/vr/ - Retro Games

>>2369802
>CRT Royale shader
Where do I find this? Can't seem to find a download link

>>2369802
I tried to get your settings working but apparently I don't know what I'm doing

>>2369802
People who put filters on to mimic the look of CRT screens make no sense at all to me. I always felt that the screen technology of a CRT was holding back what the games should look like. I would far rather just see the pixels as they are. Purposefully blurring them and adding scanlines makes no sense at all. I just think it looks ugly as all fuck.

>>2369983
I have always hated the way pixels look. I had both a PC (On a CRT monitor you can most definitely see sharp pixels) and consoles. The looks of the phosphors on a TV looks so much better.

Since that isn't what "CRT shaders" on an emulator actually look like, though, I don't use them.

>>2369986
That's so fascinating to me, I'm 100% opposite. CRT tvs have always looked like total shit to me. To each their own though.

>>2369983
>>2369991

On many occasions, retro developers have stated that the old tech (CRTs) is needed for their art to be displayed correctly because that was how they designed it in the first place.

I'm not a diehard fan of either look but I don't understand how some people can deny that scanlines make lots of old games look better by smoothing jaggies.

Arcade games from the 80's and early 90s are an entirely different bag. They're colors become incredibly fucked up when looking at the raw pixels. I don't understand how people could prefer that look over the obviously correct old tech look. Contra arcade or street fighter or black tiger are some great examples of this... The colors just become a sort of pastel looking mess

>>2370021
Yeah I've read that as well. I guess it's that even though they designed them for a CRT monitor, I still think the blurring it causes looks really ugly. Like I say though, I know I'm a bit odd in this way.

>>2369983
>I always felt that the screen technology of a CRT was holding back what the games should look like.

The games are 320x240 resolution. Start up an emulator at x1 resolution. It's a tiny little window on an LCD. This is what the game actually looks like.

CRTs are great because they take these tiny low resolution games and can make the fullscreen. On a CRT with blurry NTSC cables, you will not typically see individual pixels. Everything is sort of smooth and round. CRT shaders are trying to do the same thing on an LCD screen. It takes some of the same techniques, like the lines adding spaces to expand the image.

CRT shaders are better than typical nearest neighbor scaling, which creates a lot of jaggies and make everything look blocky. It hurts artwork a lot, especially in 16 bit and onwards 2D games which have more detailed artwork and attempts at showing the illusion of depth.

>>2369986
>Since that isn't what "CRT shaders" on an emulator actually look like, though, I don't use them.

They don't have the resolution to do it yet. You need at least 4K resolution, and maybe 8K resolution to do it perfectly.

>>2370440
> On a CRT with blurry NTSC cables, you will not typically see individual pixels. Everything is sort of smooth and round.

Exactly, that's what I hate about CRTs. I vastly prefer to see the pixels themselves. I know this sounds backwards to a lot of people, but when I see the big blocky pixels it's like I'm finally seeing the game in it's true form. The image isn't distorted by cables and the CRT screen to be all blurry and full of lines. Just show me the raw pixels with no blurring at all and I'm happiest.

One of the things I like most about emulators and the like these days is I can go back to the games of my youth and see them in a whole new way. One that is to me at least, more perfect. I get that I'm an outlier here, and most people want to recreate what they used to look like as closely as possible. I just feel differently.

>>2370457
I also think there's a huge difference between what the games were intended to look like and how they actually looked at home. These companies tested stuff on high quality monitors and arcade displays, not running them through RF and getting a blurry mess like most kids did.

But to me, this means that the best quality is from true CRT monitors of the time. I've got a PVM and RGB SCART, and games look fucking mindblowing on it compared to how they looked 20 years ago, and how they look scaled up on an LCD today. Scanlines work wonders on jagged edges, which make up pretty much everything you'll see on a 240p system.

It's not a question of re-creating some childhood sense of nostalgia, I spent half my youth playing the Sonic & Knuckles Collection on the PC instead of booting up my Genesis, and didn't even touch a real Super Nintendo until a few months back.

CRTs give the best picture for old console games. Emulating that look makes perfect sense now that computers are powerful enough.

>>2370457

But you have to consider that, when these games were developed, the devs themselves made those games on CRTs, not on modern flat screens.
And in my experience, it's on the HD TVs that the SD games look blurry.

>>2370476
Ohh yeah, I'm fully aware of that. But even still, I just think they look better. Some HD displays will automatically try to blur the pixels, thinking that will make things look better. I prefer zero blurring and just straight jaggy pixels.

>>2370474
And like I say, you're perfectly free to have your opinion.

>>2370457
>I vastly prefer to see the pixels themselves.

You only see that with nearest neighbor scaling. You never see the individual pixels unless they are blown up by a factor of 4.

>One of the things I like most about emulators and the like these days is I can go back to the games of my youth and see them in a whole new way. One that is to me at least, more perfect.

Well, most people wouldn't call nearest neighbor scaling x4 "more perfect". I find it ruins art. A sprite becomes a man made of a bunch of squares. I don't even know what they are supposed to mean. On a CRT the image is sharp, and native resolution, so I see what it was supposed to look like.

