/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5390753
>my lcd is capable of producing darker blacks than the game is programmed to display.
So your game has grayish blacks. Whatever conclusion you draw from this comparison means shit

Zoomer faggot. That’s all.

>>5390771

>>Crt apologist

>>5390753
Is the darker black the 4:3 pillar box on your TV? If so that might not be a good comparison. Your TV may be able to turn those pixels off in that area, but it probably can't do that on a per pixel basis in the active display portion of the screen. CRTs and Plasmas can both do that which is why they typically have better blacks.

That aside, the main reason people like CRTs for retro games isn't really the colors, it's the lack of signal processing and upscaling which on LCDs can add in additional input lag and scaling artifacts. CRTs are also a lot more lenient on signals that aren't 100% in spec. For example the Neo Geo doesn't actually put out an NTSC compliant signal. The clock is a tad bit off. CRTs will still display this just fine, however quite a few LCDs will flat out refuse to display it.

>>5390753
There's no such thing as a "pure black". Not even a double nigger like you. Your pic related shows that you're incapable of understanding what you're talking about. A common problem with dumb underage like you. I'm sorry you're so buttblasted because your mom won't let you have a CRT in your room but there's really no excuse to take it out on others by shitting up the board with your shitpost.

>>5390802

CRTs are great because of now image processing, you’re right. I’m just sick of this board shilling lies that a crt can produce pure black, which it can’t. A crt gun has a minimum level it can run at, which isn’t pure black. People on the board claim that the gun will produce no beam when sweeping across pixels that are meant to be black, but this is not the case.

>>5390813

Thanks for putting down your crack pipe long enough to type that gibberish out

>>5390753
It's really not the colors, the biggest issue is the dogshit scaling and lag.

>>5390825
>>5390802

These two posts make complete sense. I completely agree that CrT tvs do t have scaling and lag issues, that is undeniably true. Too many dick weeds here don’t understand black levels though

CRTs cause more eye strain and look like shit. I use a LCD so I can enjoy the artwork of my video games displayed clearly.

>>5390849
RGB will look razor sharp on a CRT. And a well calibrated CRT won't cause as much eye strain.

I don't know that I care about muh black levels. I just strongly prefer the way CRTs smooth out the image.

>>5390860
>>5390876
So do you go for razor sharp or smoothing out? CRT fags can't even keep their stories straight.

>>5390903
Different people have different tastes.

Crazy concept really.

>>5390753
Pic related shows you're a dumbass who doesn't know how to set the black level on a display. inb4
>merely pretending

>>5390941

Wow you’re retarded

>>5390753
K

>>5390903
>all CRT users go for the same look

>>5390943
Yeah, probably, since I replied to obvious bait thread, but at least I know how to set the controls on my TV properly. If the darkest black being displayed doesn't match the black of the inactive portion of the screen, you haven't set the brightness/black level control correctly for that source. And you've gone and posted photographic evidence of your stupidity.

>>5390753
That could be a dark grey next to black, you didn’t provide RGB values of the color. CRT’s still have infinitely better contrast than LCD’s. Zoom back to >>>/v/

>>5390964
>all CRT users go for the same look
This is the common misconception with the contrarian trolls. I think that s-video provides the best visual experience. I have a few CRTs, and I prefer the slightly fuzzy one over the crisp one, though I like them both for different generations of consoles.

I think I understand the mentality of the #NeverCRT crowd. They want to be contrary, and they just enjoy being retarded on a board that is focused on electronics from before they were born that were designed to run on a CRT. I am not saying that an LCD cannot be made to look like a CRT, but it will never compete for that generation of games.

>>5390979

>>Could be dark grey next to black

It’s the black from background of stage 1 in legendary axe compared to off pixels. >>5390971

CRTs do not produce pure blacks, dumbass. Abusing brightness and contrast settings won’t make it so either, so fuck off zoomer

>>5391016
Dear Christ, you're actually retarded. I'm not talking about CRTs. I didn't once mention CRTs. I'm pointing out that your logic is completely flawed because you don't even know how to set the singly most important control on your fucking display. Your game's blacks look gray because of a video levels mismatch. You're inputting limited range into a device that's expecting full range, hence black being displayed as gray. It's one of the easiest to spot video errors there is and should be noticeable even to a complete novice. Pic related was taken from an LCD; the left is set to RGB full range (incorrect), the right, RGB limited range (correct). Notice how on the correct image the black in the game matches the black pillarbox bar? My point is that you're not in the least bit qualified to make statements about display technologies when you don't even understand the most basic principles of video to begin with.

