Slashdot Mirror
Atari Emulation of CRT Effects On LCDs
An anonymous reader writes "A group at Georgia Institute of Technology has developed a fun little open source program to emulate the CRT effects to make old Atari games look like they originally did when played on modern LCD's and digital displays. Things like color bleed, ghosting, noise, etc. are reproduced to give a more realistic appearance."
If so, I soooo want a 30 Inch Apple cinema display in it so i can play top gun!
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
A program to make look CRT like teletype output (or DEC LA-36)??? Or to make CRT look like Hollerith cards???
What about the Apple ][ screensaver?
http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/screenshots/
I think it did something very similar.
(hey, first post!)
I think this is one of the most justified uses of the 'brokenbydesign' tag ;)
I think we need to use 'historically authentic' or 'genuine' here. Or perhaps 'low fidelity?' It looks about as 'realistic' as any colored blob being chased by other colored blobs in an abstract maze-based collection game.
I do not think the word means what you think it means.
--
Toro
And does their program eliminate motion blur and the poor contrast of LCD to make it looks like a CRT?
And to think that it seems all the rage is to be upgrading Atari's with an Svideo board as featured on hack-a-day a few weeks ago http://hackaday.com/2009/04/05/s-video-from-an-atari-2600/ . Honestly I don't know why people want to make their TV's look like a 30 year old TV display. The reason for all that bleeding was the circuitry that converted the video and audio signal to RF and then the deconverting of that signal in the TV. It is beyond me why anybody would want to make something look like it did, instead of how it should look. I grew up playing the Atari 2600 and I thought it was fun, but I certainly am not fond of how it looked. I'm just waiting for my SVideo converter board to arrive so I can upgrade my 2600 to look how it should, not how it did. (And I'm still using a CRT TV as well none of these new fangled LCD TV's). - XSS
Reminds me about the various NTSC filters used in various emulators (such as Nestopia). It's kind of funny how some people strive for simulating the original display, but I have to admit that I personally use the NTSC filter when possible. (and I avoid using filters like super eagle which have a tendency to make stuff look like blobs...)
The effect is great in theory, but I think they over did it. Old arcade games are certainly a bit blurry, and have some ghosting issues, but this effect makes every little sprite into a pile of fuzzy crap. It's too bad to be true, and it ends up looking fake. Reminds me of those pre-faded jeans, with so much added wear that its easy to tell the wear and tear is not natural. Instead of looking like a pair of old jeans, they look like a pair of new jeans that someone split bleach on. Like these
I still use a pair of 17" Dell UltraScan P780 monitors myself, so not a big deal here. Enable interlacing and bam, nostalgia.
Look for the new Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell commercial endorsing this product coming soon!
It reminds me of the audio effects that add pops and scratches to music to imitate (badly) the sound of old vinyl.
Honestly, craig's list is riddled with people throwing away CRT's. Why run a crappy emulation...if that is what you call it, when you can go next door and get CRT?
bunk bunk bunk. Do do do weep.
Isn't it sort of ironic that people want perfect emulation of Atari 2600 PacMan when Atari 2600's PacMan was notoriously not like the arcade version? Even NES didn't do emulation well. I think the first well emulated game I ever played was Street Fighter 2 on SNES.
God spoke to me.
So, can I get burn-in on my LCD monitor now?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You need dual link DVI for a 30" Display
Looks similar to the efforts the xscreensaver developers, with their m6502 and Apple2 hacks that simulate CRT artifacts such as static, colour separation, and shear.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
And does their program eliminate motion blur and the poor contrast of LCD to make it looks like a CRT?
No but the 21st Century did.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
... since they were referring to realistic emulation... meaning closer to the reality of the system being emulated.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Your 21st century seems a lot nicer than my 21st century. I haven't seen a flatpanel yet that in objective terms of quality comes anywhere near a CRT.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your 21st century seems a lot nicer than my 21st century. I haven't seen a flatpanel yet that in objective terms of quality comes anywhere near a CRT.
Which alternate universe are you hailing from?
Here's a list of stuff I'd like to emulate, for the sake of nostalgia:
286 without math co-processor
trig function lookup tables
film
typewriters
horse dung smell in the streets
Morse code
the black plague
Get on it!
