/vr/ - Retro Games

>>570065
Bilinear is ok if you're playing the game with your casual friends. Here, let me end this thread prematurely. All of this is undisputable, despite what some shitheaded tripfag hipsters may say about their ass-ugly scanline filters:

BEST: real console on a sub-par CRT.
GOOD: real console on a good CRT.
PASSABLE: emulated, LCD, unfiltered.
ALSO PASSABLE: bilinear filter, NTCS filter.
SHIT: scanlines; hq2x, Eagle etc.

Pic unrelated.

If you use filters and don't use the correct aspect ration you are a moron.

Shitposting general

>>570082
Really, I think it has more to do with the game itself. Obviously when it comes down to it, playing on the actual system is the best but as far as emulation goes I think some games look better with different filters, some look good with scanlines and some look good without any filter at all.

>>570089
The correct aspect ratio is 4:3. Internal rendering resolution =/= real aspect ratio, you goddamn idiot.

>>570096
Occasionally, a game would look really nice with scanlines... but it still looks better without them.

>>570090
You're the only one shitposting.

>>570097
Huh? Who is saying that 4:3 isn't the correct aspect ratio?
The image you replied to shows that at 4:3 the moon looks round, as it should.

>>570097
I think that's his point. Looked at how squished the moon looks in the second image.

>>570082
Scanlines done subtly and done right are great. I've just yet to see an example of that come from anything but a hardware scanline generator.

A NTSC filter is necessary to enjoy the graphics as the artists intended to be watched and avoid a pixelated mess.

>>570296
Pixelated mess is pixelated.

>>570296
>>570313
Hey look, it's this troll again.

>>570296
>>570313
Smudged mess is smudged.

Never forget:
You have to be at 2 meters~ to make it look good.

Played some pic related on my bed at 2 meters of the screens, it looked really really great.

That just looks like bloom n blur.

Wait wait wait wait wait
you guys are purposely making your games look worse?

>>570107
> Make the same troll threads every day across the /v/ boards
> IT'S NOT SHITPOSTING GUYS

>>570354

No. It's making them look a lot more accurate.

Have you ever seen how these consoles look hooke dup to a CRT? Better/Worse is perspective but it's definitely more accurate.

>>570338
>Emulating a ridiculous amount of tube distortion like you're playing on a 1950s fishbowl TV.
>Not doing anything to blur in the obvious dithering for proper transparencies, etc.
I can't tell who's trolling anymore

>>570354
eh I don't really get the point of super smudging everything and then slapping bigass scanlines on top, but a little bit of RGB cable fuzz makes it feel... warmer?
it's all opinions and personal preferences, though

>>570362

>>570361
Accurate to what? the fact that TVs used to look horrible?
Why in the hell would you make your game look blurry and fuzzy and shit? it's like not wearing glasses, because that's how you used to see before you got them

>>570361
The horrible distorted messes that people post on here look nothing like the games running on an actual CRT, especially to Euro or Jap eyes that are used to a nice clean RGB signal from their consoles.

Minimal weight scanlines and a very subtle filter like Blargg's RGB are about as close as I've seen and even that's some way off.

>>570368

Accurate to how they were designed to be displayed.

The artists created the graphics and designed the levels based on the quality of the average TV, its aspect ratio etc.

Some games just look completely wrong without filters. It's like if you could set films to unblur the fore/background, you would lose the intended affect the director wanted you to see.

>>570378
Blarrgs S-Video is closer.

>>570368
I agree.
Who would want to ruin this amazing pixel art lighting. You can't get better than that.

>>570378

Well it depends on the TV etc but yeah, I agree but it's not (and can never be) objective ultimate accuracy, it's more of a homage, how it looks in your memories etc.

I actually have a CRT next to me and copied how that looks when running my mega drive for filters but it'll never be perfect but it's more playable to me that way.

>>570368
People are obsessed with "Accuracy". Personally I use what looks good and that's it.

>>570385
Show me a single game that actually looks better if it's blurry as hell.
It's not like if you could set films to unblur the foreground or background, it's like if you could sharpen it in general, clarify the sound, etc.
Do you fuck with your sound too, so that it sounds like shitty old TV speakers?
Because you certainly didn't hear perfectly crisp chiptune like you do now.

>>570404

>pixel art

Right no wonder you don't get it. You're probably too young to own this game on a console.

Just going to take a picture of Streets of rage running on my TV...

>>570404
Look at how they completely ruined the amazing lighting with these shitty filters.
Can't even make out the fucking individual pixels of the light anymore. Fucking garbage. Who would want to play like this? Looks nothing like how it's supposed to look.

>>570415
at the price of absolutely everything else being painful to look at

>>570415
I'm not sure you even know who you're arguing with anymore...

>>570410

I actually do have the sound at a similar quality of the console I'm emulating, yes.

