Monkey Island 1 remake - come on

[plamdi]

Erm, no they don't. I know a lot of gamers both online and offline who're what you could consider 'hardcore' and pretty much every single one uses an LCD, and if you look at Steam's latest hardware survey 41% of people use 1280x800, which as far as I'm aware is very unlikely to appear on any CRT. A large portion of the 36% on 1024x768 are probably on smaller LCDs, too. Steam's results are probably slightly skewed too as although the userbase is massive, a lot of them play older games like Counter-Strike for Half-Life 1. If you were to restrict results to people who mainly play 2005/2006 games you'd probably find the results even more in LCD's favour.

What a baseless argument, you can't conclude at all from that who uses LCD and who doesn't (1280x800 works fine on both of my "old" CRT's). I'll also add that the people I know with LCD's generally have 1024x768 LCD's; and that everyone I know who uses 1280x800 uses a CRT monitor (so does everyone I know that uses 1600x1200). I don't think many people would use LCD's with a resolution of 1600 x 1200 or higher. You'll find in your survey a question on monitor refresh rates in Hz - LCD's are not measured this way; thus the survey is clearly assuming that its participants are using CRT monitors.

What is the point of this? Well, mainly to show that even using complicated resizing methods the images still don't look great. Even if they did, your computer wouldn't be able to do it on-the-fly anyway - the best looking images out of the bunch above were not only resized but then post-processed to smooth some of the artefacts out.

You could if you wanted, all you need to do is set the program to resize its images once... not every frame (ie the background image is stored resized in memory, not "upscaled" every frame - same with characters and objects).

[Thrik]

1280x800 might work fine on a CRT, but like I said very few people are likely to actually be using it on a CRT. Why? Because it's a widescreen resolution. As such, I think your comment about everyone you know using 1280x800 on a CRT is absolute bogus because there are hardly any widescreen CRT monitors on the market whatsoever, let alone actually being used by people. Only a fool would use 1280x800 on a CRT, thus vertically stretching the image dramatically, when they could use 1280x960 which is the 'square' ratio a CRT monitor generally uses.

 

And no, refresh rates aren't limited to CRTs. LCDs also come with an upper limit on what rate they can handle, even if the measurement is largely geared towards CRTs. If you use 50Hz on an LCD that can handle 60Hz, you'll only be seeing 50 frames per second in games as opposed to 60. Where you may be getting confused is that LCDs don't (or shouldn't) flicker with low refresh rates as they 'overwrite' the previous frame, rather than flicking to black at lightning speed first like a CRT. This, however, doesn't mean the refresh rate doesn't exist.

 

So no, the survey isn't assuming anything, and no, my argument isn't baseless. LCDs are completely ubiquitous now, and if you actually look around homes you might find what you see backs up my argument (unless you only look in student hovels, I guess).

[Thrik]

Another thing worth mentioning is that LCDs do actually tend to come with higher resolutions than CRT monitors as standard, so I'm not sure where you got your assumption of people using 1600x1200 being on a CRT from.

 

In fact, you only need to get a 22-inch LCD (which isn't considered in the larger bracket, since they go up to 30 inches) to get a resolution of 1680x1050, and if you step up to 24 inches you'll be greeted with 1920x1200. Hit 30 inches and you're looking at a gigantic 2560x1600.

 

If you can show me a CRT monitor that can satisfactorily display that resolution without making for difficult reading I'll be impressed. Despite what you've somehow led yourself to think, LCDs are far better at displaying higher resolutions than any CRT monitor, and any gamer wishing to play on such a high resolution would invariably get an LCD.

 

As if the size of the monitor and sharpness (CRTs are unavoidably blurrier) wasn't enough, LCDs also have perfect geometry, which means there's zero tweaking of the size and edges of the picture to make them straight. Coincidentally, this happens to be something you not only need to do on CRTs, but it gets worse at higher resolutions.

 

CRTs are a dying technology, and rightfully so.

[Ray Jones]

*I* use 1280x800 on an LCD. And since this is a resolution that came with 16:10 widescreen displays which began with LCDs, it's more likely to find it used with an LCD instead of an CRT. (as Thrik already said)

 

Also, what's so uncommon on LCDs with resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200 and above? I hardly can find CRTs where ever I go and the standard resolution is 1280x1024 for most people I know who own an LCD.

 

No, that's 4 times the pixels!

You double the number of pixels for each ordinate.

