Mr_8bit_16bit

Actually, the reason games are not reccommended for any type of projector, is because still objects can cause burn in. This isn't nearly the problem with newer projectors as it was, but it can still happen. Of course, with newer, more active games, it's still not the issue it was, iwth say an Atari and Pac-Man back in the day. Of course, if you play a lot of Halo, you might still end up with a ghosted Radar and life counter on the screen, but as I said, it's not nearly the issue it was with older tech. True of CRT based projectors only. LCD, DLP, LCoS..all immune. an approximate 99% of projectors sold today and 100% under $7000 are of the variety that is immune to burn in. There's not good reason not to play games on those projectors.

again, same thing. CRT=cathode ray tube. That is -the- tube.

Comparing HDTV to CRT is like comparing Bananas to Fruit. Not all CRTs are standard definition, not all CRTs are analog, hell, not all CRTs are even 4:3. HDTV is a broadcast type based on resolution, or a resolution type, if you will. CRT is a display type, like LCD or Plasma or DLP or LCoS. It's an invalid comparison. Also, I noticed how you tried to compare "your CRT" to her "regular TV". When people talk about regular TVs, they are referring to CRT. You basically tried to convince her that CRT is better than CRT. Now, to be fair, you might have a higher end CRT with better specs like a better dot pitch, but when people think normal TVs, they are thinking CRT. But, within the next 5 years or so, CRT will be extinct and we'll have to find a new "normal". My money is on LCD flat panel. Why? Because unlike plasma, LCD has TVs smaller than 37". Also, LCD has improved rapidly over the past couple years, and price has fallen dramatically. Now, with LCD you do have the issue of it struggling with deep blacks. You also have a viewing angle issue to contend with, but that's not much of an issue unless you're trying to view it from above. And it's also true that HD LCDs do look pretty smeary on 480i, and even a little bit on 480p. But within the next couple years, that wont really matter. And they look absolutely fantastic in 720p and 1080i. And I can only imagine how awesome they will look in 1080p. A basic rundown of LCD vs Plasma. This is based on the comparing of an LG 42LB1DR (LCD) and LG 42PC1DA (Plasma), both LG, both 42", both 720p HDTV (1366 x768p screen resolution) running the same 1080i HD Net Satellite broadcast with both units set to 85 contrast, 55 brightness, 55 color, and 70s sharpness. In favor of LCD: -smoother without being any less detailed, and without a hint of bluriness -brighter brights -more natural looking fleshtones and skies (etc) -no risk of phosphor burn -runs cooler and takes less energy In Favor of Plasma: -Deeper Blacks -Much better shadow detail -No viewing angle issue -Higher Contrast (though that only really effects the deep end, not so much the bright end) Against LCD: -Blacks are Deep Greys -Poor Shadow Detail (dark scenes can smudge out) -Viewing Angle issues (again, slight unless viewed from above) -Lower Contrast -Smeary on low-def images -Picture quality on the smaller LCD units for some reason does not seem to be as good as on the bigger sets (opposite of CRT's tendency to look better on smaller screens) Against Plazma: -Less Natural Colors (often times too vibrant) -Graininess in the picture -A false sharpness with no added detail -Slight risk of burn-in (comparable to risk of burn in on direct view CRT) -Runs hotter and less efficient -Graininess increases on fast or medium fast moving objects. Sometimes it appears as if it's "pocketing" Essentially, to boil it down: LCD does bright to medium bright images much better than Plasma, but Plasma does dark to medium dark images much better than LCD. Plasma has a more even keeled, nominal picture. And LCD has a picture of more extremes. Higher highs, lower lows. All around, LCD has a more impressive picture, but it also has a more inconsistent picture. An example: A rock concert. The musicians looked better on the LCD. But the dark background with the rafters on the ceiling and the budweiser logo on the back wall was visible on the Plasma, on the LCD it was just like a plain black background with no detail whatsoever. So, which is better? That's a matter of opinion. If you're willing to put up with murky, washed out, greyish blacks and smudged out shadow detail in order to achieve vastly superior bright images which are cleaner, more detailed (seemingly), more natural looking, and well, brigher, then LCD is for you. If you can't stand the thought of not being able to see the ripples in Batman's cape, and are willing to put up with more ho-hum faces and skies, and nature scenes. And if you aren't worried about burn in, then Plasma's your man. Initially I favored Plasma, just because I couldn't stand the black and shadow stuff... but as time has gone on and my exposure to both side by side has increased, I have decidedly jumped ship. I'm an LCD man. And it makes me glad that the technology I prefer is the one that stands the greatest chance of becoming the next king of the hill after CRT is dead and buried. CRT will be dead in 5yrs or less. It's a certainty. And probably 70% of our sales floor is flat panel (either LCD or Plasma) And of that remaining 30%, 20% is rear projection, mostly DLP, but we have a few LCD projos and one LCoS unit. 10% or less of our floor is CRT, and that's dwindling too. If the future is not now, then it's 5yrs or less away....and 90% of our sales floor says the future is now. And as far as the technological advances: they will slow down within that 5 years. And contrary to layman belief, you will not have to keep upgrading every couple years. So long as your TV has a digital ATSC tuner in it, you will be able to receive digital signal regardless of it's resolution. If you're getting a 1080p signal, you will be able to see it on your 720p or 480p set. It's just your TV set will automatically scale the image down to 720p or 480p respectively. So you will be fine. As far as still being able to use cable. This is unverified, but yes, I do believe you'd be able to keep using digital cable. Because the digital cable box already serves as a digital to analog converter. But three things you HAVE to know if you're insistant on sticking with your old fashioned analog CRT 4:3 sets. 1) you will -NOT- be able to tune in any channels on your old TV without the aid of a converter box, and as I said before you will have to choose between buying a set for each box (expensive) -or- share one box among multiple TVs (unhandy, as all TVs hooked to that box will show the same channel as eachother at all times) 2) You can ignore the HD logo in the bottom corner of the screen, as anything converted from digital to analog will be downconverted to 480i (regular TV resolution) It doesn't matter whether the original resolution was 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p or 4000p (if such a thing existed outside a movie theatre) you will always view it in 480i. That means you'll get those time honored grey interlace lines in the screen, that means the effective reduction in brightness and contrast and color intensity those grey lines engender. That means the jumpy, fickery picture that you're gonna learn to hate, and yes, that also means the picture breakup during movement than interlacing is famous for....it'll all be yours my friend. Compliments of our geriatric friend, 480i. 3) the EXTREME majority of digital broadcasts, especially after 2009 will be in 16:9 format, leaving you with a 4:3 TV only two choices: 1) live with black bars on the top and bottom of your screen forevermore, or 2) stretch the image virtically to fill the screen and in doing so, make everything look tall and skinny (you might enjoy that on family videos, but if you're watching Ally McBeal, well it might be downright tramatic as skinny as Calista Flockhart is.) In any case, if you wanna say "Damn HDTV" just on principle, well that's fine. All I'm saying is be prepared to live with the consequences. p.s. 90% of our customers, even the elderly (perhaps especially the elderly) -can immediately- tell the difference between High Def and Standard Def. Although only about 50% can tell the difference between High Def and Extended Def. I guess that thing about the difference between 480i and 480p being more noticeable than the difference between 480p and 780p is true after all.