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Wow! I think the Yars Revenge image looks great! I would LOVE to have this as a Photoshop plugin so that I could add it to computer-generated images and digital photos.
Your 21st century seems a lot nicer than my 21st century. I haven't seen a flatpanel yet that in objective terms of quality comes anywhere near a CRT.
Do you want us to get off your lawn now?
I like my LCD. For any sort of productivity work or modern games, it looks way better than any CRT ever could. So I want to keep it. I don't want to haul out a CRT any time I want to emulate an older system. There's also the problem that computer CRTs won't do the trick. They are higher resolution, and have better signaling than NTSC sets. So they too will offer a different image than an old NTSC TV.
There's no need to bother with all the physical hardware if it can just as easily be simulated by the computer. I mean you can say them same thing about nearly anything with a computer: "Why use the computer, just go get X hardware." My answer is why bother, if the computer has the power to do it? One of the things I like the most about my computer is how may different roles it can play. It does tons of stuff for me, and does it well. I'd much rather have one system do it all then mess around with tons of dedicated devices.
I don't remember my Atari looking like that on my TV. Sure it wasn't LCD perfect but it didn't suck that that does.
One of the most widely used Blargg's NTSC libraries. Many console emulators make use of them. This new one just looks to be more advanced than most of the preceding ones.
I haven't seen a flatpanel yet that in objective terms of quality comes anywhere near a CRT.
Try looking at a new one then. The colour isn't _quite_ where CRTs were but it's within spittin' distance. Ghosting hasn't been a problem for 5+ years.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
ZSNES has had an option for CRT artifact emulation available for a few years now. No news to see here..
I hear 2009 is the year vinyl makes a comeback.
You need to look harder. Is anyone even making CRTs anymore? Even the pros are using flat panels now.
How are you measuring that? I'm sitting here in a bullpen surrounded by 2 year old ~$600'ish (at the time, they're like $200-$400 now) LCDs and a couple of really expensive CRTs. The CRTs are blurry and dim in comparison, by a sickening amount I might add. Actually they bloom a bit, making everything a bit soft. There's not one aspect of those CRTs I'm envious of, and these aren't cheapies.
I haven't even had a laptop in the last two years with display that makes me look fondly at CRTs. The closest I've come is ghosting on the PSP.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It is time to get some new glasses.
You clearly have not tried to play rhythm or fighting games with an LCD. When we are talking about single-frame (~15ms) input windows, the 10-50ms disparity between a CRT and LCD is the difference between hitting the inputs correctly and making the game completely unplayable. Yes, this applies to "2ms" response time LCDs as well. They have not improved, and it is unlikely that they will in the future.
I play rhythm and fighting games on my LCD all the time. They're completely fine.
Now we need a Hercules video card emulator for wordprocessing and CAD.
Wait, you need two ports taken up so you can display on a 30" screen?
Crap, I'm still using a single 15-pin D-SUB to connect to my 32" 1080p LCD on my old computer.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
http://www.slack.net/~ant/libs/ntsc.html
Modern web frameworks like Cobol on Cogs already do burned-in CRT emulation and various other effects too. ;-).
I've been working on an 800+ character MUGEN game for quite some time, now. My primary monitor is a 32" 1080p LCD made by Samsung, and there are NO timing issues. I even have an X-Arcade controller for testing. No lag. That's like 50 feet of wire/cable between controller and monitor.
The biggest problems most games have these days on LCD screens is their own inputs. Every guitar hero/rockband controller I've touched likes to double-strum, even on touchier movements. While DBZ BT3 on the Wii is great, part of the control interface lags when doing a gesture movement, or double-taps for you if you press a button only once.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You clearly have not tried to play rhythm or fighting games with an LCD.
I clearly have not played the one game you're thinking of, no. I have, however, played quite a few games and the LCD display hasn't even lightly come up on the radar as being an issue. I would love for you to provide a specific example so I could give it a try.
Until I can see that first hand, I can only assume you've either been exposed to old or really cheap LCDs. I can't even get a viewing angle shift in contrast with my monitor.
They have not improved, and it is unlikely that they will in the future.