>>2370497
>You never see the individual pixels unless they are blown up by a factor of 4.

Well yes, that's what I mean more precisely. I prefer the pixels to just be directly upscaled and not blurred or blended with the ones beside them.

>Well, most people wouldn't call nearest neighbor scaling x4 "more perfect".
Which is why I've gone out of my way to note that I know I'm usual in this regard. But I know my preference for seeing games that way is at least as strong as the one others have for seeing them on a CRT. To each their own I say, just putting my thoughts out there.

>>2370476
>And in my experience, it's on the HD TVs that the SD games look blurry.

That's probably bilinear filtering. Bilinear and nearest neighbor are the two most common upscaling methods. Blurry or pixilated.

>>2369983
>>2370440
>>2370457
>>2370474
The console games were tested with rf or composite.
Most arcade games used rgb.

To say a game was made to be on a high quality display or not isn't really true. The only exceptions being games that use a lot of dithering or a specific arcade game.

While the resolution is 240p it was meant to be displayed as 480i.

>>2370516

I think it's because the original resolution is so small, they look stretched and blurry on modern TVs. It's not a big deal with simple games like, for example, Donkey Kong (the original), pixels look fairly clean even on modern TVs, the problem there would mostly be the aspect ratio but that can be fixed with black frames. The poblem comes with later games that have more complex pixel composition.

>>2370523
>To say a game was made to be on a high quality display or not isn't really true.

I never said it way made to be on a high end display. I thought I was very clear on that. I'm saying that despite the fact that they weren't designed for the kinds of displays we have now, they look far better on them. To me at least. You don't have to agree.

Are there any good shadow mask (dot mask) shaders already?

and if so, does anyone have screenshots?

>>2369856

Turn on integer scaling.

It will make slight black bars at thetop and bottom of the screen. One of the benefits of having a display with a resolution multiple of 240 is that you can use crt shaders at integer scales with no black lines. 1440p is great.

>>2370530
>Are there any good shadow mask (dot mask) shaders already?

No. They need 4K or higher resolution. This is why shaders now aim to replicate the end look of CRts rather than specifically everything. They just don't have the dots.

>>2370528
I think they look better too. I was talking about what this guy was saying with the rf crap >>2370474

CRT monitor

640x480
interlacing.cg

Meant to replicate the 240p look while using 480p mode. Best of both modes. Using real 240p mode causes tons of issues.

>>2370585
Is their shit on your screen? What are the dots that look like "dead pixels"?

>>2370534
I don't think they were intentionally designed for them, but that's what they were made on.

It's analogous to movie prints, those things got copied so many times that what was seen in the theatres was nothing like the original master, and after a few years of constant play they looked even worse. The directors didn't really consider how the game would look on a regular display. They might have tested composite and RF, but on high quality broadcast monitors with comb filters. Those look much better than they do on the typical home sets of the time, even with a lower quality signal.

>>2370618
That's not comparable. Console games were made for consumer TVs using composite or rf.

>>2370591
It's probably dirt or dust on the screen

So, what's the best option for 1080p displays right now?
CRT Royale is great, but using it with integer scaling on my 25" TV leaves me with a very small image.

>>2370778
>So, what's the best option for 1080p displays right now?

1200 or 1440p displays are best for these games. 1080p is some weird random resolution that was decided upon for arbitrary reasons.

>>2370778

> This one was written by a fellow from the NeoGAF forums who goes by the name Easymode. It is notable for looking nice even at non-integer scale factors and for being very lightweight considering how nice it looks. It's a good one to try on mobile platforms and desktops/laptops with weaker GPUs. It also has some nice runtime parameters for switching between cgwg-style and Lottes-style mask effects.

http://filthypants.blogspot.ca/2015/04/more-crt-shaders.html

They say it works with non-interger resolutions. So I don't know. Try it?

I recommend also using tvout tweaks and adding a slight blur to the image.

>>2370793
>1080p is some weird random resolution
1080p is a format, you asshole. 1920x1080 is a resolution.

>>2370807

>semantics

>>2370793
I'm very much aware of that, but it's what I have right now.

>>2370795
Huh, It actually looks pretty good, even with default settings.
It's no Royale, but I guess it's a better option for non-integer.

>>2370793
>1200 or 1440p displays are best for these games. 1080p is some weird random resolution that was decided upon for arbitrary reasons.
When the adopted standard becomes this widespread it's not weird.

>>2370827

It's still a seemingly arbitrary resolution chosen for no reason.

>>2370885
Maybe to a consumer but the manufacturers didn't pick it by random/

>>2370885
The aspect ratio 16:9 (1.78) eventually emerged as being a reasonable compromise between 5:3 (1.67) and the common 1.85 widescreen cinema format.

>people who do the "curved TV" shaders

Doesn't look like that on my CRT.

>>2370895
>Doesn't look like that on my CRT.

