VGA Box has ruined my gaming life
@shidoshi
all of my games through the VGA box as, as I've said before, I currently
have no TV available to me. I was totally blown away by the Metropolis
Street Racer demo on the latest ODCM disc, and took it to a friend's house
last night to show a few of my friends the game.
The TV I showed the game on was, actually, my old TV. I moved out of the
house, and sold the TV to one of my friends living there (as his TV didn't
even have RCA inputs on it). Now, I loved that TV - it was a very nice
almost-flat deep black Panasonic GAOO 27" unit. Never had one single
complaint about it.
However, after playing MSR through the VGA box, I put it on on that TV,
and was amazed at how bad I thought it looked. Of course, it didn't look
bad - but I was now used to how it looked on the VGA box, with a
sharpness, a level of deal, and a richness of all colors that simply can't
be matched by most TVs these days, no matter how good. I mean, I was
really, really shocked at how poor I thought the game looked through the
TV.
After playing games through the VGA box for so long, I have NO idea how
I'm going to go back to playing them on a regular television. My plan is
to pick up a 21" Sony Wega when I get a new TV, but even that isn't going
to look near as good as my 17" Sony Trinitron monitor. If the PSX/PS2 VGA
box ends up being true, I'm so crazy that I might actually consider trying
to pick up a 21" monitor instead of a TV as my main viewing unit. =^)
I know... I'm a spoiled brat bitching about this when some of you don't
even have A/V on your TV, or what not. Still... I HAVE become spoiled, and
the Dreamcast through the VGA box looks SOOOOO good that doing any kind of
video gaming anymore on a regular TV is going to be hard. This could all
be settled if we just all had VGA monitor TVs and every game machine
supported VGA video output. *heh*
.............
@shidoshi
http://relief-goddess.org
Silent Hill 2 - 08:Months / ??:Days
Things said about Shidoshi:
"You're crossing that line from normal, everyday villainy to cartoonish
super-villainy." -the Well-Suited Punk
"I rather be an idiot than the fag that you are, ooh the PSOne is
soooocuuuute...barf..." - internet troll
"Ryo Shidoshi, Defender of Kittens, Villainy, and Flowerpots everywhere."
- Charles Doane
Not Sasquatch
<shid...@relief-goddess.org> appeared:
That's precisely why I've not picked one up. My couch and nice big TV
are so much more comfortable than a chair and desk, and I don't want
to ruin that for myself.
Joseph Olajubu
difference between
the two other than rsoltuion isn't that great with an RGB SCART
connection.....
"Not Sasquatch" <nos...@unavailable.net> wrote in message
news:5t2l4tkvmsrkik14a...@4ax.com...
Jeremy Reaban
Joseph Olajubu wrote in message ...
>I have a 21" WEGA TV sitting right next to my 19" VGA monitor - the
>difference between
>the two other than rsoltuion isn't that great with an RGB SCART
>connection.....
Well, bear in mind, a VGA box is probably not going to be great for
larger monitors.
I believe the resolution is fixed for the Dreamcast, so the larger the
monitor, the blockier and worse the graphics are going to look. For
instance, most modern PC gamers bitch and whine and moan like little
children when a game comes out with 640x480 resolution, or even
sometimes 800x600. OTOH, due to the nature of a TV, the imperfections
in the picture are fuzzed out a bit.
The best example is the Playstation. If you've played a PSX game on an
emulator (on a monitor) it looks awful and blocky, cause the
resolution is only 320 x 240 or so. But on a TV, the graphics look
much better. (Conversely, SNES games look pretty good on a smallish
monitor, because they've got a 640x480 resolution...at least in many
cases)
MartyLK
playing DC games. I went to the family home for (Christ)mas and took along my
DC and 4 games: Shenmue, Legacy of Kain, Rippin Riders and Test Drive LeMans.
I didn't, owever tote the VGA monitor or box, I took my super video cable
along to hook up to one of my folk's TVs. The house was packed with
wall-to-wall kids and they mostly wanted to play Rippin Riders, LeMans and
VT. A cousin that is into PCs and PC gaming showed up and we started talking
about the latest greatest consoles. He's hyped on the PS2 and didn't know
that much about the Dreamcast, just some ironious info that he must have come
across a couple years ago. He isn't deeply into the console scene, as I
mentioned, PCs mostly and even constructed his own PC. I asked him if he was
ever going to get a DC and he started his diatribe of how the PS2 is so much
better, that the DC can't do the graphics of the PS2 and such. Of course I
was successfully defending the DC and decided that I'd just prove to him what
the DC is capable of. I had hooked up the DC to a TV earlier in the day and
all i had to do was boot up my warhead of PS2 hype anihilation: Shenmue. What
a letdown, the TV image just didn't do this game justice. I was disappointed
at how it looked on a TV - being used to the VGA set-up. Anyway, all went
well though, he was awestruck at how beautiful Shenmue is - even on a TV -
and he critiqued the detail and even pointed out some things that I hadn't
noticed: the veins in the hands on Ry, etc. He had no idea the DC was capable
of this level of graphical capability. I was surprised about his ability to
see detail: after the Shenmue demonstration I booted up Virtua Tennis and he
immediately pointed out the shadow effects and even the marks left on the
courts by he balls. I showed him LoK and the other games I had with me and
when all was said and done, he was very immpressed and will be getting a
Dreamcast. The TV still didn't detract enough from the graphical quality to
hurt, I did however mention the usefulness of a VGA box. He's pretty logical
in what he does and has great common sense, he didn't se any reason to buy a
PS2 since it is double the money and only marginally better if any. He has 2
DVD players too so he doesn't see an advantage in buing a PS2 for playing
movies. All anyone has to do is demonstrate the DC to override any
arguments...even on a standard TV.
In article <shidoshi-73E545.18295027122000@news>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Kitchar
@shidoshi wrote in message ...
>This fact finally and completely hit home last night. I've been playing
>all of my games through the VGA box as, as I've said before, I currently
>have no TV available to me. I was totally blown away by the Metropolis
>Street Racer demo on the latest ODCM disc, and took it to a friend's house
>last night to show a few of my friends the game.
>
>The TV I showed the game on was, actually, my old TV. I moved out of the
>house, and sold the TV to one of my friends living there (as his TV didn't
>even have RCA inputs on it). Now, I loved that TV - it was a very nice
>almost-flat deep black Panasonic GAOO 27" unit. Never had one single
>complaint about it.
>
>However, after playing MSR through the VGA box, I put it on on that TV,
>and was amazed at how bad I thought it looked. Of course, it didn't look
>bad - but I was now used to how it looked on the VGA box, with a
>sharpness, a level of deal, and a richness of all colors that simply can't
>be matched by most TVs these days, no matter how good. I mean, I was
>really, really shocked at how poor I thought the game looked through the
>TV.
>
>After playing games through the VGA box for so long, I have NO idea how
>I'm going to go back to playing them on a regular television. My plan is
>to pick up a 21" Sony Wega when I get a new TV, but even that isn't going
>to look near as good as my 17" Sony Trinitron monitor.
And it never will. So don't waste your money on an old NTSC WEGA---get a 21"
VGA monitor for gaming. I did and never looked back. Or just simply stick
with your excellent 17"---I'm sure games look great on it; much better than
any WEGA ever will. You'll be sorry...
>If the PSX/PS2 VGA
>box ends up being true, I'm so crazy that I might actually consider trying
>to pick up a 21" monitor instead of a TV as my main viewing unit. =^)
>
It won't be true as that would mean PS2 would output progressive DVD
also---and that would undermine the whole high-end DVD market. The PS2 will
always be old NTSC.
But the DC is of course progressive, as well as X-Box and GC. See why MS
decided to offer DVD only as a high-end add-on now? That's why I'm skipping
the PS2---I only game on my 21" VGA monitor anyway. TVs are incapable of
matching the clean graphics of a non-interlaced signal, so the PS2 will
always be inferior. I could care a less how "powerful" the PS2 turns out to
be---it still can't output progressive like the DC. I like my reds RED,
thankyou.