 

You'll find in your survey a question on monitor refresh rates in Hz - LCD's are not measured this way; thus the survey is clearly assuming that its participants are using CRT monitors.

The survey is rather pointing out which refresh rate was actually used, and I would be rather surprised if you don't "need" refresh rates when using an LCD.

 

--

BTW: Looking at the screenshots, I'd rather use the first two methods than any other, as both are as near as possible to the "original". I mean I see the pixels anyway and I prefer them over those rather unsharp and blurred results delivered by the more intelligent algorithms.

 

However, I really would like to see characters added to the circus background.

 

 

[edit]

Damnit Thrik.

[ThunderPeel2001]

*I* use 1280x800 on an LCD. And since this is a resolution that came with 16:10 widescreen displays which began with LCDs, it's more likely to find it used with an LCD instead of an CRT. (as Thrik already said)

I agree, it's more likely, but I highly doubt that 46% of all Counter Strike players use widescreen LCD monitors! Common sense dictates that it's much more likely to be a typo for 1280x1024 (especially since a) the next resolution is 1024x768 and b) 1280x1024 isn't listed!). Which all combines to prove absolutely *nothing* about LCD usage.

 

Also, what's so uncommon on LCDs with resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200 and above? I hardly can find CRTs where ever I go and the standard resolution is 1280x1024 for most people I know who own an LCD.

It's very common for LCDs to have a native resolution of 1280x1024. Not so much 1600x1200 though!

 

You double the number of pixels for each ordinate.

It's still 4 times the number of pixels. Period. (Why even bother pointing out that 320 x 2 = 640? )

 

The survey is rather pointing out which refresh rate was actually used, and I would be rather surprised if you don't "need" refresh rates when using an LCD.

No, it isn't. It's clearly showing resolution. Also, just as an aside to Thrik: LCD screens can only use one refresh rate, the way they can only really display one resolution. See for yourself in your Display Properties.

 

BTW: Looking at the screenshots, I'd rather use the first two methods than any other, as both are as near as possible to the "original". I mean I see the pixels anyway and I prefer them over those rather unsharp and blurred results delivered by the more intelligent algorithms.

The screenshots are absolutely pointless and don't really show anything at all. For a start you're not going to see anything of value unless you're viewing at 1600 resolution. Secondly, these look WAY worse than they should (I have no idea what you did to them el tee). I really don't see why they're "complicated methods" when they produced such cruddy out comes.

 

Here's one (which is all you need) at 1600 pixels wide, using bicubic:

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/webpics/Monkey1600.jpg

 

BTW Thunderpeel, if you zoom out by two steps in Photoshop (assuming you're using the 'zoom out' tool and not directly entering an integer) it'll do a little processing and essentially give you a perfect downscale. It only goes a bit dodgy and uses nearest neighbour rescaling when you go in odd increments.

Firstly, it may appear to the layman to be an accurate representation at 50% and 25%, but trust me, if you work all day, every day, in Photoshop like I do, you know it's not the case. Secondly, odd increments ALWAYS distort the image (yes, even in Bicubic). Lastly, why would you bother altering the preferences to "nearest neighbor"?

[elTee]

Stupid algorithm settings >:

[plamdi]

I agree, it's more likely, but I highly doubt that 46% of all Counter Strike players use widescreen LCD monitors! Common sense dictates that it's much more likely to be a typo for 1280x1024 (especially since a) the next resolution is 1024x768 and b) 1280x1024 isn't listed!). Which all combines to prove absolutely *nothing* about LCD usage.

Now, I'm confused - isn't 1280x960 the aspect-ratio-correct resolution for 4:3 - not 1280x1024?

No, it isn't. It's clearly showing resolution. Also, just as an aside to Thrik: LCD screens can only use one refresh rate, the way they can only really display one resolution. See for yourself in your Display Properties.

LCD's refresh is measured in ms, not in Hz, and the term is "response time" not "refresh rate". It's not as rappid as CRT can handle either.

As such, I think your comment about everyone you know using 1280x800 on a CRT is absolute bogus because there are hardly any widescreen CRT monitors on the market whatsoever, let alone actually being used by people.

Okay, so they use 1280x960, and I know no-one who uses 1280x800. The reason gammers are far less likely to use LCD is because LCD is mainly sold with pre-built computers, and CRT displays a superior picture and does resolution correctly (important since games come in many resolutions).