That's kind of interesting. The crts have a straight piece of glass in front of it, and the edges of the screen where the most curves are, are cut off. CRTs are in fact curved, it's just harder to notice.

>>2371091
There are flat panel CRTs.

>>2370531
Tried that, it didn't fix it.

Typically I'll throw some scanlines and simple CRT shaders on top, depending on the platform.

I'll use weirder shaders for stuff I put on my Nvidia Shield or some specific DosBOX games. I usually hate those shaders that smooth out pixels, but for games like TES Arena I'll actually usually enable them, because it just... looks good for once.

But that's just for 2.5d games. 8bit and 16bit I'm much more purist.

>>2369856
>>2369802
How am I supposed to get your settings to work? I edited user-settings.h, was that the right file? Integer scaling on/off, it doesn't matter, the terrible curvature won't go away. I don't get it. Please respond.

>>2370585
This inspired me to try out "tvout+interlacing" on my CRT monitor and it looks awesome

>>2371215
Correction: it looks awesome for SNES and PS1 games with integer scaling on, but looks all broken and wrong for NES games unless I turn integer scaling off, and then it looks like shit with Genesis games no matter what. Lots of unwanted black lines showing up. How can I fix this?

>>2371304

Turn off crop overscan? Turn on integer scaling.

Make sure to use 640x480 resolution.

>>2371178

Ask Emulation general.

>>>/vg/101585945

>>2371309
I just realized that the NES issue was just because I still had the NEStopia core NTSC filter turned on. Stupid, but I fixed it. Genesis still has janky lines.

Also I am using 640x480, but the resolution of the screenshot is not that. That's probably related to the issue.

>>2370457
the difference is pretty huge to me. with scanlines, low-res dot art just becomes so much more defined and beautiful. characters and backgrounds just have more depth and detail with them. without them they just become pixely, indistinct blots.

>>2371092
i always thought flat panel meant the whole unit was slim. And flat screen meant the screen itself was flat. Anyone else confused?

>>2371582
>>2371583
it looks good aside from the curvature

>real CRTs have no curvature

>>2371593

>tfw 4K+ monitors will never go mainstream and we'll never have awesome CRT shaders

Opinions?

>>2371642
>opinions

Why? You're the one playing the game. Why do you care if other people like it or not?

>>2371668
Just wanted to share it and to see if it had some glaring issue I wasn't able to notice. It's the first time I ever set up a shader.

I LIKE FILTERS, SUE ME

>>2371587
Nice fisheye lens, m8

>>2371687
This actually lends itself really well to SF2's art style.

>>2371687
looks bad

>>2371749
no

>>2371749
because it looks like shit?

>>2371798
Needs to be stretched out to 1920x1080.

>>2371803
>1920x1080 gif

>>2371804
Here in the 21st century, we use webms.

>>2371806
>using meme formats

>>2371580
>>2371092
It's true that there are flat-screen CRTs but you trade off the curve for noticeable distortion at the corners because of the extreme angle the cathode rays are striking the phosphors. It's not too bad on small screens but if you get a 26"+ flat screen CRT it becomes VERY noticeable.

Although out of all my CRTs I only have one flatscreen (a 13" WEGA) I think that using curved filters is pure nostalgia. CRT filters that replicate scanlines and bloom are probably a good across-the-board way to make retro games look good through emulation although I imagine that an aestheticall inclined person could set up game-by-game filters that would look even better to everyone. Personally when I emulate I like to do it on small screens, in small windows, or sitting far from the screen to just let my eyes organically filter.

I sit like 8 inches away from my PVM-13M4U though - that's gotta be great for my eyes

cool vectors

>>2369802
wich emulator i need?

>>2371687
how dare you go against the /vr/ hivemind

actually, if you step back and squint a bit it doesn't look that bad.

>>2373029
I re-played Secret of Mana and then went through all of Sieken 3 using that filter and loved it. Made the game look like a weird moving watercolor.

Is there a way to use easymode with ps1 games?

>>2373756
I thought that there was no support for PS1 games in Retroarch, amazing

>>2373790
What game?

>>2373841
Romance of Three Kingdoms VI, it's one of my favorite PS1 games and pretty much the only one that I still play

>>2369802

Looks nice. BUT the lines are too prominent.

What we need is x2 the resolution and x2 finer lines so the lines are not visible.

>>2371587
>Lode Runner
Mah nigga. Used to love playing that shit on my Apple //e

>>2369802
I am an idiot. How do I set up CRT Royale with Retroarch?

r8 or h8

>>2371687

hhhhhhhehehehe

>>2370585
I would highly suggest creating a superwide 480p resolution for this. FFVII is actually a good example of the importance of doing this. Go into the menu screen, and you might notice some pixels look thicker than others. This is because FFVII is one of those games that makes use of various resolution modes, and the menu screen actually outputs at 364x240, which results in some pixels being duplicated. Superwide resolutions fix this by taking advantage of the monitor's inability to resolve every pixel, so it'll look as though there is no such thing going on.

Anyone know some shaders that work good with interlaced displays?