Anyway 7/10 bait, you got me to pull out my camera.

>>5390820
>>5390943
>called out for being clueless
>ill act like I child to how smart i am
Mission accomplished. Proved you're an ignorant fucktard

>>5391016
>pure blacks
There's the dumb zoomer with his retarded youtube terms again. Off you go kiddo.

>>5390903
This is "razor sharp". NES doesn't get better than this.

>>5390903
I use the highest video quality possible. Looks pretty sharp to me.

>>5390860
What the fuck is this eye strain meme?

>>5391430
The low refresh rate destroys your eyes. If you can't feel it, you don't have sensitive eyes.

>>5391243
You can recreate that look with CRT Royale really easily.

>>5390753
CRT's and Plasmas will always have better blacks than an LCD because of the way light is generated. This is indisputable. An OLED is a completely different story however and curb stomps all prior technology in every possible way. Either way a good LED/LCD panel has extremely good zone control and black levels that come close to a high end Plasma/CRT. There's not a lot of reason to use a CRT anymore when superior technology has existed for some time.

>>5391460
CRT computer monitors run at higher refresh rates than flat screens.

>>5391464
How about this look?

>>5391478
CRT's just don't run at a higher refresh rate than a modern flat screen. Like at all. What is this shit?

>>5391464
That's emulation though.

>>5391489
For example, the monitor in the pic I posted was running at 160 Hz at the time. Most monitors less than 25 years old can exceed 100 Hz. I believe in extreme cases over 300 Hz has been achieved. And this is just progressive scan. Interlaced mode gives both high refresh and resolution.

>>5391478
Obviously most people here are interested in low-refresh rate TVs not computer monitors, but way to cherry pick. I guess this includes you, since the pic you used is has "trinitron" in the name.

The pic is too zoomed in (and possibly rotated?) so I can't really see what's going on, but any degrading artifacts to the visual image can be replicated with software.

Trinitrons like yours make my eyes water if I play for more than 20 minutes. The flickering is bad. And I don't like how it looks like there's a screen door in front of the image, but again, one could always add that in software.

>>5391492
Emulation is superior as you can play with less input lag however you can add video shaders to the image from original hardware going to and LCD/OLED if you really wanted. That would be retarded but I wouldn't put it past some people here.

>>5391494
Unless you're buying cheap trash you're not going to find a solid LCD made that is anything but 240hz with proper support for 3:2 pulldown. That's not even factoring in things like freesync. The features available by simply using a device from this century are ridiculous compared to old CRT's. This is such a stupid argument.

>>5391501
Oh here we go with that meme shit again. Emufags should be gassed

>>5391497
I disagree about your view that a CRT image is replicable in software on account that what distinguishes a CRT's image is not only the "artifacts," but also the contrast ratio which is a function of its unique hardware, something that no software could create on a monitor with inferior luminescence technology.

>>5391503
Your neophilic appeals are most unbecoming for not only this thread, but this board.

>>5391539
OLED's and LCD's have better contrast ratios than CRT's. Why do all you retards act like we're still dealing with 2004 era LCD panels or something?

>>5391539
>maybe if I use fancy words people will think I'm credible
Your claim is "No software" could create the "contrast ratio" of CRTs?

Let's try again, can you specifically describe the technical/visual aspect of a CRT which is forever impossible to recreate in software and then be displayed on a high-res OLED?

>>5391539
You presented an aspect of CRT's you thought was superior. I pointed out how the vast majority of modern panels have far surpassed that. It isn't about it being novel. Things get better over time. I played exclusively on an ST60 before upgrading to my LG OLED. Both are far superior to any PVM/Consumer CRT in my possession and far more versatile. Hell I'd even rather play on the 75" LED LCD in my living room and just sacrifice the slightly worse black levels for convenience alone. It's just such a ridiculous argument to make.

>>5391460
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever read.

>>5391550
Typical flat screens have a contrast ratio of 1000:1. Many CRTs exceed 50000:1, and this is without any of the "DCR" tomfoolery.