I thought video games damaged those? Random Terrain: CRT type front projectors are susceptible to image burn-in (phosphor burn) just like CRT Rear Projection (traditional big-screen) though I'm not sure whether the front projo is more susceptible than the rear projection or equally susceptible. It depends upon how much intensity (if you will) the front projector CRTs have to project in order to get the image to the screen, wall, back of your friend's Tee-Shirt, whatever. However, the LCD and DLP type projectors are both immune to phosphor burn. If you put a great big white "Pause" on the screen, turn everything up to max, leave it that way for a week and come back, there'd still be no burn it....however, with LCD and DLP types, they have a customer replaceable lamp in them that has a finite life (usually something like 2000-4000 hrs) and they are fairly pricey to replace...as a guess, they could range from $200-500. That's their downside. That and a lot of experts seem to believe that CRT Front Projection not only has the best possible picture out of all types of front projectors, but out of any display type period. I don't know about that, but they are supposed to have the deepest blacks and the hardest to see the pixel grid. The problem with CRT projectors is that they need to be converged properly, and oft times are just a little bit off. (if it's significantly off, you will see red, green, and blue ghosts on images, and if it's slightly off, you probably wont see the ghosts, but will take a significant hit to sharpness, detail and clarity. I suppose with a perfectly converged CRT projector, you could theoretically beat the picture of a DLP and especially LCD projector, but if it's even a little bit off, I'd bet that wouldn't be true any longer. Professional convergences can be kind of expensive, and the CRT projectors themselves are not only a whole heck of a lot more expensive (like more than twice as expensive, maybe three times), and they're super heavy and super bulky (with three CRTs in them) so they're pretty unsightly. Installation costs would be a lot more expensive, especially if you were to install it in a way where you could hide it when you're done. And then of course, there's the burn-in issue. CRT front projection is not really recommended for gaming but if you're careful and keep the contrast and brightness at or below 50%, and don't let images sit steady on any part of the screen for more than a couple hours, you should be fine...no promises, but you should be fine. DLP projectors and LCD projectors are pretty similar. The technology type is different. DLP will be superior, with deeper blacks and a less visible pixel grid, but they are more expensive than LCDs, and since DLP uses a rapidly spinning color wheel to create the colors, some people can see a rainbow effect around rapidly moving images or bright white images. Most people, including myself, have never noticed it though. LCD's blacks are a little gray, and a lot of people complain about the "screen door effect" on the picture (visible pixel grid.) But the projector we use up at the church is LCD and I think it looks fine. For LCD projectors, you basically have three quality level options: EDTV (480p), HDTV (720p) and HDTV (1080p) The EDTV units you can get for around $1000-1500, but these are really optimized for stuff like power point presentations, not for movies. I think games would probably look fine on them though. In the 720p units, I recommend the Sony Cineza (VPL51H I believe). They go for around $3000, but the picture is beautiful. We have one in the audio room on the sales floor. If you are a real purist, you'll be the happiest with a 1080p unit, but they are so new, and ergo, so expensive, that most people can't really afford it, let alone justify it, especially when most people don't see a huge difference between 720p and 1080p.. heck, a lot of people have a hard time telling the difference between 480p and 720p. And admittedly, the difference between 480i and 480p is more immediately noticeable than the difference between 480p and 720p. I recommend a 720p unit. I believe that DLP is the same in that it offers 480p, 720p and 1080p units. In a perfect world, I'd go for a 1080p DLP unit, but were I to buy a projector, in all honesty, I would probably go for a 720p LCD. I would not want a CRT projector. Kisrael: I don't think that salesmen deliberately downplay projectors. I do think they maximize Plasma, LCD, and LCD/DLP rear projection because they are the hottest selling items. Installing a projector correctly requires just the right kind of room, and a lot of time and work and money (considering to do it right, you also need a screen. Screens can cost $1000 or so themselves, and if you have it installed so that it retracts into the ceiling when you're done, which is better by far, that's gonna be pricey too). Also, if you try to watch a projector in a brightly lit or sunny room, you will be very disappointed. Trust me. So projectors are more specialized. Sure, they're probably the best value for the money and definitely give you the biggest picture, but unless your room is just huge, you could get yourself a 65" DLP projo, turn the lights down low, and I guarantee you, it'll feel just as much like an actual movie theatre. A 65" is what I've got (CRT type though) Hope that helps.

sounds like when I sold off a bunch of really great stuff to get a Sega CD. That was dumb of me.

I had considered taking the concept of this thread and elaborating on it in a thread of my own, but as it turns out, polls only allow a max of four questions, so it may take a couple separate threads to do what I need to do, but I think I'm gonna do it. Be looking for a couple threads called "TOTAL WAR" here in the next couple days.

I work at a local TV/Appliance store. We have a nice sized sales floor and Every TV we sell except for like 4 or 5 are either full blown integrated HDTV, EDTV, or HD Upgradeable (formerly known as HD ready). We don't even get many people asking for regular TVs anymore. We only have 6 CRT sets left, 2 are integrated HDTV, two are integrated SDTV and only 2 are the truly old fashioned analog CRTs....and they are by far, the slowest moving sets in our inventory, despite being the cheapest. Interest is greater than you paint it to be. And besides...those who adamantly dig their heels into the ground on principal alone standing behind their old analogs will be greeted with snow everafter on Feb 17th 2009. Unless they decide to incur the expense of a converter box, but if they have multiple TVs they'll have to choose between one of two ugly situations A) buy a box for each set in the house which could add up quickly, or B) Buy one box, hook it up to multiple TVs and then have to everafter watch the same channel on all of those TVs (since you don't change channels on the TV tuner anymore, but on the box. If you set the box to ch 5, every TV connected to that box is showing channel 5.) Take it from my personal experience. As your eyes grow more accustomed to HDTV or even EDTV, SDTV will eventually begin to grate on you. More and moreso. For better, worse, or a little of both (probably both), the future IS here NOW.

Truce. I see you adopted a new signature. I wonder where you got that. p.s. sincere congrats on attaining star raider status (and 2nd atari controller) I did a little woohoo when it happened to me. BTW, your join date was my younger brother's 25th birthday. He'll be so proud.

Notice that he still didn't include the link to the thread in question. That's okay, I'm used to cleaning up after his messes. Here we go: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=90776 Cheers!

You know what? I'm done. You've already succeeded in dragging me lower than I ever wanted to go. And I don't see how this conversation will be able to continue without the both of us stooping lower than we already have... I don't care what you do. You can stoop as low as you want, but I have a quality of character to maintain, and if I keep this up, I wont be able to. If you want to resume normal thread conversation, then I'm game. I'm above shutting you out completely, but I'm also above keeping this up with you. If you're gonna keep this going then you will get nothing but radio silence from me henceforth. And I don't care if you walk away from this thinking you're the winner...whatever it takes to make up for your shortage in the shorts is fine by me. The record will speak for itself. I'm not conceding defeat, but a 50yr old Dad who knows he's right in an arguement against his 12yr old son is mature enough to know that he's not gonna get through to the dolt and so he backs off... he knows he won, but he's never gonna convince his son of that, so the conversation closes and even though the son walks away bragging how he bested his dad, his dad knows the score and shares a small smile with any other adults in sight of the altercation, because they know the score too...... If that's what happens here, I can live with that..I can go to sleep tonight. But I'm done. We'll be doing a disservice to all other viewers and participants of this thread by carrying on like this. We'll defeat the originator's purpose (which I suspect ZylonBane wont mind) and could end up getting the thread locked. So if you want to start over fresh then I'm cool with that, otherwise, I'm gonna be that 50yr old dad that walks away with that little smirk on his face.

Umm.... unless by forum, you mean you yourself, -newbie-, it would seem that I am in no danger of making an enemy of the forum. (psst: look at poll results) Yeah I read that. So, when you fail to win an arguement on one thread, you jump ship to another one and without any sort of reference or way for viewers to find the discussion in question to verify your claim you basically just come on and said "I guess I showed that guy" hoping that since they can't find it without digging, they'll just assume you're right. Cheap, shallow, immature...and dirty pool BTW. But fear not. For since I'm such a nice guy, I have corrected this little oversight of yours. http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...id=1106454& Well, I could say the Pot calling the Kettle black thing again, but based on your response to it last time you were either A) not astute enough to catch that I was calling you a hypocrite, or B) not mature enough to not turn it into a joke that actually discredits you more than it does me. So I'll just skip cleverly worded retorts this time and just cut right to the prime beef of it....saying that makes you a hypocrite. Impressive collection. I mean that sinerely. But, the fact that you have a massive hardware/software collection doesn't add any strength to your arguement. And it's placement in this argument indicates that you felt you were in need of backup. "Oh crap, I'm losing here...I know! I will show him that my game collection is bigger and then victory will be mine!" Well, it's not the size that matters, as they say. I've got 27 systems not counting my mac and PC computers and about 800 games spread between them. Who cares?! What does that have to do with the Jaguar vs. N64? Do we both have a Jaguar? Do we both have an N64? (do you?) Beyond that, it doesn't matter. The fact that you brought that up proves you're floundering. But I am sorry to hear you had to sell off some. That always sucks. And is that "Atari Fanboy"ism preventing you from being objective about the hardware differences? I think so. And yes, the N64 is based on 80's technology SGI...not only does that fact further my arguement and weaken yours, but consider this: SGI was extremely powerful, and it wasn't until the PS2/GC/XB generation that we had home systems that could play in the same field as 80's SGI. What that means is that it took til early D2K for console gaming to best what Hollywood could do back in the 80's....that means anything before D2K was inferior to 80's SGI. That means Atari Jaguar was inferior to 80's SGI...that means that N64's basis on 80's SGI helped it, not harmed it in it's battle against the Jaguar. So thank you for strengthening my arguement...and at your expense too....how generous. Nice. When you're losing a video game debate, what do you do? Attack your opponent's God (or religion). "Oh crap! What do I do now? Oh yeah.... Your God sucks!....that'll show him." Well.............Thom, you've shown a lot of who you are and what kind of person you are. Thank you for these valueable insights. And I mean that sincerely too.

Yeah, I more or less did. There has to come a time when you to just realize that there's just no getting the truth though to some people. But I would encourage you to read the dialog in the thread "WAR!" just to show you exactly what I mean. Interesting to note how our esteemed gaming genius here who after embarrasing himself and getting backed into a corner jumps threads and says basically "Oh yeah, on this other thread, I gave this guy whatfor" without giving anybody a way to see it for themselves and judge for themselves. So I figure I'd just put in what he left out.

LOL, okay.

It looks like the already narrow gap between SNES and Genesis is getting narrower and narrower. Could it be that the SNES will prevail? It'll be interesting. I am honestly surprised, and a little disappointed that the popular opinion regards the SMS so poorly. In my mind's eye, I saw the SMS where the 7800 is and vice versa. I am not in the least bit surprised though to see the Jaguar floundering in the polls next to the itself somewhat disappointing N64. That I totally expected. (to be fair, I expected the 16-bit war to be neck and neck as well.) Not that I'm in any way Anti-Jaguar or even Anti-7800, just to be perfectly clear. I have both systems and I get some enjoyment from both, especially the 7800 for it's 2600 backcompat mostly, the 7800 on it's own merits doesn't do a whole lot for me either (though Food Fight is a blast!) My collection is better with them both in it. They are not bad by any means, they are just merely the least of all good.

Then get a colecovision. I got mine on e-bay...and you can too! Umm...I would tell you that those are most definitely colecovision cartridges....but that would be redundant....wouldn't it? I'd have to check my colection again, it's been about a year since my colecovision has seen a TV or a wall outlet, but I believe I have one or both of those for the CV... I'd have to check on the 5200 and Int versions as well. I definitely do have both on the 2600 and at a glance, you're right...that's exactly what they look like.

The typical tight voiced reply of a man backed in a corner. Oh BTW...concerning repeating the same old mindless drivel? Hey Pot, I'm Kettle. You're Black! GOD BLESS.

Ah, but us Sega fans can go you one better.... we've got Telepathy.... shutup JB! I heard that!

Don't forget Tom Bombadil, that this is an Atari site and most of us here consider ourselves Atari guys as well. We're not, I repeat not just blindly being biased towards Captain N (which by the way has been a bit of a let down since the SNES days). But are being pretty objective here. Examine yourself...are you so much an Atari guy that you are being subjective? Hmmmm.....food for thought. Or in other words.....blah blah blah blah blah.

(Shakes head) Thom, Thom, Thommy. My dear Thommy Boy. You're calling me on comparing systems from different eras. Yet, the Jaguar was an early 90s' system in it's (LOL) prime at more or less the same time as the SNES/Genesis. The N64 was a late 90's system in it's (shrugs) prime at about the same time as the PS1 and Saturn, really, more like Dreamcast. The performance of the Jaguar is typical of an early 90's system, and the N64's performance is typical of a late 90's/early D2K system. Nothing at all alike. And who cares whether I'm comparing a 70's 16-bit system vs an 80's-not 90's..16-bit chip. Genny is circa 1989 and uses technology that was in use as early as 1984 in apple computers not to mention the Z80 borrowed from the circa 1986 Master System....BTW, the Intellivision was 1979, so essentially 80's hardware itself. So, in essence, we're comparing early 80's to late 80's. How is that different from the early 90's vs. the late 90's? Especially when in terms of numbers, there was less of a hardware difference between the early 80's and the late 80's than there was between the early 90's and the late 90's. So my comparison IS valid...also, I had compared the Atari2600 and the NES. Night and frickin day difference, and they both use the exact same CPU. Valid comparisons. There is a huge performance difference between 8-bit Atari 2600 and 8-bit NES. There is a huge performance difference between 16-bit Intellevision and 16-bit Genesis...and.. oh yes... a huge performance difference between 64 (sorta) bit Jaguar and 64 bit N64. The fact that the 2600 and NES are from different eras, like the Intel and Genny makes no difference...because the Jaguar and N64 are not from the same paleozoic era either. If the N64 hurts your eyes, I am sorry. You have a special (sorta) medical reason to choose the Jaguar. God Bless you. But the 90% of us that aren't such affected can see clearly that there's really no contest whatsoever. You might as well claim that the NES is more capable than SNES....and if SNES is in fact 8-bit as you alone claim, then that only strengthen's my case, not weakens it.... The TG-16 is in fact 8-bit and it performs much closer to 16-bit Genesis than 64-bit Jaguar compares to N64. If the SNES is 8bit that would not only prove that two different systems of the same bit count can have night and day performance difference, but that two systems of different bittage can perform very similarly (SNES/Genny) More proof? The PS2, GameCube and X-Box are very similar in terms of performance, and not a one of them are the same number of bits. In fact, X-Box, the undisputed performance champion of the three only has a 32bit CPU in it...the lowest of the three. Do you dare to asses that the "64-bit" Jaguar is gonna outperform the 32-bit X-Box? Lets see who takes you seriously after that. My point is that long gone are, and never really were here the days where you could judge by bit count. The Jaguar is 64-bit, but depending upon context, it sometimes performed like a 32 bit system, and sometimes performed like a 16-bit system. The N64 performed like, guess what: a 64 bit system. Do the math. (well, take some tylonol, and then do the math)

LOL, there's no way the N64 is graphically inferior to the Jaguar! Sure there was too much fog and some smudgy blurriness. But the Jaguar's 3D capabilities were even less impressive, hyper pixelated, slower and more ponderous. And more limited. Utilizing nowhere near the colors or special effects. But if you really would rather have clunky chunky clarity over something vastly superior minus some admitted blurrienss issues, well, then God Bless you. Heck, Jaguar even loses in the 2D realm. Trevor McFur might be noteworthy, but apart from that, most of the Jaguar's 2D stuff doesn't look all that much better than a SNES. I doubt very much that the Jaguar would ever have been able to do some of the 2D games that graced the N64. I'll name just two: Yoshi's Story and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub Zero. And as far as gameplay: N64 was very revolutionary when it came out with the analog joystick in addition to the D-Pad. Jaguar's controls were actually very very archaic, even for it's time. The controller belonged in 1982, not 1992. And my experience with the two systems is that neither one of them are perfect when it comes to control, but I've got less complaints about the N64. I stand by my original statement: Trying to compare the Jaguar to the N64 just because they're both 64-bit is like trying to compare the Intellivision to the Genesis just because they're both 16-bit, or the Atari 2600 to the NES just because they are both 8-bit. And currently 47 out of 57 people (or 82.46%) say I'm right. And this isn't N64fanboys.com either, this is an Atari Message Board. On the NES side: Nobody is denying that the NES produced a bunch of crap, but I think your ratio of Good to Crap is way off. I think you really underestimate the number of quality NES games. And even if there are only about 100, those 100 are among the most popular games ever, and the most important. Even if atari XL beats NES in quantity of quality titles (which I very much doubt) it doesn't beat the NES in the quality of quality titles.

A Neo Geo with RPGs and Mario and Sonic and Zelda and Metroid. And a slew of sports titles.

A Neo Geo.

Agreed. Putting the Jaguar up against the N64 is like putting the atari2600 up against the nes, or the intellivision up against the Genesis. In all three cases, both systems are technically the same number of bits, but in raw reality, there really is not contest whatsoever. If you really prefer the Jag over the N64 for software reasons (which is defintiely a stretch in my opinion) then God Bless you, but if you're trying to match hardware... heh..... ha..... ha ha....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! (sorry) At a maximum (and probably not that) you might be able to squeeze the Jaguar into competitive range with PS1 or Saturn...and again, probably not. The Jaguar would be in fairer competion against the 3DO.

Right. Because dumb things are never popular. Brought you here (at least) twice. Zzzzzziiinnnnggg!!!

Dangit! Beat me to the punch again!