>>2375170

Why is your display interlaced?

You mean a CRT TV?

>>2374189
Anybody?

>>2369802
how the fuck i use those shaders, what i need?

>>2375189
Yeah, the interlace seems to mess with fake scanlnes.

>>2376191

RetroArch.

http://buildbot.libretro.com/stable/

Use these bios:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7d5tbargr0iq2x8/RetroArch+BIOS.zip

http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Using_RetroArch

>>2369802
Here's mine. Oh sorry, thats an acutal CRT. Ya know those big boxes you can get on the side of the road for free. One of those.

>>2376249

Try hooking that up to a computer. It's hard. There's consoles, like the Wii or PS3. Wii does 240p, but is pretty weak.

So you need a laptop or desktop. Few GPUs have s-video outputs.

And the thing is, CRts aren't going to last forever. People are throwing them out and will get rarer and rarer over time. People will just throw them out instead of fixing them. It's only going to be a core group of enthusiasts who will keep it. Which is fine.

But CRT shaders are just more convenient for most people. Just have one display for everything. CRT shaders need however, at least 1440p to look good. We got some decent ones now, but the lines are too obvious and visible.

>>2376259
>CRT's aren't going to last forever

And the 1080p monitor you're using now will? It will be in the trash sooner than my tube will. Different poster.

>>2376264
>>2376249
All CRTs are dimming and require pretty regular adjustment. They're on life support.

Stick to real hardware, scaler, and a fast lcd.

>>2376259
>Few GPUs have s-video outputs.
Is it that hard to have a second older PC? You really don't need a decent computer if you aren't running all the shader stuff.

>>2376271
Quality sets will last another 20-30 years of reasonable use. Nothing is stopping you buying a few spare now and putting them in the corner of your garage.

>>2376274
>Quality sets will last another 20-30 years of reasonable use.
The TVs right now are already borderline acceptable. Especially flat screens that are plagued with geometry issues.

>Nothing is stopping you buying a few spare now and putting them in the corner of your garage.
It's not worth it to me to work on CRTs nor to dedicate that large of space to having spare TVs/parts.

>>2376279
3 square feet in your garage is a large space? That's a fucking chair.

>>2376282
200+lbs for a large CRT. If I'm going to have extra why stop at just one? They're all dieing you know.

>>2376282
>>2376283
Also should add a garage is hardly a safe place to store a crt.

>>2376283
200 pounds? You seriously don't need anything bigger than 20", and you can stack them on top of each other to save space.

>>2376284
What's really going to happen if the screen is facing the wall and you've put a sheet over them? Wrap them in bubble wrap if you're really that terrified.

>>2376279
I'm glad scalers are a thing, and maybe in 10 years or so I'll get one, but right now it is absolutely ridiculous to spend a thousand dollars on something that simulates a free television.

>>2371593
name of shader plz

>>2376286
> to spend a thousand dollars
???
>>2376285
>200 pounds? You seriously don't need anything bigger than 20"
I'm American. 20" is the minimum of what I want.
Why would I want a small TV? When I was young in the 90s I made due with one I guess.
>What's really going to happen if the screen is facing the wall and you've put a sheet over them? Wrap them in bubble wrap if you're really that terrified.
Car runs into it. Or in my case it would probably turn into a shelf for my reloading. And that stuff isn't light.

>>2374189
>>2375820

Um, like what exactly? Just run RA, load a shader like CRT Royale. There's presets for it.

You can edit the parameters in RA itself. Or you can just close it, and edit the text file directly.

CRT Royale is the best since it's so flexible. It can do anything basically. It will look very, very good on screens 1200p or higher.

Here is CRT-Royale with the triad size set to 2.

>>2376264

The difference is they still make LCDs and other high resolution flat panels, so they can be replaced. I do know that LCDs are sorta cheap and break easily and it will be years until they reach the same quality as CRTs.

I do really, really like CRT TVs and monitors. They do offer the highest visual quality for SD content like retro games. But I'm realistic that they won't last forever and it's not a convenient option for most casual gamers. It's more of an enthusiast thing.

Sort of like, if you want to, you can use a CRT monitor, special graphics cards and set it up with special builds of MAME designed for perfect sync. That's for enthusiasts, and I have no problems with that. Just that most people aren't interested in investing the time and energy, and money into that.

>mfw reading this thread on a CRT tv which I use as my main monitor

>>2369802
I use retroarch on my ps3, and I would love to make it look like this. can someone tell me how? I only use the shaders that came with it, I know nothing about how to make new ones work.
also, I know it's unrelated, but is there a way to play ps1 games in retroarch in the ps3?

>>2376302
LCDs and oleds have already surpassed CRTs.

Unless you're someone that obsesses over true black bullshit that the human eye can't even really tell a difference LCD is basically there. Way better for sharpness and real contrast though.

>>2376309
i need my lightguns back.

montion sensor and infrared works like shit.

PS move is a fucking garbage to play onrail shooters

>>2376415
The ir technology is there it's jut not at the consumer level yet.