>I know... I'm a spoiled brat bitching about this when some of you don't
>even have A/V on your TV, or what not. Still... I HAVE become spoiled, and
>the Dreamcast through the VGA box looks SOOOOO good that doing any kind of
>video gaming anymore on a regular TV is going to be hard. This could all
>be settled if we just all had VGA monitor TVs and every game machine
>supported VGA video output. *heh*
>
Just don't play consoles without VGA support---it's easy given all the
choices these days. DC, X-Box, GC.
JMK
Skye
widescreen tv via the VGA connection, you'd shit yourself.
Skye
"@shidoshi" <shid...@relief-goddess.org> wrote in message
news:shidoshi-73E545.18295027122000@news...
DarienAllen.com
<shid...@relief-goddess.org> we were graced with this statement:
<snip>
VGA box on my 17" monitor...vs.....my 42" inch
Toshiba....hmmm....nope.
;)
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
Was wünscht jeder? KOPF!
Was benötigt jeder? KOPF!
Muskie
> Toshiba....hmmm....nope.\\
Looks like your stretching to find a use for that tv.....
-Muskie
@shidoshi
<darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> VGA box on my 17" monitor...vs.....my 42" inch
> Toshiba....hmmm....nope.
Well.. what kind of 42" is it? If it is projection in ANY way, toss it in
the garbage as far as I'm concerned. Biggest rip-off of a product I've
ever seen in my life.
And, sorry, I'm a quality whore. The image may be smaller, but the picture
is SO much better. I don't like the idea of sitting at a desk to do my
gaming, but I'm learning to manage. =^)
MasSnead2
:-P
Sweater Fish
how
> I'm going to go back to playing them on a regular television. My plan
is
> to pick up a 21" Sony Wega when I get a new TV, but even that isn't
going
> to look near as good as my 17" Sony Trinitron monitor. If the PSX/PS2
VGA
> box ends up being true, I'm so crazy that I might actually consider
trying
> to pick up a 21" monitor instead of a TV as my main viewing unit. =^)
>
I'm in the same boat. I totally don't have space in my tiny room for
two monitors. I'd been using a Commodore monitor for a few years
because for me the pretty RGB picture from my Genesis/Sega CD/SMS was
preferable to a larger but shitty composite one. Now I've seen the
light. I've got a 19" monitor and I'm getting an XRGB-2 from NCS; I
can have VGA on my DC, RGB on my other Sega systems, S-Video on most
evrything else and even composite if I really have to. 19" inches is
plenty big enough for me to sit back on my all nice and comfy on my
couch (oh jeez...alright, alright, it's a...love seat. There! I said
it! Are ya happy now!?! HAPPY!?!??!?!)
A bigger monitor would be nice, but anything under say 35" inches
wouldn't be worth the loss in picture quality and anything over would
just be ridiculous in this tiny 10' cube I live in (not to mention
stupidly expensive).
--
...dpdcp...
"The Sage returns with reverence to what the masses have left behind."
-Lao Yu-tze
----------------stop reading here to avoid yet another deja.com ad------
----------
Ryan E
<j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote:
>
>Joseph Olajubu wrote in message ...
>>I have a 21" WEGA TV sitting right next to my 19" VGA monitor - the
>>difference between
>>the two other than rsoltuion isn't that great with an RGB SCART
>>connection.....
><snip>
>
>Well, bear in mind, a VGA box is probably not going to be great for
>larger monitors.
>
DC games look beautiful on 21 inch VGA. Least on mine it does. I'm not
that fussy for gaming though. Comparison wise, as far as I can see,
picture is negligible on my 36" VVega (sorry John--I disagree).
>I believe the resolution is fixed for the Dreamcast, so the larger the
>monitor, the blockier and worse the graphics are going to look. For
>instance, most modern PC gamers bitch and whine and moan like little
>children when a game comes out with 640x480 resolution, or even
>sometimes 800x600. OTOH, due to the nature of a TV, the imperfections
>in the picture are fuzzed out a bit.
I must have high refresh rates in desktop environments (ie 1024 x 768
@ 85 Hz). Astigmatism & sensitive eyes do not mix. Going from 85 to
60 in games is hard.
>
>The best example is the Playstation. If you've played a PSX game on an
>emulator (on a monitor) it looks awful and blocky, cause the
>resolution is only 320 x 240 or so. But on a TV, the graphics look
>much better. (Conversely, SNES games look pretty good on a smallish
>monitor, because they've got a 640x480 resolution...at least in many
>cases)
>
VVega's really show the PS1's age.
__________________________________________________________
This is Mrs. Lindis. Three times this month I come to
clean and it always looks like people been fighting in there.
Furniture broke, things tipped over. I'm sorry, but I quit.
-Say Goodbye To Jennifer, The Rockford Files, 1974-1980
John Kitchar
Ryan E wrote in message <494m4t0lppp0ksu69...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:43:56 -0600, "Jeremy Reaban"
><j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Joseph Olajubu wrote in message ...
>>>I have a 21" WEGA TV sitting right next to my 19" VGA monitor - the
>>>difference between
>>>the two other than rsoltuion isn't that great with an RGB SCART
>>>connection.....
>><snip>
>>
>>Well, bear in mind, a VGA box is probably not going to be great for
>>larger monitors.
>>
>
>DC games look beautiful on 21 inch VGA. Least on mine it does. I'm not
>that fussy for gaming though. Comparison wise, as far as I can see,
>picture is negligible on my 36" VVega (sorry John--I disagree).
>
Of course it all depends on the viewing distance. Take the 36" WEGA VS 21"
VGA monitor. At 10 feet, the WEGA will look *good* and the 21" VGA monitor
will be way too small obviously. WEGA wins @ 10 feet. But at each of the
device's optimal viewing distance, the VGA monitor blows the WEGA away. At
24-36 inches, the VGA monitor looks great, while the WEGA looks horrible of
course. Put your face up to a 36" WEGA---it ain't pretty. And at 24 inches,
the 21" VGA looks much better than the 36" WEGA at 10 feet. Much much
better.
If you were correct, why then would we use computer monitors at all? Are you
surfing the NGs using your WEGA? How does computer text look on a WEGA?
Negligible? Of course not. So if computer graphics and text are clearly
superior on a VGA monitor(and look blurry as hell on a WEGA) , why then
would you describe DC picture quality as only "negligible" compared to a TV?
You like your WEGA; great. But don't mislead readers with false information.
The WEGA can't compete with computer monitors for ultimate picture quality.
>>I believe the resolution is fixed for the Dreamcast, so the larger the
>>monitor, the blockier and worse the graphics are going to look. For
>>instance, most modern PC gamers bitch and whine and moan like little
>>children when a game comes out with 640x480 resolution, or even
>>sometimes 800x600. OTOH, due to the nature of a TV, the imperfections
>>in the picture are fuzzed out a bit.
>
>I must have high refresh rates in desktop environments (ie 1024 x 768
>@ 85 Hz). Astigmatism & sensitive eyes do not mix. Going from 85 to
>60 in games is hard.
>
But the WEGA is better? Isn't NTSC 60 Hz also?
JMK
Joe Ottoson
<nos...@unavailable.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:29:51 GMT, this matter stream from "@shidoshi"
> <shid...@relief-goddess.org> appeared:
>
> >I know... I'm a spoiled brat bitching about this when some of you don't
> >even have A/V on your TV, or what not. Still... I HAVE become spoiled,
> >and
> >the Dreamcast through the VGA box looks SOOOOO good that doing any kind
> >of
> >video gaming anymore on a regular TV is going to be hard. This could all
> >be settled if we just all had VGA monitor TVs and every game machine
> >supported VGA video output. *heh*
>
> That's precisely why I've not picked one up. My couch and nice big TV
> are so much more comfortable than a chair and desk, and I don't want
> to ruin that for myself.
Yeesh. It's nice and all, but I still end up referring a decent TV set
over the VGA box myself...
york4311
<shidoshi-73E545.18295027122000@news>:
You should buy a TV that has VGA input....they do exist you know!
Skye
the ability to sit on my couch and play games using the VGA box.
Skye
"@shidoshi" <shid...@relief-goddess.org> wrote in message
news:shidoshi-90430B.02143028122000@news...