I don't understand either side of this statement.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Is this a joke?
The LCD display on my laptop has better colour reproduction than any CRT and LCD blurring hasn't existed for around 10 years.
Wait, you need two ports taken up so you can display on a 30" screen?
Crap, I'm still using a single 15-pin D-SUB to connect to my 32" 1080p LCD on my old computer.
I'm betting you're using a Monster Cable. That other guy has to use two because he is using normal cable.
A comparison between lcd and crt has nothing to do with needing new glasses since he's looking at both through the same eyes.
New glasses would only show up how much sharper the LCD looks and how much blurrier and fuzzy the crt looks.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
I'm still using a 21" Viewsonic CRT built like 15 or 20 years ago.
Still has great picture too.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Actually you may be right if digital masters continue to be horrible.
Vector graphics may be the most difficult to emulate because of the potential brightness of specific spots. The brightest white on most LCD monitors cannot compare to such a spot. Asteroids is probably the most famous vector game. Basically, the electron beam could be controlled to "draw" the game via lines and dots instead of merely scanning back and forth at a fixed pace like traditional CRT's. The beam could "dwell" on a specific spot or line if needed, making it glow like nobody's mamma.
Table-ized A.I.
Dual link DVI is a single port. It just has all the pins wired in that single port.
The highest res mode was black and white only, but due to limitations of the CRTs used in TVs at that time, if the pixels weren't a solid block, the color would shift to something not-white.
Back then I wrote a drawing program that took advantage of the artificing to draw in color. I knew which pixels in a block could be turned on or off to generate one of up to about 16 colors. Obviously, the smallest blocks were only 5 colors. (Red, Green, Blue, Black, White) So the more detail you wanted your drawing, the less colors available.
If these guys can properly emulate that program properly (sorry, don't have a copy anymore), then they've definitely hit the mark with their attempt.
Ah, the ancient days of programming when the kid with 16k memory was the uber133t. (Of course, back then, you used a different dialect of what eventually became l337 to save precious bytes of memory. And Ascii-bombing was used to play mindgames on the BBSs.)
Still takes up a friggin desk all on its own, too.
Man those things sucked, you had to make sure your desk was at least 5 feet deep, and that was just so you could have a little room to rest your wrists in front of the keyboard!!
Or you could put it to the side, but you don't want to know how bad that is for ergonomics.
OTOH, I do know of a case where someone put a 24" LCD in a very cramped area (short desk, and no room to move back). They had to swap it with a smaller one, because there faces were about a foot away from the screen and couldn't use it.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
P815? That's what I'm typing this in on right now. I still have little incentive to upgrade. 30" is really the only place to go from here.
Since the fastest runners in the world have reaction times in the 170-190ms range, and unofficially at least the fastest "clicks" are all above 100ms (I averaged 232ms myself, just below average), I'd doubt you could notice, let alone be affected by, a 10-50ms disparity.
And I'm not sure how you can say 2ms response time leads to a 50ms disparity anyway, that doesn't make sense. Hell, there was a 70ms difference between my slowest and fastest clicks, and I couldn't notice the difference. The tech to get the response times so low does tend to jack colors and produce some odd artifacts, but none of those relate to how quickly it displays the data on the screen, not as far as I've ever heard anyway. Since the color/artifacting issues are relevant, and since 15ms vs 2ms is not noticeable, it's better to pick a 15ms LCD anyway.
Plus, a frame will generally be displayed at least 10 times, if it is displaying at 15ms, before you can actually react to it. Again, the response time argument for not going LCD is tired and nearly worthless.
The problem is probably just that you've been reading weird crap about LCDs, and haven't used them much yourself. Most likely to keep from justifying an upgrade.
Actually, if you really want to prove me wrong (and find out for yourself if the LCD response time is really the issue), go to Humanbenchmark.com and compare your OWN clicks on a CRT with your OWN clicks on an LCD. I'm assuming you have access to one, of course, but it shouldn't be hard to get access to one anyway.
I'm betting there is less than a 5ms difference in your 10 click averages.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
We hated those miserable image anomalies back in the day, and it hasn't become more endearing to have it fuzzed up with modern technology just to look old again.