>>2376419
some arcade ir still works like shit. like rambo, HotD4 or transformers

I need a ps3 emulator play Galgun using my guncon2 and not getting mad to the fucking psmove

>>2376427
Not talking about the later arcade gun games.

>>2376443
no idea. what is new.

http://www.diana.cl/portal/galeria/?album=all&gallery=1

the last thing I played was terminator salvation
and the game itself is shit. too many slowdowns and stuff

>>2376494
No idea what you linked.

>>2376506

a gally of photos where i play arcade

http://www.diana.cl/portal/?post_type=maquina

anyway, a lot of machines are not in the list.
like

> akatsuki blitzkampf
> meltyblood
> GGXXAC
> kof 2002um
> mk3um
> mvc 1/2
> snkvscapcom 1/2
> marvel vs sf
> rival schools
> blazblue CS
> SF2 X
> SF3-3

props to super speed race and ms pacman.

>>2376529
>.cl
Well first website I've been on from Chile.

>>2376309

Ehhhhhhhhh

>input
>blacks
>response time
>movement

I think they're "good enough" for use, and I use them myself, but I do believe that CRTs edge them out.

>>2376706
What do you mean by input?

The black on a good LCD is very good.

Lag is sub 1 frame on a good LCD.

What do you mean by movement? Blur? There's strobeing backlights.

I have no intention in getting a CRT again unless it's made brand new.

>>2376709

There's input lag, and I don't think there's any industry testing of lag at all so I have no idea how to determine which displays to get. Amateurs have to do the testing, and of course they only do a few displays.

>What do you mean by movement? Blur? There's strobeing backlights.

Eh.... so first you need a 120hz monitor and then software or other hacks to get the same smooth motion of a 60hz monitor. And even then there's problems if the game does not maintain either perfect 30fps or 60fps. If there's drops it's noticeable.

>>2376709
Arn't strobeing backlights only on the most expensive models? All that money when I could just get a CRT for free.

>>2376710
>There's input lag, and I don't think there's any industry testing of lag at all so I have no idea how to determine which displays to get. Amateurs have to do the testing, and of course they only do a few displays.
I stick to people who use crt to test the lag. Best way.
>Eh.... so first you need a 120hz monitor and then software or other hacks to get the same smooth motion of a 60hz monitor. And even then there's problems if the game does not maintain either perfect 30fps or 60fps. If there's drops it's noticeable.
I was talking about real hardware and a TV. Fps doesn't matter in that case.

Emulation is fucked when it comes to that stuff.

>>2376716
>Emulation is fucked when it comes to that stuff.

Unless you use a CRT :)

>>2376715
Like $700-$900 is the usual price range. Pretty cheap far as TVs go. Guess it's a lot of for a pure gaming TV but I enjoy it and it works great for all my games.
Sony W7.

If you're not American there's the smaller screen options.

The Sony W7/W8/W9 are the best TVs right now for gaming.

>>2376718
Never got the point. 240p looks terrible on a computer monitor. I don't want a computer near my TV either.

>>2376715

That's hardware. There's software as well:

http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Black_frame_insertion

>>2376739
Then still need a 120hz LCD. Not exactly cheap either.

>>2376742

120hz will soon be the standard. As will 1440p, and 4K.

>>2376743
Good luck with that. They can't even decide on a sync standard.

>>2369802
i tried retroarch with crt shaders but its godamn slow and audio is messy, whats wrong? i use hlsl crt shader with MAME and all games run fine and smooth i dont get it

>>2369983
That's okay, usually people who are retarded have trouble seeing the point in perfectly logical things.
Deal with it or try harder maybe?

>>2376817
Integrated intel laptop GPU? I guess not enough power for it.

>>2376817

Some shaders use more CPU power than others. Just test with them.

Also use integer scaling.

These shaders use the least power:

>CRT-Easymode
> crt-hyllian-lq.cg

>>2376415
This. Lightguns are the absolute number 1 reason to own a CRT, and they will be for the next 50 years.

Latency just isn't anywhere good enough for IR shit. Lots of the big screen games in arcades actually just used rear projection, which still works with light guns.

The big issue for me is that when a PS3 emulator comes out in 5-10 years, they won't be making PCs with S-video out anymore. There's some circuit you can build to get CSYNC from VGA, but I don't even know if you can convert from DVI to VGA and use a lightgun, because all the casuals have moved onto trash like Aimtrak instead of hooking up bulky CRTs. Never-mind the fact the drivers will probably be impossible to use and nobody will build new ones.

Honestly? I'm loving my Aimtrak and I think you're just trying to give yourself another "factual" excuse for using the shitty CRT screens you're so nostalgic about.

>>2377091
I own an Aimtrak. It's fucking worthless.

As an absolute, bare minimum device, playing with an on-screen cursor, you could probably enjoy it if you've never played on an actual CRT.

I found it incredibly lacking. You can't switch positions at all if you want it even slightly accurate, you have to stand like a rigid statue and only tilt the end of the gun from the same height. Any standard "aiming down sights" pose adds far too much movement and throws the whole thing off.

