RG-225SC 15 kHz RGB display

[zedrein]

http://www.massystems.com/RGBMonitor.html

Wow, look at this thing! Only one question though: What's with the 640x200 display? Only 200 vertical lines? How is that going to help when the lowest number of lines ANY of my games consoles output is 224 lines? Someone please explain how this thing is supposed to look so great when it would appear that a significant portion of the top and bottom of my picture could be no longer visible.

[RGB32E]

http://www.massystems.com/RGBMonitor.html

Wow, look at this thing! Only one question though: What's with the 640x200 display? Only 200 vertical lines? How is that going to help when the lowest number of lines ANY of my games consoles output is 224 lines? Someone please explain how this thing is supposed to look so great when it would appear that a significant portion of the top and bottom of my picture could be no longer visible.

MAS Systems has been selling that for years... it's an arcade monitor in an exclosure with hookups for RGB and AC.  The 640x200 is a bit of a misnomer... please disregard that specification.  The specs on my PVM-2030 state the same resolution.  I think the stated resolution comes from 15.75kHz RGB monitors coming from the CGA era (digital RGB), where the max resolution of CGA is 640x200:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter

The highest resolution of any mode was 640×200, and the highest color depth supported was 4-bit (16 colors).

However, since the monitors are being used with analog signals, the resolution is limited by the displays bandwidth and phosphor density.

[solid12345]

I'm more like WOW! look at the cost

for over a grand i'd rather buy a 400 dollar Makvision or Wells Gardner and just build a shell case for it.

[RGB32E]

I'm more like WOW! look at the cost

for over a grand i'd rather buy a 400 dollar Makvision or Wells Gardner and just build a shell case for it.

$845 for a 25" is definitely a bit much... 

[zedrein]

I'm more like WOW! look at the cost

for over a grand i'd rather buy a 400 dollar Makvision or Wells Gardner and just build a shell case for it.

I completely agree, this was more of a chance for me to ask about CRT resolutions again without being too monotonous.  

[zedrein]

HA! I've dreamed up a question that may stump even you, Lawrence! You claimed in a prior thread that when a CRT display is fed, let's say, a 240 line image and it is a CRT that has over over 1,000 lines of vertical resolution (or more phosphors) that the illuminated lines, or phosphors, will not change in width, the only thing that will change will be that there are more non-illuminated phosphors between the illuminated phosphors which will make the darkened "scanlines" we speak of more defined. But what will happen while sending a true 480 lines of interlaced resolution to a high resolution display? I can't see there being visible non-illuminated lines between every field...that would just look bizarre! Also, what sort of math goes into scaling a 224 line image onto a CRT that has 600 lines of resolution? Obviously 224 is not divisible by 600, so there can't be an even amount of non-illuminated lines between every illuminated line (in other words between some illuminated lines there are more non-illuminated lines than others), making for an awkward looking picture.

Basically what I am getting at is this: I don't understand how a CRT can scale certain resolutions without making the image look uneven or "patchy" unless they change the actual dimensions of the incoming line (i.e. change the width to accommodate the screen making the picture more symmetrical)

I can see how perfect a standard 480 line display can scale a 224 line image: There are simply 16 lines on top and bottom of the screen that are not illuminated at all making for a letterbox looking picture. But when sending that same 224 line image to a screen with 600 lines, I don't see how that screen can scale in the same neat and even way.

[NFG]

The key bit you're missing is that the monitors spread out the image vertically to fill the space  You don't get a letterboxed image (unless the transmitting device sends 16 blank lines), you get an image that fills the screen.  Because of the analogue nature of the display, it can send the lines wherever it wants.

Those colour vector games Atari and Sega used to make?  Those used standard CRTs with custom electronics to direct the beams.  If a CRT can do THAT, you'd better believe it can stretch the image vertically a bit.

Interlacing has nothing to do with it, BTW. You DO get scanlines with interlaced video.  Because the alternating frames are signalled by a delayed sync pulse, and this delay never changes, on a really large screen you get two alternating scanlines very close to each other and a larger gap between each pair.

Mind blown?

[zedrein]

I suppose another key bit I am probably neglecting is that the CRT display won't put the lines being sent to it in very rigidly defined boundaries. I guess I still somehow get the impression that a line of resolution cannot go outside of a very specific sized width that is gated off by a grid.

And yes, the more I learn about CRT's, the more my mind is blown.

[zedrein]

While this topic has a bit of momentum, I'd like to ask where the gamesx community stands on shadow mask vs. apature grill tubes for classic gaming or just for gaming in general.

[NFG]

I prefer aperture grille, but I don't care enough about that to make a buying decision based on it if other features are available in shadow mask.  For example, my little japanese monitor has all the inputs in the world on the back of it, and you'd have to have god's own aperture grille to pry this sexy thing out of my hands.  =D