Is this the new definition of progress? Use the best new technology we can find to generate the same old crap we already grew tired of?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
dosbox supports a whole swag of graphics modes, including (from memory) hercules.
Just like tube amplifiers for audio, the NTSC TV look is probably going to be sought after. We thought those artifacts were going to be around for all time & mastered how to choose colors that would always display. The new VGA monitors were too expensive & we weren't old enough to know any better.
Ghosting hasn't been a problem for 5+ years.
Black-level is still a huge issue. Manufacturures have been trying to correct bad contrast ratio by amping up the backlight, screwing up the blacklevel even more.
It's gotten so bad that TVs have begun cheating and dimming the backlight during dark scenes. Which just turns them into a muddy mess.
At Best Buy
And my desk is made such that the monitor is in the corner, so I have no problem with my 21" Dell P1130. If I replaced it with a LCD I would only have free space behind the monitor (but no, I like CRTs, so I'll use this monitor at least until it fails or I buy a better CRT).
was that they illustrated the performance using a jpeg file. Yes, the compression artifacts are different.
It's rather ironic that there are more bits of data in the poorly rendered compressed version than there were pixels on the screen when you played a game on the real hardware.
I cannot now remember the name of the specific emulator. But I have seen these effects implemented many years ago already with one of the Commodore 64 emulators I was then tinkering with. :)
And it really made the experience a LOT nicer
> Don't support corporate radio any longer - listen to X1FM, raw and uncut internet radio. Go to x1fmradio.com for more in
Don't know if you are being paid to spam for them or you are just an idiot. Hard to tell sometimes.
1. It's as over compressed as the worst "Hundred Thousand Watt Blowtorch" FM station. Yuck!
2. Don't support corporate radio... by going to a corporate radio site. Oh hell yea. Guess you never bothered to click on their about us link where they explain about their years of hard work becoming one of the "leading radio corporations in the Industry" their eight year association with Clear Channel Radio (aren't they the ones the kostards really HATE?) and their plans to "develop our accumulated radio knowledge in today's new digital broadband world."
It's fun watching hipsters blather on about "Alternative" music, films, etc being spoon fed to them by the exact same corporations and marketing geniuses. Even funnier is that as soon as one of these 'alternative' things goes mainstream you idiots declare it a 'sellout' and move on to the next shiny corporate droppings not realizing this is exactly what the corporation wants. When they find one of their low grade offerings somehow has mass appeal the last thing they want is the hipsters to keep glomming on it and scaring the mass market away.
Democrat delenda est
Still takes up a friggin desk all on its own, too.
Man those things sucked, you had to make sure your desk was at least 5 feet deep, and that was just so you could have a little room to rest your wrists in front of the keyboard!!
My Viewsonic G225f 21" CRT sits on a 17" deep surface directly in front of me. Another 17" surface in front of it holds my keyboard with plenty of room to rest my forearms. So more like 2.5 feet than 5.
2048x1536 @ 75Hz, greater than HD resolution at half to a third of the cost of 30" dual-link DVI displays, and works with my older VGA-only systems over my KVM switch.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The tech to get the response times so low does tend to jack colors and produce some odd artifacts, but none of those relate to how quickly it displays the data on the screen, not as far as I've ever heard anyway.
The 2ms 'response time' is just about the pixels response to the electrical signal. In other words, those 2ms means: this LCD can change a pixel from black to white in 2ms. It doesn't mean: this LCD will change the pixel 2ms after the computer or console tells the screen to change the pixel.
Since a couple of years, LCDs have a 'image enhancement' mode that adds some lag, from 40 to 105 ms. This is precisely to have a buffer that lets the chip preprocess some stuff and reduce ghosting or other things. I think that the 15ms or less to change a pixel is also possible only because of this processing.
You can't say that 105 ms is not noticeable, and this is probably what the GP is talking about. And DLP HDTVs seems to have up to 250ms of lag.