I seriously expected a lot more for the price. An S-video cable, second hand GunCon2, and a cheap CRT give a much better experience for a total cost of 10-20 bucks.

If you want to play with an on-screen cursor and remove any point of using a lightgun, be my guest. I'd just use a fucking mouse if I wanted to play like that, at least I'd be able to aim quicker.

I have
> 1080p projector
> 100" diagonal screen
> strong desire for 8bit and 16bit retro

What should I do? am i fucked?

>>2377830
Pretty fucked.

>>2377830
Do you have 5 bucks? You can probably get a working CRT for 5 bucks.

>>2377837
>>2377834
No way to salvage this upscale?

>>2376709
>The black on a good LCD is very good.
No it's not.

>What do you mean by movement? Blur? There's strobeing backlights.
Pixel responsiveness is still mostly crap, but some of them have supposedly made some fairly decent strides. Still nowhere near quality CRT responsiveness. BFI helps but it's not perfect and there's still a degree of ghosting left over. Better than not having it at all though.

>>2377867
Here we go with google diarrhea.
>Pixel responsiveness
You're an idiot.

>>2369802
I am new at shaders, do I just paste this into a file, save it a .cg slap it into the shaders folder and select it?

>>2377848
just use simple 4x

How about this.

>>2378283
This one doesn't look good.

>>2378285

>>2378290
And this one is trying too hard.

>>2376304
Doing that doesn't fuck up your eyes badly?

Those curved screen with scanlines images reming me of those youtube videos where the guy recording the game just points the camera at the TV

can you use shaders with snes9x or do i have to use this retroautist thing?

>>2378481

Technically some .cg shaders work in snes9x. I have never personally been able to get them working. They just load in retroarch though.

>>2370778
I just use crt-geom since it looks alright at 1080p. CRT royale really requires a higher resolution to look nice.

>>2378481
There are some shaders that work with it, but you're always going to be limited because it can only support one pass shaders while retro arch can do multi pass shaders.

>>2378290
So these shaders do exist already? What does it look like with a coarser dot pitch, or higher resolution?

>>2378667
snes9x has all those features though ._.

>>2378861
It seems it's a Oculus thing, so I think resolution doesn't apply as you can control your distance to the screen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLETH8dO9r8

>>2378481
You need Cg Toolkit installed for SNES9x to use shaders

RetroArch links with an included Cg dll which is included, so it doesn't need Cg Toolkit installed unless it was built with Visual Studio.

Snes9x hasn't been updated in a long time and some Cg shaders will probably not work on it if they use features that have been added in recent times. Just use RetroArch if you really care about using shaders.

>>2371583
what shader is this?

>>2380589
crt royale

Does anyone know if custom shaders can be used the SnesGT emulator?

>>2380816
Haha, crt royale wishes it looked like that

>>2380589
It's a shader I was working on for a personal project a couple months ago. Tried to port it over to RetroArch but there were some issues with its constraints and I didn't want to invest that much time overcoming them.

Besides, it really only looks decent on really high DPI monitors which is what I was targeting. I think you'll see some really nice CRT shaders in a few years when 4k/5k UHD monitors become more common.

>>2381816
i'm not a fan of curvature, but otherwise i love it.

great work

what are the best shaders that dont look like CRTs? ones not trying to make prisitne copies of 40 year old TVs

how do cgp shaders work? snes9x can load cg, but cant cgp

>>2383998

I don't think snes9x can load cpg shaders. Snes9x development is a little slow and they havne't kept up. Probably should stick with retroautism.

Am I fuckin' retarded? I don't understand how to use RetroArch. The emulation wiki doesn't help.

>>2384154
yes congratulations

>>2374324
Why super wide and bilinear? That kind of defeats the purpose.

>>2384184
Horizontal blur without superwide results in said blur looking quite jarring. It's hard to explain, but it doesn't look good. With superwide, it looks more natural.

Superwide without blur results in pixels looking square as fuck, essentially nearest neighbor with black lines. Although these days, I use far less blur, just enough to give pixels a slightly round shape.

I've always been strongly against the use of filters until very recently when I played through the original EGA graphics Kings Quest trilogy. I accidentally turned on the dosbox tv scanline effect and it actually made the harsh solid pixels very easy on my eyes. There's a bunch of scanline effects but I use the softest subtlest one there is and I actually really do see an improvement.

>>2384236
EGA games were meant to be seen with scanlines. Too bad most people played them in the VGA era with line-doubling.

>>2384154
bumpu

>>2384154
yeah, retroarch ui is a piece of shit

i wish snes9x had the same level of shader support

>>2384154
Open the EXE. Choose Load Content (Detect Core). Navigate to the ROM you wanna open. Choose the appropriate core. Play gaem.

Why not just use a frontend for RetroArch if you hate the UI so much? I'm sure there's a lot of them since RetroArch can be used with a command line interface, makes frontends trivial to develop.