DJ Duodenum
Superflat, and used the DC S-Vid cable. It looked quite nice to my
vigin eyes. Then I bought the Performance VGA box. The clarity and
color on a monitor blew me away. It didn't help that I later got to see
the DC on both a 27" VGA display, and a 120k Barco VGA projector ;)
There really is no going back....
If you're really serious, check out something like:
http://www.wenusa.com/pctv.htm#115
york4311
<92e9ae$d4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
Marty, I'm glad you and your cousin had a good time with your Dreamcast,
but that still does not hold a valid argument about the PS2 being the
better machine. Wait until the games are seen at E3 this year and then
let's talk about what the DC can and can not do.
Just buy both, so you can stop posting this PS2 isn't as good junk!
MartyLK
york...@yahoo.com (york4311) wrote:
> Marty, I'm glad you and your cousin had a good time with your Dreamcast,
> but that still does not hold a valid argument about the PS2 being the
> better machine. Wait until the games are seen at E3 this year and then
> let's talk about what the DC can and can not do.
>
> Just buy both, so you can stop posting this PS2 isn't as good junk!
>
I don't know what you are interpreting from me but I certainly haven't been
saying lately that the PS2 isn't as good as the Dreamcast. What I have been
saying is more a matter of economics: the PS2 costs $300 and the Dreamcast
costs $150. It stands to reason that given the technology as proven by the
PS2's offerings that the Dreamcast is the better machine based on economics.
What would you do in a situation where you must decide which machine to buy
based on the *true* technological edge of either machine? Look at the facts.
The PS2 has not proven that it is worth double the cost of a Dreamcast based
on what it has shown. The PS2 might have potencial of being better than the
Dreamcast but, even at that point...if it actually does happen...would it
still be worth twice what a Dreamcast is worth? You see, Sony had all of
those grand words to say about the PS2 and if they indeed were factual, yes,
the PS2 probably would be worth departing with 3 100 dollar bills, but the
fact of the matter as proven by what the PS2 has done and given is that it
doesn't do 50% better than a Dreamcast; it doesn't deserve 50% more cost than
a Dreamcast. Is that to say that the consumer shouldn't place their own value
on the machine? Absolutely not. The consumer has shown that he/she has placed
a very high value for the PS2. What does that say about simple economics
though? That we all should ignore them and keep quiet about the facts? I
don't think so. The truth will prevail no matter how deceitful anyone is; no
matter how highly their product is hyped. I prefer to be on the side of
enlightenment and go against all that would have me shut up and let the
deception carry on by being informative and outspoken about what I've seen
and experienced. There are those of us who say to hell with logical reasoning
and go headlong into matters of impulse as demonstrated by the sales of the
PS2, that's ok, they are allowed to do that in America. Back to my earlier
question: If you were presented with making a decision about purchasing
either of two different video game consoles that are so evenly matched in
technological capabilities, would you opt for the more expensive one? Now,
lets look at the offerings shall we: the Dreamcast has an impressive library
of innovative and original games that are genuine works of art and come from
a company that is excusively into the production and creation entertaining
video gaming. The PS2 has a very small library of games that have so far been
a disappointment to a number of those who have dove into them and they
originate from and are liscensed by a company with so much diversity rather
than being dedicated to the art of video enteractive entertainment. If you
take into consideration the very small and insignifigant advance of the PS2
over the Dreamcast and also the dedication to the video game form of
entertainment as displayed by what is available for the Dreamcast and also
the cost factor of both machines, what would a well reasoned, unemotional and
logical decision be? I've not been saying the PS2 isn't as good as the
Dreamcast, what I have been saying is that given the facts, the PS2 doesn't
measure up and isn't worth the cost when the Dreamcast has such an advantage
over the PS2.
Should I voluntarily censor myself because the truth is unwelcome? Should I
give up my right to free speach and cave to those who don't want to hear what
I have to say? If I should, should not also everyone else do the same thing,
or should we all arbitrarily decide who gets to speak out based on
convenience? What kind of society would we have if we were forced to keep
quiet about facts? Does what I say harm the deceitfulness of Sony? Am I not
speaking the truths as layed out in this article? Sony said of the PS2 that
it would have movie quality graphic, that it would have a superior form of
anti-aliasing known a bezere curves processing, that it would be on par with
the best DVD player that Sony has produced, that it would perform many tens
of millions of polygons with all effects on, that it would revolutionize the
gaming industry with a giant leap in performance over anything that was
currently available. Look at the news, everything that has been written and
all of the developer statements about what the PS2 is and can do and how
advanced it is over the other platforms. Read all of the disappointment that
a number of developers have with the PS2 then go look at the offerings of the
PS2 and compare them to what the Dreamcast has to offer. Will you see any
advancement over the Dreamcast? Probably but, will you see a giant leap in
advancement and technology over the Dreamcast? If you are true to yourself,
no, you won't and hence my point, that the PS2 doesn't live up to the hype
and isn't worth twice what a DC is worth.
@shidoshi
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
> And it never will. So don't waste your money on an old NTSC WEGA---get a 21"
> VGA monitor for gaming. I did and never looked back. Or just simply stick
> with your excellent 17"---I'm sure games look great on it; much better than
> any WEGA ever will. You'll be sorry...
Well, I can agree with the idea. However, I would also need something for
non-gaming - DVD, TV, stuff like that. I don't watch much TV outside of
WWF, Iron Chef, and the Daily Show, but still, there are times when I
would like some TV. How do I get TV through a VGA monitor? Same with DVD,
except DVD I certainly can't live without. I want to somehow find a way to
get a VGA monitor in the 21" size that could do games, TV, and DVD (with
my VCR tossed in when I'm forced to use it). If I can get that worked out,
I'm set.
> It won't be true as that would mean PS2 would output progressive DVD
> also---and that would undermine the whole high-end DVD market. The PS2 will
> always be old NTSC.
I know it won't be a true VGA signal... but it would be a way for me to
get PSX/PS2 onto it. That's mostly what I'm concerned with right now.
> But the DC is of course progressive, as well as X-Box and GC.
I expected X-box to have VGA support, but is the GC going to have it too?
That would be nice if true.
> I like my reds RED, thankyou.
My big "anal color" is black. My blacks have to be BLACK. A nice, deep,
rich black, and no "off-black" blacks. =^)
> Just don't play consoles without VGA support---it's easy given all the
> choices these days. DC, X-Box, GC.
If there weren't a pile of PSX games I still want to play / need to get
around to, that would be fine. But, there are. Plus, there are a few DC
games that I can't live without that aren't VGA compatible.
DarienAllen.com
<shid...@relief-goddess.org> we were graced with this statement:
>In article <klil4t0lfi9lgub17...@4ax.com>, DarienAllen.com
><darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> VGA box on my 17" monitor...vs.....my 42" inch
>> Toshiba....hmmm....nope.
>
>Well.. what kind of 42" is it? If it is projection in ANY way, toss it in
>the garbage as far as I'm concerned. Biggest rip-off of a product I've
>ever seen in my life.
>
>And, sorry, I'm a quality whore. The image may be smaller, but the picture
>is SO much better. I don't like the idea of sitting at a desk to do my
>gaming, but I'm learning to manage. =^)
Please the day ANYONE attempts to try to justify why I should sit at
my computer desk when I can lay in my living in front of my TV...and
actually CONVINCES me to do so....time to put a gun to the noggin.
york4311
<92g7b2$sao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
If I was presented with the situation where I could only get one system,
then I would have to base it on, which system has the games that "I" like.
That decision would be the PS2, because I like EA games. Now, you can sit
there and say, but the PS2 cost $300, you could have had a DC and 3 games.
Well, it just comes down to the 3 games, and I would rather have a system
and one game that I truly love rather than a system and 4 games that I kind
of like. But, hey, that's me! I'm just glad I'm in a situation where I
can get all the systems and most of the games. Only problem is, I've ended
up more of a collector than a gamer. I miss the days where all I had was
an ol' Genesis and NHL 93. Me and my pals played the "heck" out of that
game, and had some real good times. Now, I'm lucky to get in 2 hours a
week gaming.