However, modern LCDs have also a 'gaming mode' with (virtually) no processing lag, but with the usual ghosting and other LCD classic issues.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
UGH, I'm trying to forget those days. I used to play goddamn NES on a B&W portable-tv monitor, and of course Atari before that on even worse displays. Some games required you to see certain colors, notably Low-G Man. The red ones were a slightly darker shade of gray on a B&W tv /wrists
The idea of being nostalgic for those days, or wanting to see things like that again, it's hard to believe. It's like people being nostalgic and going back to communism after the wall fell. IT'S SICK. It's like visual pain and some people are clearly masochists.
My uncle collected Model-T cars, but at least they were fun to ride in. This is like the digital equivalent of 'roughing it' it's like going camping, living like the cavemen used to. God Bless Benjamin Franklin and his crispy hands.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
Can it emulate what happens when you place a magnet-mounted CB radio antenna on top of the CRT? I did that once fifteen years ago and the thing was green for like two weeks!
1920x1080 (1080p) < 2560x1600 (30" Apple cinema display)
Dual link DVI does not take up two ports. Dual link DVI uses both logical data links available in a single physical DVI connection.
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
CRTs have better black levels and better colors. On the other hand, they have fussy geometry adjustments (and you can never get them as perfect as an LCD), moiré patterns, and are generally much fuzzier than LCDs.
My LCD provides a sharp, high-resolution image with low power consumption in a small package at a low price. All of those factors (sharpness, resolution, power cosumption, size, price) matter more to me than the areas where CRTs continue to lead (color reproduction, black level).
NEStopia has a display filter they call 'NTSC' that can emulate television video of varying quality and standards. Complete with color bleed and a little bit of ghosting. This sounds like it's maybe a more sophisticated version of that idea. :D
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Pocket Ref, third addition, by "Thomas J Glover", pages 460-473...
I had it on my within-hand's-reach shelf. Includes squares, cubes, and roots. Unbelievable, I was just wondering how far back I'd have to search to find printed lookup tables within a published book.
Apparently this one's still going strong.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Exactly. My parents have a huge 52" LCD which just looks incredible. One day I had some friends over, one of they brought rock band, and when we tried to play, we couldn't hit any of the notes on the guitars, let alone the drums. When we went to the lag adjustment it was something horrible like 150ms.
Go buy yourself a cheap LCD that's cheap enough to not have the anti-ghosting technology or figure out how to enable the "gaming mode". Most computer LCD monitors probably won't have this kind of thing; it seems to be a TV-LCD thing.
I play rhythm games and shumps, and keyboard lag usually is the major problem. They don't make keyboards like they used to.
Also, the reaction time tests don't really reflect how well you would be able to play rhythm or fighting games on a certian setup. If you can see and predict when something is going to happen (like in DDR), you can respond much faster to it. It's not like DDR has a 100ms grace window for you to hit the arrows. This is assuming no lag. However, if you're staring at the screen and you hit the key as soon as the arrow enters the "hit zone", but there's a small lag, it really screws you up, especially if you're not used to compensating for lag.
Other emulators (e.g. BlueMSX, http://www.bluemsx.com/) do this already for quite some time now.
Probably a problem with larger TVs only, which can only use strong backlights around the edges, causing a lot of problems trying to light the middle.
My 22" computer monitor has no trouble what-so-ever with black. Or contrast.
Why is this news? There already is a module named "analogtv" in xscreensaver that does essentially the same thing. It might be moderately interesting when this actually gets released as part of Stella, but until then all we have are some screenshots that look very similar to existing TV simulators.
By the way, the 80's TV sets I played Atari games on never showed afterimages, and flickering objects (like the ghosts in Pac-Man) flickered very clearly. I hope this effect will be optional.
Personally I'd like to see this integrated with the Atari800 emulator, as that's the system I grew up on...
I wonder if they will ever work on differnt versions for different TV standards such as PAL or SECAM. It would be interesting to directly compare the differences ^^;
Simplicity lies within chaos
Digital projectors often suffer the same problem, as they use a much stronger light projecting a small LCD, it tends to bleed through the black.
There are projectors which dim their bulb for dark images just like you described flat panel TVs doing.
You clearly have not tried to play rhythm or fighting games with an LCD.
I clearly have not played the one game you're thinking of, no. I have, however, played quite a few games and the LCD display hasn't even lightly come up on the radar as being an issue. I would love for you to provide a specific example so I could give it a try.