>>5391552
All reproductions break down at the microscopic/microtemporal level. Look at scanning techniques and phosphor and aperture grille structures.

>>5391565
The so-called improvements have come at a cost to other aspects. You mention that your LCD is more versatile than the CRT. This is interesting, because generally CRTs are more forgiving in the timing signals they accept, whereas LCDs often will refuse to display any image at all if there is variance in the signal. Not to mention the necessity of constant pillarboxing.
>Things get better over time
There is no reason to believe this is true.

>>5391583
I can hookup a wide variety of old PC's, arcade boards or consoles to my OLED with minimal conversion. You try hooking up an EGA device to a VGA monitor and tell me what happens. And what kind of shitty ass flat screen are you talking about with a contrast ratio of 1000:1? You're just making things up. Do you even know how OLED's or Plasmas work at all? And what's the problem with pillar boxing when you can have a fucking 80" screen versus the tiny 20-30" CRT's people post on here? Your argument is based around things that are either made up or complete misunderstandings on your part.

>>5391583
Miscroscopic? Now your eyes can see microscopic differences between an OLED and a CRT? Scanning/phosphor/grille effects are impossible to code?

>>5391593
For example, this recent model, which has the extolled virtues of "240 Hz" and "G-Sync" has a 1000:1 contrast ratio as do the majority of displays on the market.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/252893783967
It is because I am familiar with OLEDs that I warn against pillarboxing as extended static images cause screen burn in per this recent article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2018/12/04/oled-screen-burn-is-there-a-ticking-time-bomb-inside-your-tv/
The size question is inconsequential. You may have a larger screen, but what makes that inherently desirable under any conditions? It requires a larger space, negating the size advantages of LCDs and negates the advantage of power consumption that LCDs.

>>5391603
Precisely. The macro is conditioned by the micro. The essence of those objects can never be projected, only inferior attempts.

>>5391593
>And what kind of shitty ass flat screen are you talking about with a contrast ratio of 1000:1?
IPS hoved at 1200-1500:1, but with good color rating.
VA hovers at can go up to 4000-5000, but generally are stuck at 2000:1 due economic constraints.
Nevermind sample-and-hold display technology leading to needing 240hz monitors to avoid extreme amounts of ghosting.

>>5391634
You need "the essence" and a version which is indistinguishable with blind A/B testing isn't enough for you?

>>5391634
>"But at Chad's house-"
>"It is because I am familiar with OLEDs that I warn against pillarboxing as extended static images cause screen burn. Chad may have a larger screen, but what makes that inherently desirable under any conditions? It requires a larger space, negating the size advantages of LCDs and negates the advantage of power consumption that LCDs."

>>5391656
That idea that something like these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTtKSQ_U5Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPyZ7ZFZhY
is indistinguishable from a CRT is frankly laughable.

>>5390753
K cool.

I'll just continue playing my old games on a CRT, thank you berry much.

>>5391583
Get a load of this kid

>>5391671
You picked bad ones so here's a better example, and if you don't like something about it you can customize the picture more than the knobs on your CRT will let you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrKpMjy638 Looks pretty nice on a huge OLED screen with the brightness up, give it a try some time.

>>5391232

When I read your post, all I could imagine was this short acne-covered virgin with long dirty hair posting on a shitty thinkpad while eating chicken tenders. You probable also let out a REEEE too.

>>5391062

>> Thinks all LCD TVs have a way to switch between RGB limited and full range

You also can’t switch between limited and full range in lakka settings. I’ll just here while you reee since it’s impossible to prove me wrong

LCDs historically have had shitty color and/or blacks, but that's changed now with higher quality ips/va, and oled. I do prefer CRT in some ways but all the people defending "CRT blacks" must use them exclusively in caves. Any light around and theyre glossy grayish eyesores.

>>5391478
>>5391430
CRT refresh rate is much worse than LCD, which has higher persistence. This, ironically, is why early LCDs were rubbish due to "ghosting", but it also meant no 60Hz flickering. I honestly can't understand how people can put up with 50-60Hz CRTs - at all. 20 years ago nobody i knew playing PC games put up with <85Hz on their monitor.

>>5391901
>When I read your post, all I could imagine was myself
Figures. Projecting is the national sport of your degeneration

>>5392105
Nice, I hit a nerve. Give me another (you) with some more 4chan cliches, you’re my little bitch and can’t resist

>>5390986
>unsolvable
>implying original systems didn't have input lag
>implying it has been experimentally proven already that proper set up produces exactly same lag as original system
>implying that we now don't have a technique that can eliminate even that lag, making game play better than on original hardware

>>5391678
Exactly man. I'd rather play my games and enjoy them however I can that waste my time in some autism battle royale.

>>5391678
Exactly man. I'll enjoy actually playing my games instead of competing is this autism battle royale shit.

>>5390753
I hope this is poor bait, because (You)'d have to be pretty dumb to not know how to adjust the settings on a crt.

>Hur de durrr I have the brightness and contrast cranked way up, why are my blacks gray?

>>5392213
I have a few CRTs and they're still not 100% black. The bigger problem is that they're very susceptible to light interference so it tends to look greyer unless you play it in pure darkness

>>5391243
>This is "razor sharp". NES doesn't get better than this.

This isn't trolling but I don't like the look. I have a PVM but I only use it for 16 bit and newer. I'm not saying your pic is bad, just that I prefer composite to a consumer set for NES. To me 8 bit ends up looking too sterile on a PVM.

>>5391465
Did they ever address the issue with OLEDs where the blues degraded much faster than the other colors? That's one of the main reasons I've not gotten one to replace my Plasma as I don't want a TV that in 5-10 years will have screwed up colors.

>>5392264
I can see that argument. Thanks for expressing an opinion without being a cunt about it. Maybe there's hope for this board after all.

>>5391718
The implication here is that the amount of customization means that a satisfying solution is possible. My point is that no amount of customization will be sufficient to duplicate the experience of an authentic CRT given the starting points. I don't want to be antagonistic, and I recognize that OLEDs indeed have very high picture quality, so let's leave it at that.

>>5391971
On the one hand, CRT televisions were usually built with higher persistence phosphors than computer monitors to compensate for their lower refresh rates. On the other, CRT computer monitors have lower phosphor persistence which made them so popular in the FPS community. I expect the cause for the lack of use of monitors at <85 Hz 20 years ago was not necessarily due to the unbearable flickering, but because the hardware could not provide frame rates sufficient to saturate, say, 1600x1200@75Hz. 75 Hz in itself is not bad at all, at least in my experience.

>>5392253
Set up bias lighting so you don't have to play in absolute darkness. It will reduce eye strain, among other things. If possible, use bulbs whose color temperature matches the white point balance of your display.

>>5392298
Speaking from experience - frame tearing is much less of a problem on CRT, so even if game was running 60 fps, using 100Hz on a monitor was always more pleasing to the eye.

>>5391971
>but that's changed now with higher quality ips/va
Thats only a 8x improvement anon. WTF
Thats terrible
You go from 600/700 with late 90s LCDs, to maybe 2000 on regular monitors. 4000 if you can buy a far more expensive one.
And thats as high as they go. You could get a full backlight one for the neat price of €5000, with otherwise terrible specs.

I don't know much about the subject, but this thread has gotten me wondering if there's any way to use a filter like CRT-Royale with a console.

>>5392298
Good point re TVs having higher persistence, i hadn't considered that. My experience is that in the 90s most tech savvy people all ran their monitors at 85Hz minimum, i don't remember if we had vsync but perhaps we just put up with tearing in games. When i encountered non-tech people with a monitor at 60Hz and offered to up their refresh rate, they would (usually) notice the difference.

>>5392703
Ive never had or seen a matt CRT that wasnt screwed by reflections or excess ambient light (destroying the potential good blacks). I remember being frustrated a lot and having to reposition my computer montiors/TVs to avoid reflecting windows/lights. I also remember most of my CRTs not having as nice a picture as my mid-range IPS currently, and nowhere near the OLED tvs in stores currently. Perhaps the high-end CRTs were much better than what i owned (mid-range and cheapies).

>>5392863

The old IBM PS/2 Era monitors weren't bad with their matte finishes. They didn't really have much of a reflection issue from what I can recall. When adjusted right they have a sort of paper white look to them, so they don't strain your eyes anymore than reading on paper. This was especially true with the monochrome variants.

Though for games this probably isn't desirable as the image might be a bit too dark requiring you to up the brightness/contrast. Though that makes sense since they were aimed more at businesses.

>>5392253
>things reflect light
A nobel prize for this lad

>>5393138
>he thinks screens' visual properties aren't a factor in picture quality

>>5393312
>he can't readingcomprehension
There's always at least one in every thread

>>5391514
>Wanted to post my oc
>Someone else is using it already
MFW

>>5392863
>Perhaps the high-end CRTs were much better than what i owned (mid-range and cheapies).
I have been lucky enough to always own a trinitron monitor, and this plays a part in my judgement of LCDs. You are correct that people can and do notice a CRT changing 25hz from 16 to 85. I really spoiled myself by running lower resolutions at higher refresh rates. In 2001 I found a GDM Fw900 nearby for cheap, and it ruined all LCDs for me. 120 hz 1280x800 on a crt with vsync looks amazing. However....It died recently, and I have been using a 144hz asus as a replacement. There is still no comparison, but I found that ToastyX made a utility called strobe-light which helps (120hz strobe). For as much as I love CRTs, for now this is acceptable. Eventually I will replace the transformer in the Sony.

Though I am partial to Sony branded CRTs for computers, I know there are many outstanding models made by others. Knowing what models to look for helps, as there are quite a few IBM & Dells that are trinitrons.

>>5391514
>>5393470
>genuinely thinks that's a good meme
How embarassing.
>>5393631
The FW900 meme isn't that great.

>>5390753
Here is my post that will not be read because it is too late to this thread. It will address various things.

>old games don't have true blacks
This is often true if you play the game on a device which has been calibrated for North American NTSC video. However, nothing stops you from simply reducing the black level of your display so that the game's black is as black as the display supports, and this is what anyone "back in the day" would have done by simply reaching forward and turning a couple of contrast and brightness knobs. You should do the same.

>CRTs "blend" the image
It should not do this if the CRT is capable of fully resolving the signal resolution. If it is blending pixels then you are not properly displaying the image and I personally don't think any game was ever designed to be played on a screen which cannot resolve the source signal resolution.

What people mistakenly believe to be blending is in fact noise and lack of signal quality, and this was taken advantage of by developers to do lots of fun tricks.

If you play games on a high spec CRT it will look razor sharp like an LCD. This includes a lack of scanlines because when the CRT is pushed to the limit of the screen pitch there is practically no black space between lines drawn on the screen by the SEG, which is the true scanline.

Due to the way CRT phosphors fade there is a certain CRT look that LCDs do not possess, which many people find aesthetically pleasing. In CRTs with fast fading phosphors this effect is diminished, and you start to get an image which does look very LCD-like, particularly LCDs which do not have a matte anti-glare coating and have tempered glass in front of the screen.

>pixel shaders will recreate the look of a CRT
In a static image they can do a good job. But the instant the screen begins moving the effects of LCD response time become apparent, as well as the difference between phosphor decay time vs LCD pixel response becomes apparent. 1/2

>>5393652
on games with a black background the effects of LCD backlighting also become apparent. Additional to that the viewing angles on LCD monitors prevent them from being used well in 3:4 (vertical orientation) a lot of the time. Putting an LCD in a cocktail arcade cabinet can be a challenge.

Putting smoked glass in front of an LCD can improve the contrast level considerably. But it will also dim image. It's up to you. It also works with CRTs.

>>5393651
>The FW900 meme isn't that great.

>>5393652
>>5393659
>complaining about response time, viewing angles, and over-using the phosphor buzzword
No one's buying your shit old man.

>>5393664
>retro gaming
>widescreen aspect ratio
>awkward resolution
>next to other nice CRTs, displaying low res images, doesn't actually look any better in person

>>5393669

>>5393665
yeah imagine him complaining about relevant things, what a dufus, your cheap default setup is just as good just keep saying it.

>>5393696
just post a pic of your FW900 next to another CRT for comparison and let the world judge.

>>5393719

>>5393665
I never complained about response time. I said there was a difference in how phosphors decay vs how pixels respond.

When a CRT draws an image it draws every frame every time it refreshes, whether there is movement in the frame or not.

An LCD monitor only changes the pixel response if it is necessary. A pixel may stay lit over subsequent frames if the color called remains the same.

Even with a 1ms response time this fundamental difference in the two technologies will make them appear different in practice, even on static images. And it goes beyond simple notions of flicker.

CRTs also have glass in front of the phosphor which changes the properties of the light emitted in ways LCD can never match. This is an at the moment unquantifiable thing that I predict people will become very autistic over in the future. If you don't believe me look up the term micro contrast when it comes to camera lenses and see people arguing about that for decades.

Phosphor is an essential part of a CRT monitor or TV and thinking it's a buzzword is stupid.

>>5393884
You're describing things you've read about and think you can see, but can't. If people become very autistic about anything it will be avoiding the (literal) cancer and harm to the human eyes that CRTs cause.

>>5393927
>If people become very autistic about anything it will be avoiding the (literal) cancer and harm to the human eyes that CRTs cause.
cite literally any serious research that shows CRT are a danger to a person's health for this reason other than click bait "electronics cause RADIATION??!!!" dumb shit articles.

>>5394117
cite anything saying certain visual effects from CRTs are impossible to replicate with code in a shader/filter

>>5394120
I don't have to because it's something based off of a person's subjective opinion.

On the other hand the levels of radiation emitted by a CRT is something that can be quantitatively measured and compared against the safe level of yearly exposure. Your request is not equivalent to mine.

Anyway, I was too polite before: you're a dumb fuck if you believe there's any danger to using CRT displays and lack any sense of the science behind radiation, or electronics in general.

>>5391651
This image always gets me. That appears to be a line out setup, and MacBooks only have line out at 16bit/48kHz, which covers the human hearing spectrum, then he hooks it up to a bunch of snake oily 24bit/96kHz equipment that just adds noise and probably swears by it.

>>5394195
I wasn't literally saying I believe there's a danger in using CRTs. I have no idea. I was saying, it's more likely people would be concerned with that, then whatever non-existent visual features you're going on about.

Let's get back to the subject. Your claim of microscopic, phosphor-related visual features is interesting. Do you concede these *can* (scientifically possible) be replicated in software, so closely that an unbiased person in a blind A/B test couldn't decide which was subjectively more pleasing?

>>5394245
Wrong and uninformed.

>>5394245
That's a USB line. He's sending the audio file to his receiver with it.

>>5394328
The software isn't the limiting factor, it's the technology of the display device. All the shaders in the world can't make an LCD not an LCD.

>>5393884
>A pixel may stay lit
It also may not. Hopefully not. But maybe you're trying so hard to be an oldfag that you're playing on 90's LCD. Whatever the case you're a fucking goof.

>>5394349
Erm ok then buddy, so Yes or No?

>>5390753
>my lcd is capable of producing darker blacks than the game is programmed to display.

>>5391671
>>5391718
*motion blur intensifies*

>>5394656
Dumbass, posting the wrong answer on the Internet is a quicker way to the right answer than just asking the question. People here don’t respond to actual questions, they only like bait apparantly. >>5391062 gave me the answer I wanted after I baited him enough. Now I have fixed my LCD black levels. It’s kinda like this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIRucMIxwM8

>>5394771
Brainlet single digit IQ retard.

>>5394774
Here’s your (you)

>>5394806
Here's yours, you stupid retard.

>>5394771
>I was only pretending to be retarded.

>>5395012
Joke's on you I never even pretended.

>>5390753
>The darkest “black” in a game never results in a pure black image.
That's coz you're using an LCD, idiot.

>>5394328
>Do you concede these *can* (scientifically possible) be replicated in software,
They can't be replicated in software for the reason referenced here>>5394349

>so closely that an unbiased person in a blind A/B test couldn't decide which was subjectively more pleasing?
You can already do this without needing any theoretical advancements in software or LCD technology. Because it's subjective.

You've taken the implication somewhere that I am arguing for the superiority of CRTs when in fact I have not. I have pointed out that there are differences between them and LCDs that cannot currently be adequately simulated through software. That is not subjective imo. The two display technologies are widely different. Even with some theoretical super-LCD with extremely high resolution, refresh rate, and response times you still can't get over the mountain. It's still going to be an LCD. Your eyes are not going to be tricked because there are particle physics at work in this matter when we're talking about light passing through the CRT glass.
>inb4 we'll just simulate that too
at this point the idea becomes absurd

>>5391243
wow looks like an emulator, nice job

>>5395364
We will simulate those things, though.

>>5391243
>NES doesn't get better than this.
it can be sharper

>>5395868
It definitely can. I’m convinced they’re using a consumer set.