Raymond McKeithen II
> In article <92ecd...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "John Kitchar"
> <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>
> > And it never will. So don't waste your money on an old NTSC WEGA---get a
21"
> > VGA monitor for gaming. I did and never looked back. Or just simply
stick
> > with your excellent 17"---I'm sure games look great on it; much better
than
> > any WEGA ever will. You'll be sorry...
>
> Well, I can agree with the idea. However, I would also need something for
> non-gaming - DVD, TV, stuff like that. I don't watch much TV outside of
> WWF, Iron Chef, and the Daily Show, but still, there are times when I
> would like some TV. How do I get TV through a VGA monitor? Same with DVD,
> except DVD I certainly can't live without. I want to somehow find a way to
> get a VGA monitor in the 21" size that could do games, TV, and DVD (with
> my VCR tossed in when I'm forced to use it). If I can get that worked out,
> I'm set.
So, buy an XRGB-2.
> > It won't be true as that would mean PS2 would output progressive DVD
> > also---and that would undermine the whole high-end DVD market. The PS2
will
> > always be old NTSC.
>
> I know it won't be a true VGA signal... but it would be a way for me to
> get PSX/PS2 onto it. That's mostly what I'm concerned with right now.
>
>
> > But the DC is of course progressive, as well as X-Box and GC.
>
> I expected X-box to have VGA support, but is the GC going to have it too?
> That would be nice if true.
GC has analog and *digital* VGA output.
> > Just don't play consoles without VGA support---it's easy given all the
> > choices these days. DC, X-Box, GC.
>
> If there weren't a pile of PSX games I still want to play / need to get
> around to, that would be fine. But, there are. Plus, there are a few DC
> games that I can't live without that aren't VGA compatible.
Once again, XRGB-2.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Benjamin
>
> In article <klil4t0lfi9lgub17...@4ax.com>, DarienAllen.com
> <darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > VGA box on my 17" monitor...vs.....my 42" inch
> > Toshiba....hmmm....nope.
>
> Well.. what kind of 42" is it? If it is projection in ANY way, toss it in
> the garbage as far as I'm concerned. Biggest rip-off of a product I've
> ever seen in my life.
Makes for great Saturn Bomberman games. While a VGA monitor undoubtedly
has a cleaner picture, I think any multiplayer and/or split screen game
would be infinitely better on a nice, large projection screen.
> And, sorry, I'm a quality whore. The image may be smaller, but the picture
> is SO much better. I don't like the idea of sitting at a desk to do my
> gaming, but I'm learning to manage. =^)
>
> .............
> @shidoshi
Who you drive a car that got ten more miles per gallon of gas if you had
to drive with a thorny stick up your butt? :^)
Benjamin
Isaac Kuo
"@shidoshi" <shid...@relief-goddess.org> wrote:
>In article <92ecd...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "John Kitchar"
><jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>>And it never will. So don't waste your money on an old NTSC WEGA---
get a 21"
>>VGA monitor for gaming. I did and never looked back. Or just simply
stick
>>with your excellent 17"---I'm sure games look great on it; much
better than
>>any WEGA ever will. You'll be sorry...
>Well, I can agree with the idea. However, I would also need something
for
>non-gaming - DVD, TV, stuff like that. I don't watch much TV outside
of
>WWF, Iron Chef, and the Daily Show, but still, there are times when I
>would like some TV. How do I get TV through a VGA monitor? Same with
DVD,
>except DVD I certainly can't live without. I want to somehow find a
way to
>get a VGA monitor in the 21" size that could do games, TV, and DVD
(with
>my VCR tossed in when I'm forced to use it). If I can get that worked
out,
>I'm set.
I too have been spoiled by DC VGA output, but I don't have
a DVD player yet. Since I've been VGA spoiled, I won't
even consider getting a DVD player without progressive
output.
Personally, I'm hoping that Indrema will come out next
Spring at $300. That'll make it the cheapest VGA output
DVD player around, plus its S-Video input video digitizer
should hopefully be useable as a line doubler for TV.
(If not with pack in software, with easily downloadable
software considering Indrema is open development.)
Still, I've got computer and video monitors and TVs to
burn. At the moment almost every TV/monitor I've got
hooked up is single purpose--except for the living room
TV which has cable as well as VCRs and LD player. It's
like an arcade!
--
_____ Isaac Kuo mec...@yahoo.com ICQ 29055726
__|_)o(_|__
/___________\
\=\)-----(/=/
krom...@my-deja.com
monitors exist, don't you? For example, Princeton Graphics makes 32",
34", 36" monitors that do 800x600 and have a 15-pin VGA input for the
Dreamcast...
Or, you can get a Front-Projector like I have that takes VGA and play
at 100"+ inches :-)
Andy K.
In article <klil4t0lfi9lgub17...@4ax.com>,
DarienAllen.com <darie...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
MartyLK
york...@yahoo.com (york4311) wrote:
> If I was presented with the situation where I could only get one system,
> then I would have to base it on, which system has the games that "I" like.
> That decision would be the PS2, because I like EA games. Now, you can sit
> there and say, but the PS2 cost $300, you could have had a DC and 3 games.
> Well, it just comes down to the 3 games, and I would rather have a system
> and one game that I truly love rather than a system and 4 games that I kind
> of like. But, hey, that's me! I'm just glad I'm in a situation where I
> can get all the systems and most of the games. Only problem is, I've ended
> up more of a collector than a gamer. I miss the days where all I had was
> an ol' Genesis and NHL 93. Me and my pals played the "heck" out of that
> game, and had some real good times. Now, I'm lucky to get in 2 hours a
> week gaming.
>
Fair enough, that's a valid case. However, if I were in that situation I
would be deeply annoyed at EA for forcing me to spend that much more for a
system when their games could easily be done on the Dreamcast. I guess I'm
fortunate though, I don't have a deep hunger for EA games and any of their
sports games aren't so much better than what Sega has done that I would feel
the need to buy them no matter the cost or that the Sega games could not
possibly satisfy that particular genre of gaming. I don't see much of a
difference between Madden 2001 and NFL2K1, likewise for the other sports.
However, there is one EA game that I came to love on the PSX: Sled Storm. I
have yet to see a DC game compare to the enjoyment of Sled Storm, I haven't
yet played Sno Cross though so judgement is outstanding until I do but the
reviews aren't favorable. Given the fact that EA has a game that I love,
would I still cough up the dough just to be able to play it. Some people
would but not I because I can find a dozen other games on the DC that will
satisfy my need for video game fun. If I truly could not live without EA
games though, I'd consider future, higher potencial platforms like Nintendo
GameCube which is certain to be cheaper than a PS2 and from all reports will
be technologically superior...it remains to be seen though. Chances are good
though that it will at least be a capable as the Dreamcast, and EA on the
Dreamcast would negate any need for a PS2...if I needed EA games. One thing
that I've heard about the GameCube from developers is that Nintendo seems to
have overstated its ability just like Sony on the PS2 yet, even with this
overstatement, they are saying it appears to be quite a bit more powerful
than the PS2. Lets take a look at a chart:
If I needed EA games what decision would I make based on the following:
A Dreamcast for $150 but no EA games.
A PS2 for $300 and I get to play EA games.
A GameCube for $200 (all projections speculate at this pricepoint) and I get
to play EA games, and likely superior to the tech in the PS2.
Hmmm...decisions decisions decisions. Lets take into account one more thing:
Immediacy. Can I wait till next spring to play EA games? That's the question.
Is spending an extra cool hundred worth it to me to play EA games now...given
that I am actually able to find a PS2 for that cost? All indications are that
I'll likely have to wait till next year sometime anyway, just to play EA
games. For myself, I don't see a problem waiting for the GameCube to play EA
games, I'm going to have to wait anyway, no matter what I decide. That's me
though, I refuse to be chained and prefer to be free. I won't let EA dictate
to me what system I'll buy and for how much.
Scott Wozniak
*** Well.. what kind of 42" is it? If it is projection in ANY way, toss it in
the garbage as far as I'm concerned. Biggest rip-off of a product I've
ever seen in my life. ***
Err... what's up with the sweeping generalizations? Right now my DC is
hooked up to my 19-inch monitor via the Performance VGA box. It's great for
3D stuff but 2D games look like *ass* on a high-res computer monitor. I have
a 50 inch Hitachi in my living room and I can *assure* you that it ROCKS and is
in no way "garbage" or a rip-off. It's a totally different experience.