He's probably basing this off the fact that some LCD *TVs* do multi-frame image processing which increases the latency. Wharfdale were especially bad, Samsung seem to do a frame delay on interlaced content. Maybe he's only ever seen games played with a "Cinema mode" active, doing pulldown correction. But, most allow you to turn off image processing and enjoy lag free displays.
Nope, just a dual link DVI port - most early ones were single link, and can drive up to a 1920x1200 or so display.
dual link DVI ports still use the same connector, just more pins are in use.
Have you considered that your reaction times at humanbenchmark.com are affected by your computer hardware and software, including your display? The fluctuations might easily be in the tens of milliseconds range.
In addition, seeing an image takes a lot less time than seeing and processing it and physically reacting to it. I can easily see the flicker of a 50Hz display (20 ms delay between consecutive images) even though I can not click a button within 200 ms after visual stimulus.
Does there actually exist laptops with good screens? I thought pretty much all of them have the most basic TN panels there is. Crappy black level etc. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, really, because we all liked straight lines that were always slightly curved, squares that weren't, huge hefty monitors that barely exceeded 19" (I'd like to see you hefting a 30" CRT monitor around or finding the space to put a keyboard in front of it on your average desk). CRT made a shit input signal (either the signal being crap, or the source being primitive like early consoles) look better by its blurry glowy nature. We don't need that now.
A lot of it comes down to the "native resolution" problem that plagues LCD. If you're running at native res (or a favored resolution that doesn't get scaling), you get minimal latency. If you go outside that resolution, you start to get perceptible lag due to the video scaling.
This is especially true with 480I/P signals on newer displays. The scaler on most TVs makes a real laggy mess of the whole process.
That much said, LCD doesn't necessarily mean "automatic nasty latency" like the previous poster suggested. My experiences have been entirely good as long as I set my config set right.
LCD response time, latency and motion quality has nothing to do with human reaction time. Humans can distinguish differences in time interval much shorter than their reaction time. Look at graphs of beat length variance of skilled drummers.
Ghosting is a still a problem, because LCD motion is sample-and-hold rather than CRTs' impulse response. The problem was reduced with the recently released ViewSonic VX2265wm and Samsung 2233rz, but only for games capable of running at 120Hz.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx
The ViewSonic VX2265wm is the only LCD I consider acceptable for gaming, and it's still inferior to a good CRT.
Your 21st century seems a lot nicer than my 21st century.
Yes, it's called: "having money".
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
the black plague - Swine flu?
The latest sources are calling H1N1 no worse than ordinary flu, which kills an average of 100 people a day in the United States. People are recovering from H1N1 on the same schedule that they recover from the more familiar flu. The only thing about H1N1 is that nobody has the immunity yet.
1920x1080 (1080p) < 2560x1600 (30" Apple cinema display)
But if you're emulating an arcade board that outputs 240p (JAMMA standard resolution) or a console that outputs "240p" (that is, 480i NTSC with all even fields), do you really need a monitor with more than 720p?
My Lenovo uses an AFFS display.
I just tested myself on 2 different PC-s. On one computer, I never reacted under 320 ms. On the other, however, my reaction time was between 240 and 280 ms. The latter PC has actually half as fast processor as the first one, but it has newer LCD.
And you would have gotten away with it if it weren't for DLP, LCoS and LED backlight...
np: Kontext - Blinkende Stjerne (Round Black Ghosts 2)
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
they are talking about using the apple 30in display which requires dual link just to start talking to the graphics card - no matter what you send down the lines to it.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Look at graphs of beat length variance of skilled drummers.
I'll be sure to do that...
This is NOT emulation of CRT effects! This has absolutely no basis in reality. This effect was produced by some guy randomly throwing full-screen convolutions at a wall and seeing what "looked right" to him. The only legitimate emulation of CRT effects is that which is provided by blargg's NTSC emulation libraries, and is used by such emulators as ZSNES and Nestopia. This is not in any way "emulating" a CRT or NTSC signals. It's just what some guy thinks it should look like.