>>2384285
There's already multiple UIs for it, three of which are built into RetroArch itself. Hell, there's even a Win32 menu bar now for quickly loading games like on Snes9x.

>>2384154
the gui is a piece of fucking crap

>>2381816
wich emulator you use?

I changed the scale factor in some part of the shader settings and now RA just instantly crashes every time I launch it. Now what?

>>2384372
Reinstall Windows.

>>2384372

Just change the shader again, or go in and change the config to remove the shader. You can edit the text files directly.

>>2384372
i never got sahders rigjht on RA, the closest i got was everything looked and played smooth, but the audio was pure crap.

>>2384345
It wasn't an emulator, it was a game engine I was working on I was just using retro game screens to test the shader on. That's why it was too much work to port over, I was doing a lot of things internally with render textures and uniforms. I would've had to essentially rewrite the whole shader to work with RetroArch's shader framework and it wouldn't had been worth it since it's not that much different than what's possible with existing CRT shaders.

>>2385065
fack

Sharper textures filter. The game looks good now?

Looks like something out of a late Jack Kirby drawing.

Or a Louis Wain painting.

Beautiful.

>>2385817
which one?

>>2387096
You'll see. Sooner or later all the hip Indie games will use CRT filters and you will hate it.

>>2385817
90's tv looks best

>>2387184
>>2386118
>>2385817
This is suppose to be a troll right? Because they all look like shit.

>>2381816
>4k TVs released
>glorious CRT-style shaders that aren't terrible
>input lag

>>2387191
At least, the one on the right got the aspect ratio correctly. I hope.

>>2387184
Take a few steps back from your computer screen.

>>2387212
>caring about input lag
>when all you play are JRPGs

>>2371583
That's assuming RGB (which is good!).

Composite would look like someone smeared shit all over the place. Pic related.

Here's a Megadrive w/ rgb scart on your average basic LCD screen…

>>2387234
>>2387231
Looks stretched and the overscan seems to messed up.
Is that real hardware?

>>2387234
… and here's Retroarch w/ hdmi, no filters.

>>2387231
You're confusing CRT shaders with shaders simulating input artifacts. A CRT shader is just meant to simulate the look of a CRT television and nothing else. If you want it to look like it's simulating a CRT television with composite input, you run the screen texture through a composite shader prior to running it through the CRT shader.

Well designed shaders are modular and can be stacked with other shaders.

>>2387235
Yes. Mind you, I didn't adjust the TV settings, this is raw. Hence the overscan.

>>2387242
>I didn't adjust the TV settings,
I don't think there's anything to adjust. It's just handled horribly.
And the pic in >>2387236 would benefit from some scanlines and correct aspect ratio.

>>2387212
Input lag is on the order of nanoseconds. There's no such thing as human perceptible input lag on modern hardware.

>>2387443
>Input lag is on the order of nanoseconds
yes yes
millions of nanoseconds

>>2387452
>>2387443
>There's no such thing as human perceptible input lag on modern hardware.
Completely wrong.

Yo may not be sensitive to it but people can tell the difference. It can greatly effect gameplay.

>>2387471
False, or you're using a LCD monitor from the 90s.

>>2387473
99% of monitors are shit regardless their lag for a retro game. The monitors advertised for gaming generally have very low input lag though.

>>2387475
Nice hyperbole, too bad it's false.

>>2387479
Nope.

60 fps is shit on a LCD. Tons of blur.

Monitors have very minimal if any image processing and the picture generally wont be very great.

The picture adjustments need to be software based.

Not a problem with modern PC games but big issues with retro games.

>>2387483
>more hyberbole and misinformation

Holy shit it's like trying to talk to a christian

>>2387487
You're fucking idiot. Get back to /v/.

>>2387491
Nice "proof". How about you get a job and buy a modern monitor instead of regurgitating shit you read on /v/ in the first place.

>>2387503
>buy a modern monitor
The only monitors that doesn't have blur are the strobing backlight ones. Those weren't available till like a year ago.

Other two are still problems for retro games.

You seem to be extremely ignorant about the subject. Typical of a /v/ child.

>>2387505
>blur

Just stop posting. You're must be using some shit you bought second hand at a flea market as the standard for all LCD monitors.

>>2387509
Are you legitimately blind or trolling? Honestly curious at this point.

>>2387505
>The only monitors that doesn't have blur are the strobing backlight ones
wtf are you even talking about, LCD monitors don't have any blur at all as it's displaying everything pixel by pixel with no filter.

>>2387517
Right back at you. If everything looks so damn blurry to you then you should see a doctor because you apparently have glaucoma or some shit.

>>2387517
I think you are both trolling honestly, with his retarded /pol/ like attitude and your equally retarded "ALL MONITORS HAVE BLUR!!!"

>>2387527
>>2387525
>>2387524
>wtf are you even talking about, LCD monitors don't have any blur at all as it's displaying everything pixel by pixel with no filter.

Wow these /v/ kids are actually blind.

For LCDs, any 60hz monitor is going to have blur. Any LCD monitor displaying 60 fps is going to have blur. Unless they have some sort of software or hardware technique to get rid of blur.