Games like Street Fighter III: Third Strike and Vampire Chronicle look
*infinately* better on the big-screen TV and the experience of Daytona 2001
(which I just picked up late yesterday) on a screen that big is much more
enjoyable for me. Yeah, sometimes I enjoy the intimacy of playing up close
and personal on the 19-inch monitor, but don't knock my setup until you've
tried it. Test Drive: Le Mans is like a religious experience on a screen that
big. :)
~Scott Wozniak
John Kitchar
Isaac Kuo wrote in message <92gd6r$1c4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Yeah but the X-Box add-on should be progressive DVD---that sounds like the
solution to me.
>Still, I've got computer and video monitors and TVs to
>burn. At the moment almost every TV/monitor I've got
>hooked up is single purpose--except for the living room
>TV which has cable as well as VCRs and LD player. It's
>like an arcade!
>--
I have two 21" VGA monitors. One is for my computer and the other is in my
living room strictly for DC gaming. It sits in the lower rack space next to
the bigger Sony TV. I can game on either, but I always choose the VGA.
I'm hoping to replace the TV with a 36" VGA monitor next year. Something
like the big Gateway. I can see it now: 36" VGA plus X-Box with progressive
DVD....yummy.
JMK
Ryan E
<jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>Of course it all depends on the viewing distance. Take the 36" WEGA VS 21"
>VGA monitor. At 10 feet, the WEGA will look *good* and the 21" VGA monitor
>will be way too small obviously. WEGA wins @ 10 feet. But at each of the
>device's optimal viewing distance, the VGA monitor blows the WEGA away. At
>24-36 inches, the VGA monitor looks great, while the WEGA looks horrible of
>course. Put your face up to a 36" WEGA---it ain't pretty. And at 24 inches,
>the 21" VGA looks much better than the 36" WEGA at 10 feet. Much much
>better.
Yeah. That's the point of a 36" screen. No need to sit close. I
realize NTSC is old hat. TV monitors were not designed for close
scrutinizing. Even on the VGA box I'm not going to scan everything
like a laser. Tell me what I'm missing in games that I wouldn't see on
Wega sitting at 8-10 ft. Do that and I'll pay closer attention on the
Interact box. I do not have the Wega & PC monitor in one location. But
I'll take your notes and keep them in mind for future comparison.
>If you were correct, why then would we use computer monitors at all? Are you
>surfing the NGs using your WEGA? How does computer text look on a WEGA?
>Negligible? Of course not. So if computer graphics and text are clearly
>superior on a VGA monitor(and look blurry as hell on a WEGA) , why then
>would you describe DC picture quality as only "negligible" compared to a TV?
I should have phrased that better. You picked up negligible yet missed
as far as I can see. From playing NFL2K1 (yes at 8-10 ft) I saw no
major difference. With my imperfect eyes I could see players eyes
fine. Menus/Text/Images looked fine. Wega's blurry as hell? Any
particular games look bad on the Wega you used?
>You like your WEGA; great. But don't mislead readers with false information.
>The WEGA can't compete with computer monitors for ultimate picture quality.
Please don't lecture. That was not my intention.
>>>I believe the resolution is fixed for the Dreamcast, so the larger the
>>>monitor, the blockier and worse the graphics are going to look. For
>>>instance, most modern PC gamers bitch and whine and moan like little
>>>children when a game comes out with 640x480 resolution, or even
>>>sometimes 800x600. OTOH, due to the nature of a TV, the imperfections
>>>in the picture are fuzzed out a bit.
>>
>>I must have high refresh rates in desktop environments (ie 1024 x 768
>>@ 85 Hz). Astigmatism & sensitive eyes do not mix. Going from 85 to
>>60 in games is hard.
>>
>
>But the WEGA is better?
Don't think I said it was better. For playing/loafing on the lazy-boy,
sure. At a distance it's not bad. Depends on how long my eyes are
staring at 85. It's the changover that's hard. Going from 85 Hz
non-interlaced to 60 Hz interlaced.
>Isn't NTSC 60 Hz also?
>
Yeah. After long sessions of Team Fortress Classic, watching TV makes
my eyes sore. Vision is blurry and it takes a good half-hour to
adjust. Reading text on the DSS menu-guide is painful.
John Kitchar
Scott Wozniak wrote in message
<20001228175622...@ng-mh1.aol.com>...
>Test Drive: Le Mans is like a religious experience on a screen that
>big. :)
>
TDLM is a religious experience, period.
JMK
John Kitchar
krom...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92gffr$395$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>You guys do realize that VGA-quality (even SVGA 800x600) TV-style
>monitors exist, don't you? For example, Princeton Graphics makes 32",
>34", 36" monitors that do 800x600 and have a 15-pin VGA input for the
>Dreamcast...
>
I'm concerned that these Princetons are not "true" VGA monitors---I believe
they have internal line doublers, which is not ideal? I'm not sure. Do you
know for sure?
JMK
krom...@my-deja.com
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>
> krom...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92gffr$395$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >You guys do realize that VGA-quality (even SVGA 800x600) TV-style
> >monitors exist, don't you? For example, Princeton Graphics makes 32",
> >34", 36" monitors that do 800x600 and have a 15-pin VGA input for the
> >Dreamcast...
> >
>
> I'm concerned that these Princetons are not "true" VGA monitors---I
believe
> they have internal line doublers, which is not ideal? I'm not sure.
Do you
> know for sure?
No, these monitors can support a VGA input, rather than just accepting
a video input and line-doubling it to VGA.
They have a coarser dot pitch than a regular monitor, but its still way
better than a TV set...
Andy K.
John Kitchar
Ryan E wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:03:48 +1000, "John Kitchar"
><jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course it all depends on the viewing distance. Take the 36" WEGA VS 21"
>>VGA monitor. At 10 feet, the WEGA will look *good* and the 21" VGA monitor
>>will be way too small obviously. WEGA wins @ 10 feet. But at each of the
>>device's optimal viewing distance, the VGA monitor blows the WEGA away. At
>>24-36 inches, the VGA monitor looks great, while the WEGA looks horrible
of
>>course. Put your face up to a 36" WEGA---it ain't pretty. And at 24
inches,
>>the 21" VGA looks much better than the 36" WEGA at 10 feet. Much much
>>better.
>
>Yeah. That's the point of a 36" screen. No need to sit close. I
>realize NTSC is old hat. TV monitors were not designed for close
>scrutinizing. Even on the VGA box I'm not going to scan everything
>like a laser. Tell me what I'm missing in games that I wouldn't see on
>Wega sitting at 8-10 ft. Do that and I'll pay closer attention on the
>Interact box. I do not have the Wega & PC monitor in one location. But
>I'll take your notes and keep them in mind for future comparison.
>
It's hard to argue against a 36" WEGA for 8-10 ft viewing distance. No doubt
it looks good---my friend just recently purchased a 36" WEGA and I've
seen/played DC games on it plenty. But it's the little details like in
Quake3A, where a little red light trails around the Quake text on the start
screen you don't notice (as much) on a WEGA. The perfectly readable guages
in F355 is another example. In Draconus, the wisp---you can actually make
out the arms and wings and see the full lighting effects. Sitting up close
to a 21" monitor is such an experience for me. VGA is just so perfect; as
perfect as technology gets these days. The non-interlaced picture is also a
huge advantage. I don't know why exactly, but F355 looks far better on a VGA
monitor---the flickering is much more noticable on a TV. It's a completely
different game in VGA.
Now am I suggesting giving up the WEGA completely? No; I'm just suggesting
that having a computer monitor for close-up single play is a great option in
addition to your excellent big fat WEGA. It all boils down to what you
appreciate most: longer viewing distance or better image quality. For me,
sitting 30 inches from a 21" monitor is best---my gaming experience is, I
believe, as good as it can get for around $1000.
>>If you were correct, why then would we use computer monitors at all? Are
you
>>surfing the NGs using your WEGA? How does computer text look on a WEGA?