However, DLP has its own problems (the rainbow effect is awesome!). LCoS is just another LCD-based technology (assuming I understood the wiki page on LCoS correctly), just with the LCD directly mounted on a mirror instead of projecting through it (and therefore I assume it has the same problem with light getting through "black" as a through-projection LCD). The Wikipedia article on LCoS has an uncited statement that LCoS is better contrast than projecting through an LCD, but doesn't mention black level at all.
LED backlights are no good on very large panels, because they use LED strips around the edge or on one side and a large light diffuser, which still produces an uneven result at large panel sizes. ELP is far better (it's a full panel sized light over the whole display), but far more expensive, and can still have trouble getting even illumination.
Frankly, I don't get it why this gets so much attention.
Is really noone of the /. crowd familiar with the VICE family of Commodore emulators? This had *for years* a proper PAL emulation which not only brought back the scanlines, but also allowed to define the level of blurriedness, and even emulates proper color phase handling.
Granted, it doesn't emulate ghosting (signal reflections in the cable) and afterglow effects (at least I'm not aware of).
Still, it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere in the summary, if not TFA.
they are talking about using the apple 30in display which requires dual link just to start talking to the graphics card
And I was talking about taking the money that you'd spend on a 30" Apple monitor and spending it on three 32" Vizio monitors instead. Apple's monitor costs 1,800 USD; Vizio's costs a third of that.
yea but borders are annoying
also anyone that buys the apple for 1800 instead of the dell fro 1000 is crazy - its the same monitor made by the same people just a diffrent frame.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Why would anyone ever want to play a game with the horrible ghosting/blurry effect again?? Yes the 80's were great but I hated the look of the game as a kid and would never want to go back to that. Love the new Atari em's that have a sharper image....
Wow scrub, buy a $150 20" lcd and be amazed at how good it looks. Any LCD made in the last 5 years looks incredibly better than the fuzzy crap put out by a CRT.
Perversely, if you want to emulate all the artefacts that come with running 240p on a 19" low-resolution analog monitor such as those used by arcade machines (and this is what TFA is all about) the answer might be "yes". (That horizontal line at 240p is actually 2-3 (maybe even two-and-a-half, this is analog tech we're talking here) "dot pitches" tall on the old phosphor screen, and the brightness curve of a cross section of the scan line might well be 4-5 pixels at 1920x1280.)
So adjust them.
Unlike LCDs, CRTs can be finicky to adjust, but at least modern CRTs (for the past 10+ years) can be adjusted by using the on-screen displays, rather than analog knobs. Nobody in the IT department bothers, because it's a pretty time-consuming and finicky process.
Odds are the brightness/contrast are too high. Also, check the cables; if you see ghosting (One more more black shadows following vertical black lines on white backgrounds), it's caused by ringing, and the most likely cause is crappy/loose cable connection. If the ghosting is colored, it's a convergence problem, either vertical or horizontal, and it may take some time before you can get optimal convergence in all areas of the screen. (Most on-screen display menus let you independently adjust convergence in all four corners of the screen.)
I see the same thing you see all around the office. I can usually dial in any CRT within about 15-20 minutes of playing with it. From that point on, it rarely, if ever, needs to be touched. My cow orkers think I'm a friggin' miracle worker. I've had several conversations that go along the lines of "Whoa, dude, what's up with all that ghosting, you got a loose cable?", "Naw, this monitor's always been blurry", "Holy crap, WTF did you do? It looks great!"
Not ghosting, motion blur. A text scrolling fast on an LCD is unreadable while it's perfectly clear on a CRT. (BTW, I have a new Dell 2209WA, a two years old Samsung 226BW, a 10 years old cheap CRT and I did compared them in clone mode)
Most modern TVs have gaming modes which will turn off the enhancements and post processing thereby reducing lag to acceptable levels.
How old are your "really expensive" CRT? The last ones I saw were more than 10 years old (I tried to buy a high end CRT around 2001 and there was none available). Don't you think this might explain the blurriness and the dimness? In the past, I did work on a high end 22" Mitsubishi CRT and although it was not as sharp or bright as an LCD (native resolution only, otherwise the CRT was sharper), it was not "blurry" or dim at all.
Anyway, although I can tolerate the low contrast and the lack of black, motion blur (I'm not talking about ghosting) is what I hate with LCD. For working it obviously doesn't matter, but for watching a movie or playing games it's really bad.