[Thrik]

Okay, firstly Thunderpeel you're wrong about LCDs and refresh rates. Look at any proper set of LCD monitor specifications like these and you'll find evidence of this. It's referred to as the sync rate, which from a functionality standpoint means exactly the same thing.

 

Although Windows only lets you set one refresh rate, LCD monitors are actually capable of using any rate up to their maximum sync rate without any problems whatsoever, including intermediate rates such as 59Hz, etc. Indeed, Windows only offers the monitor above 60Hz, but people can and do use it without incident at 75Hz. You simply use your graphics card's display drivers to set it.

 

The critical difference between the way that LCDs and CRTs handle refresh rates is simple: CRTs flicker on lower rates, LCDs don't. However, with both the maximum frame rate is whatever the refresh/sync rate is set to.

 

And as for Photoshop, it just so happens that I do work in Photoshop every day, at work, in my full-time job. And I'm going to completely contest your assertion that it distorts the image. You will lose clarity for sure (should be obvious since you're compressing a number of pixels into one), but infinitely less so than you'd lose if you did it the other way round because the rescaler at least has the original data to work with when optimising the smaller version, while it wouldn't the other way round -- especially if intelligent rescalers are used. And with digital paintings this is barely an issue anyway.

 

Most digital artists I've come across paint in a high resolutions so they have flexibility when downscaling if they need to (try putting a 1024x768 painting onto a poster). Heck, I've come across a fair few who paint without boundaries at a high resolution and then crop the best frame like a cameraman would.

 

And finally, anyone with an interest in good colour reproduction would use an LCD. This is because although CRTs are capable of blacker blacks when viewed in dark conditions (although both can't achieve true black, and the difference is minimised with the newest LCDs), the huge advantage LCD has is that it more accurately displays colours and they're more vivid to boot. It's no exaggeration to say that a decent LCD can pick out the difference between an RGB grey of 1 (out of 255) and 0, which is black.

 

Indeed, from the second you start using a CRT the colours will start to degrade and the whole monitor will generally get darker, eventually becoming impossible to bring out the darker greys. An LCD on the other hand doesn't degrade in this way at all, and only the backlight will start to dim very slowly with time, not impacting colour accuracy at all. In addition, newer LCDs have negligible response times.

 

There is absolutely no real defence for using a CRT over an LCD unless you almost always play older games which have no facility for working in higher resolutions. Even then, an LCD is probably preferable due to less eye fatigue (generally caused by a CRT's super-fast flickering). If you somehow still don't believe LCDs are as widespread as I say they are, then seriously, just go look around. Excluding students who often live on barebone equipment (myself included at the time), LCDs are the way most people go.

 

I'm going to drop the resolution thing though since we've already established the art is in 3D so employing it at a higher resolution isn't a concern.

[elTee]

Ho ho! I don't understand any of all this. But I like my LCD monitor (1280x1024, for the statisticians) because it's nice and thiiiiiin.

[Thrik]

Hee, yes, that's another reason why LCDs are popular. My grandparents actually got some based on specifically that reason, as well as various friends. Also workplaces generally roll them out en masse, even the stingy social services.

 

To not see that they're taking over is mental. Not catering for them properly is doubly mental. My original point (since buried under a thousand side-arguments) still stands completely in that regard.

[plamdi]

Hee, yes, that's another reason why LCDs are popular. My grandparents actually got some based on specifically that reason, as well as various friends. Also workplaces generally roll them out en masse, even the stingy social services.

 

To not see that they're taking over is mental. Not catering for them properly is doubly mental. My original point (since buried under a thousand side-arguments) still stands completely in that regard.

LCD may be popular, but it isn't better then CRT (for computers). For large sizes LCD is more practicle; and does use up less power then CRT's would at the same size - but they simply cannot use diverse resolutions the way that CRT can.

[Thrik]

You hardly ever need to use different resolutions for modern computing though, so for anyone not using software that's old it's not really an issue at all. People of today don't really expect to have to use different resolutions because all software is designed to just run at whatever native resolution someone is using, games included.

 

This is why my driving point has remained that not catering for this very basic modern standard would be a bit mental considering how easy it'd be to do so.

 

LCD is better for computers, and the points in my last post that you neatly sidestepped back that up. The only perceived advantage that CRTs have is being able to run different resolutions on a 1:1 pixel basis, whereas LCDs have a set number of pixels. All a CRT does is physically make the gaps between those pixels a bit bigger to fill the screen, while an LCD processes it.