>>Negligible? Of course not. So if computer graphics and text are clearly
>>superior on a VGA monitor(and look blurry as hell on a WEGA) , why then
>>would you describe DC picture quality as only "negligible" compared to a
TV?
>
>I should have phrased that better. You picked up negligible yet missed
>as far as I can see. From playing NFL2K1 (yes at 8-10 ft) I saw no
>major difference. With my imperfect eyes I could see players eyes
>fine. Menus/Text/Images looked fine. Wega's blurry as hell? Any
>particular games look bad on the Wega you used?
>
For a test, we ran a computer svideo signal to a WEGA. In the center, text
is OK. At the edges however, it's "blurry as hell", yep. Just about what I
expected from a $1000 36" tube.
Best game test I can think of would be F355. Look at the guages on you WEGA
VS a VGA monitor. Tell me what you think. I can't read the guages on a TV.
On my VGA, it's perfect.
>Don't think I said it was better. For playing/loafing on the lazy-boy,
>sure. At a distance it's not bad. Depends on how long my eyes are
>staring at 85. It's the changover that's hard. Going from 85 Hz
>non-interlaced to 60 Hz interlaced.
>
Of course it's not bad---I agree completely. Just not nearly as good
as...won't go there again. We agree; let's stop here.
JMK
John Kitchar
krom...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92groi$ctr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <92gi2...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>>
>> krom...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92gffr$395$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >You guys do realize that VGA-quality (even SVGA 800x600) TV-style
>> >monitors exist, don't you? For example, Princeton Graphics makes 32",
>> >34", 36" monitors that do 800x600 and have a 15-pin VGA input for the
>> >Dreamcast...
>> >
>>
>> I'm concerned that these Princetons are not "true" VGA monitors---I
>believe
>> they have internal line doublers, which is not ideal? I'm not sure.
>Do you
>> know for sure?
>
>No, these monitors can support a VGA input, rather than just accepting
>a video input and line-doubling it to VGA.
>
>They have a coarser dot pitch than a regular monitor, but its still way
>better than a TV set...
>
I swear I read that they have internal line doublers...I'll check again.
JMK
John Kitchar
> "John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>>
>> krom...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92gffr$395$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >You guys do realize that VGA-quality (even SVGA 800x600) TV-style
>> >monitors exist, don't you? For example, Princeton Graphics makes 32",
>> >34", 36" monitors that do 800x600 and have a 15-pin VGA input for the
>> >Dreamcast...
>> >
>>
>> I'm concerned that these Princetons are not "true" VGA monitors---I
>believe
>> they have internal line doublers, which is not ideal? I'm not sure.
>Do you
>> know for sure?
>
>No, these monitors can support a VGA input, rather than just accepting
>a video input and line-doubling it to VGA.
>
>They have a coarser dot pitch than a regular monitor, but its still way
>better than a TV set...
>
>Andy K.
>
This is from Princeton's website:
Princeton Arcadia AR3.6T
38-inch (36" viewable) HDTV-Ready XGA Monitor/TV Receivers
1024 x 768 (XGA) Maximum resolution
800 x 600 Recommended resolution
Compatible with VGA, SVGA and XGA computer signals
65 MHz Video Dot Clock
HDTV-monitor: Compatible with 480p, 540p, 1080i and 720p in native modes
(letterboxed)
***Built-in video line doubler provides superior video reproduction***
Built-in, cable-ready NTSC TV tuner
Built-in speakers with powerful stereo amplifier
Full-function wireless remote control
2 RGB inputs: 1 front, 1 rear. 1 RGB output (rear)
Compatible with PC and MACª computers
Composite and S-Video inputs/output with stereo audio inputs/output
Compatible with progressive-scan DVD players with RGBVH outputs
On-Screen menu system
Meets stringent FCC Class B requirments for home or office use
Warranty: One Year On-Site Limited 1year parts, 1 year labor, 1 year CRT*
Product Description
XGA input resolution compatible, Arcadia T-series series monitors are ideal
for all multimedia presentation including high-resolution computer graphics,
text, spreadsheets and web browsing. T-series monitors are equipped with a
built-in NTSC TV tuner and a built-in video line doubler for enhanced 480p
(DTV) resolution from all standard video sources such as TV, teleconference
feeds, satellite, VCR and DVD. These built-in features ensure
high-performance, versatility and convenience.
So...is this as good as a "regular" VGA computer? I'm not sure still. Don't
like that line doubling stuff in the specs...
JMK
isa...@my-deja.com
You hit it right on the nail Scott! I couldn't agree more! I'm quite
sure your games look real good on your 50" Hitachi. But you haven't
LIVED until you've seen my rig. If you think 50 inches is nice, try
watching your games on a 65" Toshiba Widescreen projection TV via S-
video. To say it's a soul altering experience would be an
understatement. It's got a line doubler and the picrute is just SWEET!
Shidoshi, enjoying the picture clarity of a 17" VGA monitor is one
thing, but making generalazations of all projection TVs and saying
they're garbage is way out of line! I personally don't understand the
amount people here who actually prefer to play their games from a desk
on an iddy biddy 17" or 21" monitor. After buying such a big TV like
65", I could NEVER go back to viewing my games on anything less than a
50" screen, no matter HOW excellent the picture is. I mean trying to
justfy playing games on such a small screen is just ludicrous. And the
improvement in picture detail from a big screen projection TV to a
small VGA monitor does NOT justify the sacrifice in screen size IMHO. I
continue to drool in anticipation over the stateside release of Daytona
2001 and picture myself playing it on my behemoth of a screen everyday.
Size DOES matter gentlemen!
--
I will make this whole PLANET suffer!!
--Freeza
Raymond McKeithen II
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote in message
news:92gue...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> This is from Princeton's website:
>
> Princeton Arcadia AR3.6T
>
>
> ***Built-in video line doubler provides superior video reproduction***
>
>
> Product Description
>
> XGA input resolution compatible, Arcadia T-series series monitors are
ideal
> for all multimedia presentation including high-resolution computer
graphics,
> text, spreadsheets and web browsing. T-series monitors are equipped with a
> built-in NTSC TV tuner and a built-in video line doubler for enhanced 480p
> (DTV) resolution from all standard video sources such as TV,
teleconference
> feeds, satellite, VCR and DVD. These built-in features ensure
> high-performance, versatility and convenience.
>
> So...is this as good as a "regular" VGA computer? I'm not sure still.
Don't
> like that line doubling stuff in the specs...
The monitor always runs in VGA mode (or above). 640x480 VGA is 31.5kHz scan
rate (noninterlaced), twice that of video sources which are 15.75kHz
(interlaced).
The only way to display a 15.75kHz source at 31.5 is to line-double, so it
includes that feature so you can watch your VCR, TV, whatever that outputs
composite or S-video signal. Things with VGA output (DC, PC) will not be
line-doubled because they're already at 31.5kHz.
If you're only going to use sources that are 640x480 or below, it may be
preferable to buy one that doesn't go higher than that. Notice how this is
"recommended" for use at 800x600. The picture at 640x480 *may* not be as
good as it is on one designed just for that resolution.
Scott Wozniak
*** You hit it right on the nail Scott! I couldn't agree more! I'm quite
sure your games look real good on your 50" Hitachi. But you haven't
LIVED until you've seen my rig. If you think 50 inches is nice, try
watching your games on a 65" Toshiba Widescreen projection TV via S-
video. To say it's a soul altering experience would be an
understatement. It's got a line doubler and the picrute is just SWEET! ***
I've seen a 65" at a store and the difference in size between my 50" seems
HUGE. Those extra 15 inches (measured diagnolly) *really* make a difference.
I can't even imagine having one of those in my living room. It would
completely envelope my field of vision. How somebody could honestly say that
playing the Dreamcast on their 17" monitor is more fun is beyond me. I'd
venture to guess that maybe they haven't actually sat down and *tried* it.
It's hard to go back, but you and me know the deal. :)
~Scott Wozniak
Raymond McKeithen II
"Scott Wozniak" <swoz...@aol.comeGETsome> wrote in message
news:20001228175622...@ng-mh1.aol.com...
> Shidoshi wrote:
>
> *** Well.. what kind of 42" is it? If it is projection in ANY way, toss it
in
> the garbage as far as I'm concerned. Biggest rip-off of a product I've
> ever seen in my life. ***
>
>
> Err... what's up with the sweeping generalizations?
Last I checked, "as far as I'm concerned" means he was expressing an
opinion; one I happen to share.
> Right now my DC is
> hooked up to my 19-inch monitor via the Performance VGA box. It's great
for
> 3D stuff but 2D games look like *ass* on a high-res computer monitor. I
have
> a 50 inch Hitachi in my living room and I can *assure* you that it ROCKS
and is
> in no way "garbage" or a rip-off. It's a totally different experience.
> Games like Street Fighter III: Third Strike and Vampire Chronicle look
> *infinately* better on the big-screen TV and the experience of Daytona
2001
> (which I just picked up late yesterday) on a screen that big is much more
> enjoyable for me. Yeah, sometimes I enjoy the intimacy of playing up
close
> and personal on the 19-inch monitor, but don't knock my setup until you've
> tried it. Test Drive: Le Mans is like a religious experience on a screen
that
> big. :)
I'm with Shidoshi, I think all rear-projectors suck, especially for
videogames. S-Video or less sucks for videogames period. Even that aside,
the RGB projectors used in Sega's large-screen arcade games look terrible
too; they're far too blurry compared to a good CRT monitor.
Games such as SF3:3S don't look good on VGA, but they look exactly like
they're supposed to via RGB on an appropriate monitor.
Vampire Chronicle IMO *always* looks like crap since Capcom made it run
scan-doubled no matter what you play it on, grr.
I'll take quality over size anyday, and I don't like games on anything
larger than 27" anyway; I don't even like the 32" some arcade games have..
You have to sit too far away from anything larger.
Perhaps projectors are fine for TV or video sources, but I don't watch those
so I really don't care. Even there a really good TV/monitor is far better
than any projector in picture quality to me.
John Kitchar
Raymond McKeithen II wrote in message ...
Thanks for clearing that up---so then these monitors would be perfect.
>If you're only going to use sources that are 640x480 or below, it may be
>preferable to buy one that doesn't go higher than that. Notice how this is
>"recommended" for use at 800x600. The picture at 640x480 *may* not be as
>good as it is on one designed just for that resolution.
>
>
I sure would like to see one in person to find out. I can't do this this
year anyway; I just shelled out $$ for two 21" monitors you know. Princetons
BTW and let me tell you, they look great.
Thanks, JMK
Isaac Kuo
"John Kitchar" <jkit...@netpci.com> wrote:
>Isaac Kuo wrote in message <92gd6r$1c4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Personally, I'm hoping that Indrema will come out next
>>Spring at $300. That'll make it the cheapest VGA output
>>DVD player around, plus its S-Video input video digitizer
>>should hopefully be useable as a line doubler for TV.
>>(If not with pack in software, with easily downloadable
>>software considering Indrema is open development.)
>Yeah but the X-Box add-on should be progressive DVD---that sounds like
the
>solution to me.
Add-on, schmadd-on. These Indrema guys are desperate, so
they'll pack in all the free software they can to try and
sell units. That means built in DVD, MP3 Jukebox, Web
browser/E-mail, and probably even video editting software.
Besides, I don't feel like waiting until whenever the X-Box
gets released.
--
krom...@my-deja.com
What he said :-)
The '800x600 recommended resolution' is in reference to the fact that,
although these monitors support 1024x768, they dont necessarily have
the internal bandwidth to display that much detail. With 800x600 you
are getting the full detail. Since 640x480 is even less bandwidth, it
should look fine as well.
Andy K.
>
> --
> Raymond
> remove "suchiepai" for email
>
>
Scott Wozniak
*** Last I checked, "as far as I'm concerned" means he was expressing an
opinion; one I happen to share. ***
Last I checked, a sweeping generalization *is* somebody's opinion, right? He
said all rear-projection TV's were garbage. Yes, that's his opinion, but it's
also a sweeping generalization. I don't share that view. It's like saying
all Italians are in the Mafia or all Polish people are stupid. That's too cut
and dried for me. There has to be some middle ground, no? Did you take a
"cranky" pill last night, Ray? I thought we were buddies? :)
*** I'm with Shidoshi, I think all rear-projectors suck, especially for
videogames. ***
2D games look infinately better on my 50" Hitachi rear-projection television
than on my 19" ViewSonic flat monitor. That's my opinion. The added bonus
of how large the screen is makes driving games a completely different
experience for me as well. That's my opinion. I can't stand how pixelized
games like Street Fighter III look on my monitor. They look much smoother on
the TV. That's my opinion. I'm not disputing that a VGA image is a lot
sharper than a television image. It's just for some things (like 2D games) I
prefer the TV and for certain games (especially driving) I enjoy the experience
of playing on a 50" screen with a surround setup. It makes the game really
exciting for me.
*** S-Video or less sucks for videogames period. ***
My DC is hooked up to my Hitachi 50" via S-Video. It looks really good.
*** Even that aside,
the RGB projectors used in Sega's large-screen arcade games look terrible
too; they're far too blurry compared to a good CRT monitor. ***
Well, my TV isn't the least bit blurry-looking. It's been professionally
calibrated and DVDs look stunning on it. Videogames look great as well.
*** Games such as SF3:3S don't look good on VGA, but they look exactly like
they're supposed to via RGB on an appropriate monitor. ***
Most people don't have the option of a dedicated RGB monitor for gaming like
you do, Ray. I have a Neo MVS cabinet. It looks great. I'd still enjoy
Daytona 2001 on my 50" TV more though.
*** I'll take quality over size anyday, and I don't like games on anything
larger than 27" anyway; I don't even like the 32" some arcade games have..
You have to sit too far away from anything larger. ***
You're entitled to your opinion. DVDs running on my computer monitor are
super-sharp. I enjoy them more on the 50" TV in my living room. I enjoy
movies even MORE in the theater. Sometimes, size *does* matter. :)
*** Perhaps projectors are fine for TV or video sources, but I don't watch
those
so I really don't care. Even there a really good TV/monitor is far better
than any projector in picture quality to me. ***
I never claimed that rear-projection was superior in picture quality to a tube
television or monitor. I'm just saying that it is in no way "garbage." My
50" isn't blurry at all. I have pretty good eyes. Yeah, I've seen plenty of
rear-projection TVs that look like crap or weren't properly set up in stores,
but mine isn't one of them. We'll just agree to disagree, OK? :)
~Scott Wozniak
isa...@my-deja.com
swoz...@aol.comeGETsome (Scott Wozniak) wrote:
> Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
>
> *** Last I checked, "as far as I'm concerned" means he was expressing
an
> opinion; one I happen to share. ***
>
> Last I checked, a sweeping generalization *is* somebody's opinion,
right? He
> said all rear-projection TV's were garbage. Yes, that's his
opinion, but it's
> also a sweeping generalization. I don't share that view. It's
like saying
> all Italians are in the Mafia or all Polish people are stupid.
That's too cut
> and dried for me. There has to be some middle ground, no?
Excellent point...nuff said
> *** I'm with Shidoshi, I think all rear-projectors suck, especially
for
> videogames. ***
>
Don't look now, but you just made a sweeping generalization. And
appearantly you haven't seen the latest rear projection TVs if you
think they "all suck".
>
> 2D games look infinately better on my 50" Hitachi rear-projection
television
> than on my 19" ViewSonic flat monitor. That's my opinion. The
added bonus
> of how large the screen is makes driving games a completely different
> experience for me as well. That's my opinion. I can't stand how
pixelized
> games like Street Fighter III look on my monitor. They look much
smoother on
> the TV. That's my opinion. I'm not disputing that a VGA image is
a lot
> sharper than a television image. It's just for some things (like 2D
games) I
> prefer the TV and for certain games (especially driving) I enjoy the
experience
> of playing on a 50" screen with a surround setup. It makes the game
really
> exciting for me.
Amen to that
>
> *** S-Video or less sucks for videogames period. ***
>
Umm, yeah...S-video sucks(rolls eyes in a sarcastic manner).