You might want to buy one that does not have a TN panel. It's hard because most of them do and the good ones are a bit more expensive.
http://www.bogost.com/games/a_television_simulator.shtml
"So more like 2.5 feet than 5."
Hi. Per. Bow. Lee. Look it up.
Go research JVC's newest DILA projectors (their name for LCoS). The latest models have true 35,000:1 contrast without any dimming or modulation of the lamp. Not a marketing spec, it has been corroborated by many independent reviews as performing to that level after proper calibration.
Definitely not the same as regular LCD for contrast performance. And it has caused many CTR 3 gun projector owners (a die hard crowd if there ever was one) to switch over.
CRT, not CTR. Morning typing.
>Still takes up a friggin desk all on its own, too.
Great picture though. I still use one at home. The other thing about using them in an office environment is that while well shielded on the viewing side, some of them shot enough high-energy emr out the back that your co-workers would give birth to the next generation of x-men if they weren't completely sterilized.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
>A program to make look CRT like teletype output (or DEC LA-36)??? Or to make CRT look like Hollerith cards???
No problem, just install one of these bad boys.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Some of those Atari games were downright embarrassing. Example A: E.T.
But give us old timers a break...we didn't know any better. At the time, that was as good as it got. We weren't asking questions about making the graphics better, we were just excited we could play the games in OUR house and on OUR T.V.
People forget how cool it was to have those first consoles. Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari, etc, etc.
I just had to post to say: THIS IS SO DAMN COOL.
Yes, the games were made in mind they had free aliasing.
Just look at the racing game score board at the bottom, the digits look amazing... compared to the blocky standard LCD display rendering. Actually, I think his filters do a better job than the old CRTs.
Since I use a Dual CRT LCD (both using VGA input) setup I gave it a go. After a little practice my response time average was about 10ms higher on the LCD.
No.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The LCD display on my laptop has better colour reproduction than any CRT and LCD blurring hasn't existed for around 10 years.
BZZT! What do you think the pros are doing video editing with? They're still using CRTs. And LCD blurring is still an issue, although less so lately. Color reproduction and especially black level still suck.
But hey, everything's a tradeoff. Geometry on CRTs sucks, so does size and weight. But let's not kid ourselves, they're still better in some ways.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Now change that benchmark so that instead of requiring you to click after a random wait time, it counts down so that you're able to anticipate when to click. Rhythm games show you which buttons to push a predictable amount of time before you need to hit them, and in that case, 50 ms lag is very noticeable. I assume fighting games have similar issues.
Don't forget that you also need a somewhat sturdy desk. Those cheap compressed sawdust computer desks you can pick up for $100 or so will start to buckle under the weight after a while. And yes, I still got a couple of those 21" beasts.
No, just more pins on the one cable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DVI_Connector_Types.svg
I recall some software that would play (crappy) music on an AM radio within a few feet of the TRS-80 Model 1 - the software just went through loops of various calculations that would cause RF interference that produced the desired tone on the radio.
I believe the Model 1 did not require FCC certification of being free of FR interference since it was classified as a low volume hobby device or something like that. Nope, Wikipedia and oldcomputers.net say it got caught by a change in FCC regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80
http://oldcomputers.net/trs80i.html
Now can we emulate that in the latest systems?
Tell that to the new Sony Bravia my gf parents have bought. Even faces seem to morph because of so much ghosting.
Ergonomically that's how far you're supposed to be... 14 inches in fact. Were these users blind or something? You're just making yourself nearsighted otherwise.
"Pros" use LCD just like anyone who matters does. Nobody uses CRT any more, it's an obsolete and dead technology used only by poor people in their televisions or by people who are clueless about current technology.
This is all togeter of advatages of LCD and CRT tech.
"Pros" use LCD just like anyone who matters does. Nobody uses CRT any more, it's an obsolete and dead technology used only by poor people in their televisions or by people who are clueless about current technology.
You could have typing "I'm a fucking idiot" and saved us all the time.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Yes, but not everyone yet has IPS panels. Most are stuck with crapola Twisted Nematic displays.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife