/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4369648
>comparing old games to new on vr
>not a troll thread

>>2814875
> Motion quality on sample and hold displays will always be worse than a raster scan CRT, only a display that scans backlight like a CRT would come close.

Even still, it's already good enough that the difference is virtually imperceptible to humans.

>No LCD has totally eliminated input lag
Same thing here. While technically true, the input lag on modern decent LCDs and LEDs is usually between 1 and 5 milliseconds. Human perception and reaction time is in hundreds of milliseconds. Any difference in input lag is completely imperceptible unless you have Flash-like super powers.

>CRT's can display many refresh rates and resolutions with no need for scaling or interpolation
Yet they can't come anywhere near the resolution of a modern screen.

>CRTs are able to display low resolution graphics naturally with no upscaling, which is why 240p graphics look best on a CRT
This is opinion and preference. Even though a CRT can display an image without the need for upscaling, the screen technology itself will make it look like a CRT. Which while some people like, just looks blurry and ugly to others.

>they only look acceptable on LCDs when you use shaders to imitate CRTs.

This is 100% opinion. I disagree very strongly. Shaders used to imitate the look of CRTs just distort the image and make it look worse.

I get that some people like the low resolution and scanlined look of a CRT monitor, but for those of us who like modern screens, that's precisely what we're trying to get away from. I don't want to throw filters and shaders to mask what the pixels actually look at. My goal is to see those pixels as clearly and sharply as possible. People using shaders feels like grain filters and lens flares to me. It's not adding detail, it's just adding meaningless noise.

>>2773296
I've never understood it. I think CRT screens are really ugly personally. I get that some people do like the look, but trying to insist that's what the games are supposed to look like is a real stretch to me.

>>2773301
>becouse some textures are filled with one color and adding some scanlines makes it seem deep.

If you're doing that, might as well just toss a noise filter on there. Scan lines don't add real detail, they don't define the image in any way, it's just adding more visual clutter.