/vr/ - Retro Games

That’s why they call it a meme.

>identical
not really, but it's probably not worth the levels of additional investment to most players, especially those playing on consumer crts which is also by far the most reasonable way to play retro consoles. If you're yuro, by all means play via RGB scart but shut the fuck up about it already.

Pic related, real hardware over freaking composite on my 1987 KVM 13 inch

>>4717620
lmao. No. Even normies know s-video is hardly better than rca-comp and you will only see a /vr/ consoles potential with ypbpr/rgb

>>4717620
>posts a pic of composite and s-videp

>>4717639
The pic is showing, even on a tiny ass display, the issues with composite and svideo. Look at the rainbow gradient on text. Disgusting.

It's time to accept the fact that composite is just fine and should be playing video games, not masturbating to cables.

>>4717648
It's really more of an issue of convergence which I have no desire to crack open that '87 TV and physically adjust via the pots since there are no menus on a CRT so old. It's also magnified by the small size of the display thanks to the physical density of the grille - on a larger CRT it would be minimized just through scale.

If this is the sort of thing that deeply upsets you though, you might want to consider emulation.

>>4717667
You literally just spewed nonsense. It has nothing to do with convergence and you should feel like an idiot for thinking that. No one here is believing the lies you have to tell yourself to think composite is acceptable or your display is remotely good looking.

>>4717674
>>>/r/crtgaming

>>4717648
>rainbow gradient on text
goddamn you're stupid

Here's my dedicated emulation PC doing 0.5 640x480@60hz

Had to grab it off my phone since I couldn't find it in the archive

>>4717674
I have many displays that run the gamut of quality. That was an example of a lower end one that I happened to think took a nice pic that day.

>>4717678
>>4717686
Jesus the apologist poor people need to get a grip. Composite rainbows on white text is as commonplace as interlace combing during fast motion. Deal with it and reply to people that care.

>>4717694
you really don't know what rainbow banding is, do you

On peoples' examples, the only difference between s-video and RGB is in terms of color

someday I will buy an RGB cable to see with my own eyes, though. But for now it's s-video only

>>4717810
Have a fresh comparison. Guess which is which. The color is due to different exposure levels on my camera, not the signal itself

>>4717860

>>4717620
t. butthurt poor faggot

>>4717620
>s-video is identical to RGB
When you lean back, stop staring at the glass and "get into" the game, you're right.

>>4717687
What game is that?

>>4717905
The Immortal for Genesis - a personal fave

>>4717620
Which one of these am I supposed to think is better?

>>4717620
Only on sub-par displays.

>>4718016
see >>4717864 and >>4717860

captured from a real PVM. LOL

>>4717860
I appreciate the pics. Here's a couple tips
1. Shoot it manual. Keep the white balance and focus exactly the same.
2. Use a tripod

Your focus and position changed, making it hard to judge. Is there a difference in clarity when you see it in person?

>>4717645
first thing I thought also. nice bait thread.

why does this argument always seems to surface? is it people just being butthurt they can't find a CRT that supports what they really want?

>>4717620
I think a bigger one people will figure out pretty soon (enthusiasts have known this for a while) is you can get an image that looks just like the "amazing" Sony PVM and BVM series on any old PC CRT monitor running with shader scanlines added.

>>4718017
As opposed to a fake PVM?

>>4717860
To be fair SNES is a bit of an exception

>>4717620
It's not exact, but s-video is more than enough on a CRT

>>4717620
If your tv is less than 14 inches then sure

>>4717620
Huh? That's retarded. It's not even close.

>>4717620
It's not hard to accept the fact that poorfags are retarded. If you don't want to use RGB or can't afford it that's fine but don't make yourself look like a complete fool.

>>4717620
Composite looks better in that pic though.

>>4718147
>you can get an image that looks just like the "amazing" Sony PVM and BVM series on any old PC CRT monitor running with shader scanlines added.
That's not an accurate statement. See my post >>4717687 while it looks good, some might subjectively even say "better" than a PVM the mask is still quite clearly dot trio while a PVM (pic related, one of mine) will have an aperture grille. I'm still on the hunt for a 20" Sony VGA CRT though to compare.

It's time to accept the fact no one here actually plays games but only compares shitty 30 years old tv's and is driving prices of shit that should cost $30 TOPS up artificially.

>>4717620
how

>>4719289

Just like 1960s Marantz or Mcintosh receivers should only be $30 tops too right?

For my money this still looks great

>>4719289
I wish that was true for cars, I would save so much money
Kill yourself

I remember I used to play with the sharpness turned way down on the TV because I wantedthe graphics to look smoother and handmade. Seeing every little pixel wasn't all t by at desirable.
It's crazy the way you people obsess over it now

>>4721662
>>4722081
The duck kind of comparison is this?