 

I'm sorry, but CRTs are not better for computers and haven't been for a long time. I can't even think of any situation at all where I've needed to run an LCD in a non-native resolution other than when installing Windows (because the graphics card isn't fully installed at that point) and when running old games (which is extremely rare).

[john_doe]

You'll need to settle for one resolution that satifies CRT users as well as LCD users. The best compromise is to use either 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Admitted, it will still be scaled on some LCDs but you can't make everyone happy, and the less scaling needed on LCD monitors the better.

 

Yes, one could "simply" render all the graphics at several resolutions. BUT other game relevant data would need to be adjusted/created from scratch for each different resolution, so that would be too much work.

 

I don't know which engine will be used in the end, and they have limits to the resolution, too, so you'd be limited by that anyway.

 

Unless you make the game in 3D, then resolution wouldn't be a problem anymore.

 

Personally I think LCDs are a result of 3D games, and vice versa, since resolution doesn't matter with 3D games, and 2D games look like crap on LCDs when they're not in the native resolution.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. One thing I do know: CRTs have more accurate colour representation. If you can spot 000000 against 010101, then it means your LCD can't display dark tones very well (in fact it's rather poor at it). Try seeing the difference between d6d6d6 and d7d7d7.

 

Also, like I said before, my LCD makes 2D upscaled games look fine. They're not pin-prick sharp, like on a CRT at the correct resolution, but these days we tend to use filters to take the edges off those old graphics anyway. I can't imagine anyone saying that older games look "extremely offensive to the eyes" on my monitor.

 

Finally, as I've shown with paprik's image, upscaled to 1600 pixels wide (which is large enough for anyone), the image still looks perfectly fine.

 

I wonder how paprik is getting on?

[Thrik]

I've agreed to drop the resolution argument since we were getting nowhere, but just to clarify my "can make out the difference" comment I meant this on a good LCD it's very possible to pick out the difference between a grey of 0 (out of 255) and 1 (out of 255), which is basically the darkest grey you can put into an image.

 

CRTs have trouble with this because of colour bleed which means surrounding bright colours can bleed into the darks, and because of the general age-induced darkening a CRT suffers which means its greys become darker and darker until they're eaten up. LCDs don't age in this way at all.

 

No doubt about it, LCDs are the preferred display for colour accuracy and design these days. Perhaps not when the technology was in its earlier days, but it definitely is now. They've really moved on. Just so you know!

 

BTW, re-reading my earlier posts I realise I was being a bit more snarly than I meant to be. I was at work and was writing in a rush so I was kind of running off the top of my head, and didn't really see if what I was writing might seem a bit attackish. It wasn't meant to be. ;-*

[plamdi]

I don't like completely flat screens, never have, and I prefer the quality that comes with CRT - which can be well calibrated using brightness and contrast adjusted - this can't be done on LCD, which is why CRT remains the best form of monitor for computers (each pixel can only display 256 levels of brightness regardless of the settings, this can somewhat be modified with the level of the back-light but the control is no-where near what you get with CRT).

 

Don't tell me you'd put an LCD into an arcade cabinet? The quality will never equal equipment that is specifically designed for the task:

 

http://www.highway.net.au/parts/monitor_&_chassis/4809.html

 

LCD is better for television - that much I do agree with, since (after all) it only needs to be designed to do one thing. Customers should have the freedom to select the screen resolutions they prefer with computer monitors. I used to use 1024x768 on a 15" monitor, and when I upgraded to 17" I went to 1152x864 because it kept the pixels the same kind of size, and I've used that for many many years now (at least 10 years). If I was to buy an LCD I'm essentially forced to use its resolution rather than *my* resolution.

 

There are many situations where LCD monitors for computers are suitable; however for computer games which have the freedom to be designed for specific resolutions, it is still best to use CRT. Remember, a PC with a 1600x1200 LCD may be too slow to render a game at that resolution, and may need to render it at 1024x768 - no problem if you've got a CRT. They're not a dying technology; just an older technology which is far more refined then LCD.

[Thrik]

They really are a dying technology. Last I checked Sony has withdrawn its entire CRT line and no longer produces them, and other manufacturers are expected to follow suit before long; CRTs also tend to be relatively obscurely listed on sites. The demand for them is very quickly dying, and demand = supply.

 

And on the matter of calibration, you most certainly can adjust the individual brightness/gamma/contrast, as well as the intensity of each individual colour. LCDs also have more lastingly accurate colour as the colours do not degrade with age, which is something I've repeated several times.

