective to what was available.

And yes the rectangular monitors were no doubt in my mind specifically made for the arcades and the code reflected such.   A symbiotic need.

One is not absolute over the other...except there was better monitors..but not better code.    Or were there George Lucas graphics just waiting to be unearthed if it weren't for those crappy monitors. 

Its a display....nothing more.

[CheffoJeffo]

The angle of the beam can change the properties of color...a little when close to the center...alot with every step to the outside.    PHYSICS 101.

The colour that you see on the screen is not a transmitted beam of light, but rather the phosphor on the inside of the screen reacting to being hit by electrons. The phosphor is laid down in vertical stripes of equal width.

The edge distortion from CRTs comes from the curved tubes (hence the emergence of flat screens) and Xiaou2 has already addressed that.

[genesim]

And for the last time THE BEAM OF LIGHT is what I am speaking about.

HOW IT HITS THE PHOSPHER.

THE ANGLE AT WHICH IT HITS THE PHOSPHER.

Are you aware that a beam of light when refracted takes a longer amount of time to display from center phospher to outside phonspher?   Are you aware that how refracted no matter how calibrated, it is still subject to being distorted hence producting distorted pixel from the one next to it?

Either you get it or you don't.   

I talk about beams and you talk about after the phospher...and even the screen.    It is like I am speaking latin.

[CheffoJeffo]

And I say "there is no beam of light", because there isn't. 


Tum podem extulit horridulum. 

[wooowman93]

YA

[Xiaou2]

 Thanks Cheff.


   I will add..  for those who do not seem to understand... that color mixing happens
AFTER the ELECTRON beam, on the Opposite side of the shadowmask.

 The bean is ELECTRONS.  They are NOT visible AFAIK.  As the beams EXCITE the
Phosphors on the rear side of the mask.. the PHOSPHORS glow.  The ANGLE of the
beam plays NO real factor in the Light direction.  The electron has to merely be in the
area to cause the phosphor to Glow.  The excess energy is hidden BEHIND the CUPS
that are etched into the BACK SIDE of the MASKS.  Thus, they knew that there would
be possible problems with 100% accuracy, and created the cups to take care of that.
Its a Brilliant solution.   


 The light from the Phosphors glowing is emitted to the Front side of the mask,
in a FORWARD DIRECTION.

 Think of the Phosphors being LEDS.  And the ELECTRON BEAM being a BATTERY
that touches the leads of the LEDS. 


 Because there is black space between the groups of phosphors.. the light can glow
past the intended area.. and hop over to the non-phosphor areas. 

 If two bright colors are nearby - the light that leaks to the black areas mixes.  The
colors then appear to be twice as bright.    Yet a darker pixel next to a bright pixel
can be almost erased because the light leak covers it over.

 
 There is Less leakage in new monitors because the shadowmasks are superior.
They have more precise methods, as well as tighter spacing. The black areas are so
small now, you can barely even see them unless you get Very close and have a
good magnifying glass.   The electron bean is probably smaller and more accurate, as
well as using less power... leading too less Over-Excitement of the phosphors.
 
 (where as the original monitors needed a lot more brightness to overcome the
much darker lines of the mask,  which sets up the conditions for too much light - which
can leak)