>>4722090
It is funny because I would sometimes do the opposite for it's opposite effect. I think it's cool you liked yours blury looking though. I'll never understand the ones who get irate about any of this.

>>4719247
because you play games 2 inches from the screen

>>4722318
Or hey you could just pepper spray yourself then a Walmart LCD would look just like a Wells Gardner

>>4717620
yeah but how to get s-video from genesis model 1?

>>4722417
The point is the CRT aperture shader on a high resolution shadow mask CRT looks like a trinitron (extra brightness excepted). Yes, even on a screen that uses dot trios. At such a high resolution the dots are so small you won't perceive them from any further away than a couple of inches. Each fake line of pixels drawn on the screen is actually several real lines (240 lines divided among 1200 lines, with some used for fake scanlines)

>>4719289
This is partially true. Go on shmups. You'll see occasionally comments by the users there that they don't actually play games that much. It's the idea of perfection is important to them.

>>4717620
I see little difference, but the one on the left looks nicer to me.

>>4722560
Well, resolution doesn't change dot pitch but in all honesty you're probably lucky that you can't see the difference. I kind of wish I'd never developed an eye for this stuff. By and large it's a waste of time and space.

None of my TVs have s-video, though, whereas all of them support RGB.

>>4722741
eat shit you sanctimonious cunt

>>4722756
gramps and that faggot who leaves the notes really sour my mood just by knowing they're alive

>>4722741
>Well, resolution doesn't change dot pitch
In this case it does because you are emulating a different pitch through the use of shaders. You do not get the overly thick black scanline effect seen when PC CRT monitors are set to run in native 240p. Instead you get thick lines of pixels and thin scanlines. Like you'd get with a coarse pitch screen. The real scanlines produced by the monitor are unnoticeable at 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 (or 2304 × 1728 if you have a very high-end CRT) if you are more than 2 inches from the screen, if you could even see them from that close.

The "high pitch = harsh scanlines" is not relevant or happening to this situation because it's not real 240p where you have no control over the tightness of the electron beam. With shader parameters you can change minimum and maximum line size.

I had already implied all of that earlier, but I guess you are not as informed as you like to think you are.

>>4722771
>"high pitch = harsh scanlines
*fine pitch

High wouldn't really be accurate since fine pitches are lower numbers.

>>4717620
it's time to accept that a photo is less close to reality than a video and a video still isn'T the same as watching it in real.

It'S also time to accept that video games have nothing to do with reality and hysteria media needs to be put to the pillory

>>4722771
What the fuck are you even talking about at this point? VGA CRTs ave physical dots visible at typical play distances of 18-36 inches away, no matter how high the resolution and how advanced the shader you simulate the grille with is, they will still have visible dots within them. My eyes aren't even the greatest anymore and it's still very obvious to me any time I play on a VGA monitor. I suspect you're just another nu-/vr/ contrarian who doesn't actually use a variety of CRTs, thinks that the fact that we use macro shots of them to illustrate differences means that a real human eye (resolution ~576 megapixels) can't see them from much further away and believes whatever he wants to believe that everything better than what he personally does is foolishly excessive and likely also that everything worse is garbage.

>>4722756
>>4722759
I doubt that people like you two are ever really very happy so I can't really feel bad about upsetting you for discussing the topic of a thread you've chosen to read.

>>4723317
starting to think this is a LARP account

RGB difference is noticeable on a consumer TV. S-Video has a nice soft retro look, though, without the aggressive video noise of composite.

>>4723418
You are absolutely correct and sanctimonious or not I still feel that the step to S-Video is so relatively huge and the investment so relatively small that it's an ideal place to stop worrying about it.

>>4717620
im incredibly skeptical that the photo on the left is genuine. i've never seen such an output before via composite. i know the photo on the right is how it looks on every output i've ever played it with.

>>4723409
babbage gramps is well known here for his made up stories and nonsensical facts.

>>4723317
^- this is a great example of the magical facts he vomits up every few days. just ignore him. the rest of us here already do.

>>4723317
Shadow masks are superior to aperture grille though. They give a clearer picture with less distortion.

>>4717620
>identical

>>4717694
Hey don't worry about those idiots, the tripfag always enters threads about CRTs and AV in general and starts spouting bullshit technobabble to seem smarter than he is, and almost always gets BTFO by actual knowledgeable anons.

>>4723545
It depends on the content. You might make a case when displaying video or maybe even high definition 2D graphics but there's little case to be made that low definition 2D graphics look more precise on aperture grilles.

>>4723614
If you say so, Bro. That anon is wrong as shit about the image I posted displaying rainbow banding. It is absolutely red out of convergence left, blue above but I guess you see what you want to see.

>>4717620
I love how MY LIFE IN GAMING in their flash cart episode is "I prefer playing with the real cart and not the flash cart because it's how I played when I was a kid" yet waste a fuck ton of money modding their consoles to output video in an esoteric standard. You didn't even know where europe was when you were a kid you fucking morons.