There's no way you're over 15 years old and don't know that. And if not you shouldn't be giving any advice about the topic.

Educate yourselves. http://www.blurbusters.com/

After that do me a favor and stay in /v/. Thanks.

>>2387536
Just leave already, seriously. You're stupid as shit and nobody gives a fuck about your ad ridden blog.

>>2387538
Sorry for posting a factual website with multiple repeatable tests and techniques used to measure blur and lag.

Forgot /v/ rather just have some namecalling.

>>2387536
do you think all LCD monitors display at 60hz or something? that's only TVs you dumb ass.

>>2387551
Most LCD monitors are 60hz. Regardless a retro game is usually about 60hz/60 fps.

>>2387546
Nothing factual about some guy shitting out opinions.

>>2387558
It's not some guy an it's not opinions.

They have multiple tests they created that are used by sites like cnet, hdtvtest, avsforum, etc.

What a masterful display of ignorance by you.

>>2387546
>>2387536
yes, I will certainly trust a website that is a glorified advertisement for a certain monitor, seems legit.

>>2387562
They don't advertise any specific monitor...
Holy shit you kids can't read at all.

They have lists of 120hz monitors for example. Not one specific monitor.

>>2387561
all those sites are pure shit though...

>>2387556
>Most LCD monitors are 60hz.
*citation needed*

>>2387565
If you say so /v/.
>>2387567
I hope you're trolling but something tells you guys aren't.

>>2387564
>implying that they aren't payed to promote those monitors
you sure are naive

60Hz LCD has blurry motion compared to 60Hz CRT.

It's unavoidable due to the sample-and-hold nature of LCDs and the way our eyes track motion. The only way around it is to simulate CRT raster scanning by flickering the image with scanning backlights or black frame insertion.

>>2387570
They test the monitors. They have monitors and TVs from all sorts of manufacturers on their lists. Sony, Smasung, BenQ, asus, etc

>>2387558

>hurr durr im dumb and can't read

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/references/

>>2387572
Don't bother man. These /v/ kids are blind as bats.

>>2387573
I just tried one of their "tests" it blurted out a million fake "warnings" at me

>>2387580
>using an outdated browser

>>2387583
yes, because "WARNING: MONITOR STUTTERING DETECTED" certianly has to do with my browser and isn't stupid fake shit meant to scare idiots.

>>2387536
>so much blur
>you need an 800 FPS camera in order to see it
You pretty much just proved that guy's original statement that it's smaller than human perception. Besides, I don't even want to know what kind of smear you'd see on a CRT at that kind of time resolution, it's not like the phosphors instantly stop emitting light as soon as the electron beam moves. And in any case, this has nothing to do with input lag.

>>2387590

It does. Older browsers don't support vsync well and that fucks up the test. It works just fine here.

Anyway, you're the idiot because you can just look at the javascript source code embedded in the page and see whether it's fake or not.

>>2387590
Actually it does mean your browser is shit or you have something causing your browser to not display fps correctly. The test is actually very accurate considering it's html based.

>>2387595
The human eye and a camera work completely different kid. Man this thread is getting good for laughs.

>>2387606
>I can see at 800 FPS

Kill yourself.

>>2387595
>>you need an 800 FPS camera in order to see it

You've obviously never compared an LCD and CRT side by side displaying a scrolling image at 60Hz, because the difference is immediately obvious.

CRTs aren't sample-and-hold displays and don't suffer from the motion blur caused by eye tracking. Phosphor persistence doesn't cause motion blur but rather causes phosphor trails when a bright light scrolls across a black screen, but our eyes still track the motion clearly.

>>2387607
Man you are amazingly stupid. Why do you give an opinion? it's comical at least.

>>2387607

1/10

>>2387610
>You've obviously never compared an LCD and CRT side by side displaying a scrolling image at 60Hz, because the difference is immediately obvious.
You're talking to a 6th genner here. Probably never seen a CRT in real life.

So, uh, how about NES shaders? nestopia?

everything seems to be about smemes shaders

>>2387610
>>2387612
>>2387616
>gets owned by everyone in the thread
>starts samefagging this hard

>>2387610
Protip: if you want to sound like you're not talking out of your ass, try not making up your own terminology

>>2388187
>>2388184
More /v/ kids. Though at this time of night probably browns.

>>2369802
>>2384342
>>2384263
>>2384154
After trying to make Retroarch shaders to work
and failing.
i found out that using MESS i ALOT more easy to use when it comes to shaders.

How i can use .filter in Kega fusion?

>>2388187
>making up your own terminology

I made up no terminology you fucking retard, you can google those terms and see what they mean yourself.

>>2388204
How are you failing? You either load a cgp for a preset or you increase the number of passes and add the cg shaders yourself.

>>2388624
That's the part most people don't seem to get. No one thinks to increase the shader pass, and there's an option that seemingly looks like it'd be for loading single shaders, but it appears to do nothing because nobody seems to know what CGPs are and what they're used for.