> My DC is hooked up to my Hitachi 50" via S-Video. It looks really
good.
>
> *** Even that aside,
> the RGB projectors used in Sega's large-screen arcade games look
terrible
> too; they're far too blurry compared to a good CRT monitor. ***
>
LOL! What arcades do you go to? All the big screen games at my local
Gameworks, and even the one in Vegas look beautiful with no blurred
effect whatsoever. If the screen didn't look that great it probably
suffers from burn in.
>
> Well, my TV isn't the least bit blurry-looking. It's been
professionally
> calibrated and DVDs look stunning on it. Videogames look great as
well.
>
Exactly. Properly calibrated rear projection TVs look outright
STUNNING!
> *** Games such as SF3:3S don't look good on VGA, but they look
exactly like
> they're supposed to via RGB on an appropriate monitor. ***
>
LMAO!! This is where I really burst an artery! You're joking right? 2D
games on a PC VGA monitor doesn't look NEARLY as good as on a true CRT
RGB analog arcade monitor. A pure analog rgb signal is definately
better than a converted to digital VGA signal.
> Most people don't have the option of a dedicated RGB monitor for
gaming like
> you do, Ray. I have a Neo MVS cabinet. It looks great. I'd
still enjoy
> Daytona 2001 on my 50" TV more though.
>
Oh so true.
> *** I'll take quality over size anyday, and I don't like games on
anything
> larger than 27" anyway; I don't even like the 32" some arcade games
have..
> You have to sit too far away from anything larger. ***
>
Looks like you're in the minority there pal. Ask any gamer whether they
would rather sit at a confortable distance watching a nice large
display or sit up close watching a tiny screen from 25 inches away and
see what kind of answers you get.
> You're entitled to your opinion. DVDs running on my computer
monitor are
> super-sharp. I enjoy them more on the 50" TV in my living room. I
enjoy
> movies even MORE in the theater. Sometimes, size *does* matter. :)
>
> *** Perhaps projectors are fine for TV or video sources, but I don't
watch
> those
> so I really don't care. Even there(then?) a really good TV/monitor is
far better
> than any projector in picture quality to me. ***
>
Yeah you're right but like I stated earlier the sacrifice in picture
size is not worth it IMHO.
> I never claimed that rear-projection was superior in picture quality
to a tube
> television or monitor. I'm just saying that it is in no
way "garbage." My
> 50" isn't blurry at all. I have pretty good eyes. Yeah, I've seen
plenty of
> rear-projection TVs that look like crap or weren't properly set up in
stores,
> but mine isn't one of them. We'll just agree to disagree, OK? :)
>
> ~Scott Wozniak
>
Well said Scott.
--
I will make this whole PLANET suffer!!
--Freeza
Raymond McKeithen II
"Scott Wozniak" <swoz...@aol.comeGETsome> wrote in message
news:20001229155551...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> Raymond McKeithen II wrote:
>
> *** Last I checked, "as far as I'm concerned" means he was expressing an
> opinion; one I happen to share. ***
>
> Last I checked, a sweeping generalization *is* somebody's opinion, right?
He
> said all rear-projection TV's were garbage. Yes, that's his opinion, but
it's
> also a sweeping generalization. I don't share that view. It's like
saying
> all Italians are in the Mafia or all Polish people are stupid. That's
too cut
> and dried for me. There has to be some middle ground, no?
It's not quite the same comparison. There are certain inherent issues in
rear projection TVs that are shared by all of them; if those issues happen
to be something that makes them crap to me, then I can certainly use a
generalization that they're all garbage.
Simple semi-related example...currently, all plasma TVs suffer from poor
contrast and black level; it's something inherent to the design. If black
level is something you find important in a plasma TV, you can make the
generalization that they're all terrible even without having seen each and
every model.
> Did you take a
> "cranky" pill last night, Ray? I thought we were buddies? :)
At the moment, it's hard not to read this newsgroup full of new trolls and
one idiot in particular and not be cranky. I felt your reaction to
Shidoshi's comment was too cranky as well.
> *** Games such as SF3:3S don't look good on VGA, but they look exactly
like
> they're supposed to via RGB on an appropriate monitor. ***
>
> Most people don't have the option of a dedicated RGB monitor for gaming
like
> you do, Ray. I have a Neo MVS cabinet. It looks great. I'd still
enjoy
> Daytona 2001 on my 50" TV more though.
"Most people" can't afford decent projection TVs either (any semi-tolerable
one isn't going to be cheap). Anyone who can afford a higher-end projector
can certainly afford a RGB and/or "arcade VGA" monitor if they want one and
place that priority on having the best quality image for their games.
> *** Perhaps projectors are fine for TV or video sources, but I don't watch
> those
> so I really don't care. Even there a really good TV/monitor is far better
> than any projector in picture quality to me. ***
>
>
> I never claimed that rear-projection was superior in picture quality to a
tube
> television or monitor. I'm just saying that it is in no way "garbage."
My
> 50" isn't blurry at all. I have pretty good eyes. Yeah, I've seen
plenty of
> rear-projection TVs that look like crap or weren't properly set up in
stores,
> but mine isn't one of them. We'll just agree to disagree, OK? :)
OK. :)
Scott Wozniak
*** There are certain inherent issues in
rear projection TVs that are shared by all of them; if those issues happen
to be something that makes them crap to me, then I can certainly use a
generalization that they're all garbage. ***
And that sweeping generalization would be your opinion which you're entitled
to, but why jump down my throat for asking Shidoshi what was up with *his*
sweeping generalization? I was merely expressing *my* opinion that I don't
agree with him. Could you tell me what these inherant issues are?
*** I felt your reaction to
Shidoshi's comment was too cranky as well. ***
I didn't mean it that way. I've never had a problem with Shidoshi. I like
the guy. Being as you and Shidoshi are having what looks to be a small-scale
"cranky-fest" in the "Last Blade 2 not VGA" thread, I won't say another word.
:)
*** "Most people" can't afford decent projection TVs either (any semi-tolerable
one isn't going to be cheap).
Anyone who can afford a higher-end projector
can certainly afford a RGB and/or "arcade VGA" monitor if they want one and
place that priority on having the best quality image for their games. ***
It's not just about being able to afford it. Many people don't know enough
about RGB in general and RGB monitors to know that this is an option. They're
not exactly the kind of product that you see at your local Best Buy. Also,
space is a consideration for some. Some people would rather have their DC
hooked up to the big-screen TV in the living room and not have a dedicated
monitor for the system. Also, being able to sit on the couch and play Virtua
Tennis with a buddy on the 50" is a lot more fun for me personally. :)
Image quality is important to me, and I won't dispute that VGA is *really*
sharp looking, but my 50" television isn't too shabby either and I'll take the
trade-off in size over quality. Besides, sometimes the VGA box can make
images a little *too* sharp and bring out imperfections that you don't notice
on a TV. It's like those people that turn up the sharpness level on their
sets too high and make television look all "artifact-y." I love the VGA box
for certain games, but, for example, it makes the FMV-streamed backgrounds in
Space Channel 5 look too pixelated. It looks much more natural on the TV for
me. Just my opinion. We don't need to get into this. :)
~Scott Wozniak
isa...@my-deja.com
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>Anyone who can afford a higher-end projector
> can certainly afford a RGB and/or "arcade VGA" monitor if they want
one and
> place that priority on having the best quality image for their games.
>
ROTFL! You really are full of it aren't you? Who in their right mind
would want to buy an RGB arcade monitor if they have the money to buy a
high end CRT or LCD projector that not only offers a ridiculously large
image but a more than decent picture quality at a 100+ inches or more
size?
Ryan E
<rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>
>
>At the moment, it's hard not to read this newsgroup full of new trolls and
>one idiot in particular and not be cranky. I felt your reaction to
>Shidoshi's comment was too cranky as well.
What's the matter? Incantation of PLONK not working? Maybe you should
try it with PKB. Or tighten the lid on your garbage lid, Oscar.
Skye
RPTV via VGA over any computer monitor any day.
Skye
"Scott Wozniak" <swoz...@aol.comeGETsome> wrote in message
news:20001229200002...@ng-fa1.aol.com...