Shelf collectors are the most hypocritical, will fully ignorant when it comes to emulating, and generally embarrassing to watch. The same fuckheads that will eventually drive the price up on CRTs

>>4725787
>I love how MY LIFE IN GAMING in their flash cart episode is "I prefer playing with the real cart and not the flash cart because it's how I played when I was a kid"
what kind of fucked up thinking is that.

>>4717641
S-Video is a much better signal than Composite. In fact, it's the single biggest leap in image quality in the entire signal realm.

That being said, RGB is still noticeably better than S-Video. Mainly sharper and more accurate colors.

>>4717620

How dare you make that comparison, brainlet. S-video is definitely superior given that RGB uses sync-on-composite in most cases and gives you a checkerboard pattern.

Why is this board so autistic?

>>4725798
It's irrational (muh nostalgia) justification for irrational (and in this case secret) elitism. It's where people go when they don't know where to actually expand their experiences

>>4719247
>>4723317
>dumb tripfag doesn't know about Sony's AG CRT PC monitors

>>4725814
>gives you a checkerboard pattern
Only if you're using shitty chink cables. A properly shielded cable will not produce checkerboarding with sync on composite video. Poorly made S-Video cables are also subject to checkerboarding, for the exact same reason.

>>4723317
>VGA CRTs ave physical dots visible at typical play distances of 18-36 inches away, no matter how high the resolution and how advanced the shader you simulate the grille with is
well that's complete bullshit

>>4725857
One of the posts you quoted literally mentions Sony VGA CRTs in it. Looks good though, now I want to pick one up even more can you post a macro shot that shows the grille more closely?

>>4725958
You must have terrible eyes

>>4725814
sync-signal from s-video or composhit is the same

>>4725958
Yeah from personal experience with my CRT Monitor at high resolutions I don't see these individual dots. Idk if it's because it's an aperture grille or something but I sit pretty close to my monitor I imagine I would have observed that

>>4717860
What game is that?

>>4727536
sonic the hedgehog

Human eyes have a much easier time seeing differences in shades rather than colors so composite to s-video is a much bigger leap than s-video to component.

>>4717620
S-Video destroys the game's effects...

There's no other way to play older games than Composite. That's a fact.

>>4727696

>>4727698

Some people don't like the checkerboard effect of S-video, but unless your hardware supports component or digital output, S-video is about as close as you can get to a pixel-perfect image. Composite is just too blurry, and it makes dithered tiles look like bleeding color masses rather than pixels.

>>4727696
>There's no other way to play older games than Composite. That's a fact.
I play older games in RGB every day, so you're wrong.

>>4727698
>>4727702
Yes, the differences is great. The S-Video one is completely dithered.

>>4728523
Not him but I prefer the cleaner dithered look in the first video.

>>4728578
Who cares what you prefer? What's important is YOU'RE HAVING FUN WRONG.

>>4728589
Ohh fuck. That's what I was worried about too. Like, it's fun when I play and I like the way it looks... but I can't get that voice in my head to stop obsessing that I might be doing it wrong. Am I doing everything possible to be authentic? What if I'm not being authentic enough? Can I really say I played it?? Help!

>>4728589
>implying you can't have a discussion over aesthetic differences

>>4728589
>>4728523
>>4727702
>>4727698
Okay, but it's very clear that SEGA used the dithering pattern to create effects over composite.

New colors, transparency and other effects are proof of that.

We're just seeing a .gif, but there're other artifacts that a common CRT, a consumer grade one, introduces over one of that professional ones.

People need to understand that this was the standard, and the end user that the companies had in mind when creating the games.

>>4728935
>.gif
how fucking new are you

>>4722560
>>4722771

Yeah that works on high end, high resolution monitors that can do the maximum VGA resolution, so there is plenty for pixels for the shader to draw the CRT phosphors and raster scan.

But for lower end CRTs like those 17-inch ones that only do up to 1280x1024 @ 60Hz (or 1440x1080 @ 60Hz with custom resolutions), that doesn't really work so well, so the native 240p @ 120Hz or the 480p+interlacing approach works better on those monitors.

What is the best s video cable for a nintendo 64?

>>4727698
You should get acquainted with deinterlacing, son.

>>4727698
>>4730049
Sorry, it was driving me crazy. By the way:

>>4727702
If this is indeed composite those dithered patterns should NOT appear. Is this the 32X version? Because I don't think it's running in H32 mode but that would be the only reason for the dithered patterns showing up on composite. I don't have a 32X so I couldn't test stuff myself, but it is likely the injected footage from the 32X isn't given the same treatment as the (low-passed) footage from VDP. To support this, the sky seems fairly undithered, and I'm sure that comes from the VDP side.

>>4730025
an OEM one
but honestly it doesn't make much difference on N64, it works best for SNES