 

It's also worth noting that LCDs in general come much brighter than CRTs (as in, they can push out more light) and have purer whites, which is a desirable trait to most. This has been furthered by the new LED-backlit LCDs which debuted in monitor form this year.

 

I appreciate that you like CRTs, but pretty much every argument you've used has been rendered completely obsolete as LCD technology has progressed. I can only put your dislike of LCDs down to an outdated perspective, because there's no real justification for not using one unless you predominantly play old games with fixed resolutions or have a massive LCD but not the computer to support it.

[plamdi]

As I said earlier LCD is only good when the screen resolution is fixed and doesn't need to be changed - this is not the case with games (new as well as old); and never will be. LCD's may not loose brightness overtime - but instead their pixels die permanently (and this is by design since they now fade black instead of white). A good CRT will out-live any LCD. Why do you think LCD technology didn't increase the range of colours it can display (it's the same standard RGB as before)?

 

LCD doesn't have as rich contrast or colour purity either; but the simple fact of the matter is that it's not suited to the needs of computers. It's suited to specific needs such as laptops, or work computers - or in situations where the above mentioned features are not important. But for the home or entertainment use - or professional use it simply doesn't hold up against CRT monitors.

 

The best LCD response time is around 8ms - which is equivalent to 80Hz at best (or about 75Hz I think). Good CRT's can achieve up to 200Hz - this is better for games. As for brightness, I set my CRT at +41 brightness, and it goes up to 100!

[Thrik]

The best response time is actually 2ms, now available across Samsung's fairly inexpensive line of LCDs. In addition, the LED-backlit LCDs I mentioned before dramatically raise the lifespan of LCDs and they will outlive most CRTs. But of course, the CRT will technically die long before that once the colour quality starts to degrade as I mentioned before.

 

LCDs fade, sure, but extremely slowly. With the new LED-backlit ones on the block, it's much longer.

 

The fact is that LCD monitors are constantly moving forward quickly, and nullifying most arguments I assume you've been using for several years now. Dead pixels are now barely an issue, colour purity and contrast is way ahead, and lifespan is huge. Add to that the econonomical and space savings and it's hard to make a case for CRTs.

 

Using multiple resolutions isn't really an issue anymore as no software is really made these days that doesn't run in any given native resolution. Even games with 2D elements like Company of Heroes adapt their GUI to add more spacing between areas and such so the 2D art isn't compromised but still fits nicely onto any resolution given.

 

Not running in your native resolution is a thing of the past. Games very rarely come without this facility these days, and with Windows software it's not an issue anyway.

[Thrik]

I think it's become apparent neither of us are going to change either's stance on this though, as clearly we are adverse advocates. Since we're now a million miles off topic it might be best to just drop it completely, heh. :~

[elTee]

I think it's crazy to say that CRTs are better because they were 'designed for the job'... it's like saying the telegraph is better than the telephone (or e-mail) for sending messages across the Atlantic. It's not that the technology was designed for the job, it's that it was the best that was available at the time to achieve the job. Just a means to an end. If LCD TVs had been commonplace back when the home-computer boom started, do you think they'd have chosen CRT for the displays? Why choose obsolete technology? I mean hell, they could probably have made a robotic arm holding a piece of chalk to a blackboard and it would have 'worked', but it's just pointless and archaic.

 

As the technology for the screens changes, so will the mechanics of displaying images. Any problems LCD monitors have that CRTs don't will be overcome in time. And it'll happen again when we take the next leap. Bloody, holographic displays or something.

[ThunderPeel2001]

BTW, re-reading my earlier posts I realise I was being a bit more snarly than I meant to be. I was at work and was writing in a rush so I was kind of running off the top of my head, and didn't really see if what I was writing might seem a bit attackish. It wasn't meant to be. ;-*

 

No worries. I'm sure being in work myself (and stressed out to oblivion, as usual) did nothing to help my tone, either. What do you do for a living, btw, that forces you to monkey around in Photoshop all day, like myself?

[Thrik]

Web designer.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Cool. Graphic designer, myself. I've been getting into Web work. Recently put together a PHP/SQL driven site... nightmare!

 

My this is off-topic, and yet, oddly compelling... sorry everyone!

[Benny]

This thread burns. My eyes, my poor eyes.

 

I bet Paprik's wondering what he's started.