I actually started using scanlines, and after about a minute you barely notice them. Not sure if they look better, because I didn't have visible scanlines on my TV in my youth. The idea of scanlines was completely alien to me when I discovered emulation.

Are there any games that use the quality of CRTs to make it look better? Any games that the developers intentionally designed to use the CRT quality to their advantage?

>>570440
very few
very very few.

>>570441
Can I get some examples? I'm curious.

>>570338
I'm going to take a wild guess that you didn't play these games back in the day. When I was a kid I sat on the floor close to the screen and it looked good from there, also there were no hipster scanlines all over the screen.

>>570453
I think waterfalls in Sonic were supposed to blend together, even though the two tones works really well with the general checkerboard theme that goes through the game

>>570441
>all of them
>very few

>>570473
Play Mega Man 6 and tell me that it looks better blurry and desaturated.

>>570440
Lots. Absolutely shitloads. Just about any game that uses dithering to produce 'extra' colours or for transparencies - a good portion of the 16-bit library. Look at the SoR shots that have been posted, particularly the windows or the light in the club level, etc. The pipes in world 2 of Sonic 2 are another good example of dithering for transparency.

On an emulator or with a 'clean' RGB signal you'll see stippled dots. On a composite display they're blended by the blur and you'll see a third colour or the intended transparency.

It's worth noting it's not so much about CRT vs non-CRT, it's more about composite vs sharper signals like RGB over SCART.

>>570498
except not that many games used dithering at all.
That screenshot really shows the double edged sword, because even though the road looks better, the text is nearly illegible.

>>570498
There're more good examples of the difference here:
http://www.chrismcovell.com/gotRGB/rgb_compare.html

Plenty of people prefer RGB stippling and all, and I'm certainly one of them, but it would be difficult to argue that mountains of games didn't take the blurring of regular NTSC-over-composite in to account when designing art assets.

Us Eurofags and the Japanese were lucky enough to have a choice, whereas I'm told RGB support was far rarer in the US. I guess s-video might be a nice halfway house between the two, though I've almost no experience on that front.

>>570513
>except not that many games used dithering at all.
Rubbish. It IS usually far more pronounced on the Mega Drive than the SNES thanks to the more limited palette and the fact that it couldn't do 'real' transparency, but there's not much 16-bit era stuff with NO dithering.

>That screenshot really shows the double edged sword, because even though the road looks better, the text is nearly illegible.
Indeed. It's a trade-off, and personally I'd rather have the clarity of RGB even with its problems. Pretending people didn't design around the knowledge most would be playing via composite NTSC would be crazy, though.

>>570520
RGB tends to look flatter, also good RGB makes it impossible to have 'roundish' things.
Interestingly enough, with RF or Composite on an actual old TV on the old systems, it looks closer to blarrgs S-Video filter than blarrgs composite.

Filters are unimportant. VGA DOS games used the same art techniques as console games, including dithering. VGA resolutions of 320x200 and 320x240 (the two most common resolutions for VGA games) were line doubled, so you had clear pixels and no scanlines. This proves filters are not essential.

CRT flicker or simulated (eg. black frame insertion) CRT-style flicker is much more important for any game that runs at 60fps (most 3rd and 4th gen. games do). Flicker is the only way to get sharp looking motion without sample-and-hold blur. Most LCDs can't display this.

>>570513
That sight has some pretty awful composite for some reason.

>>570567
> so you had clear pixels and no scanlines.
Yeah you did.

>>570574
>site
derp

>>570567
>hurr, durr, other systems with different characteristics look different
>hurr durr, this proves filters are unimportant

>>570567
>VGA resolutions of 320x200 and 320x240 were line doubled

Ever owned a real VGA card?

>>570574
A lot of it is that the Genesis 1 had particularly bad composite output. That and the fact you're looking at captures direct from the console that hide some of the slight natural blur the RGB signal would go through when displayed on an actual CRT due to light bleed and such. Makes the difference between the two look slightly more stark than it is in real conditions.

>>570567
>VGA resolutions of 320x200 and 320x240 (the two most common resolutions for VGA games) were line doubled, so you had clear pixels and no scanlines.

>Standard VGA text mode uses an 80x25 character display, rendered with a 9x16 pixel font, for an effective resolution of 720x400 in 16 colors.
You could clearly see scanlines in this mode especially, and yes VGA monitors did have scanlines. They were just more subtle.

>>570593
320x240 is a hack that doesn't even work properly on all video cards

>>570590
I'm saying that actual megadrive composite seems a bit sharper on an actual TV as the text rarely seems that illegible. Which generally wasn't the case most of the time.

>>570596
Some games even used 320x256 (Ken's Labyrinth comes to mind), but you needed a special kind of multi-sync monitor I recall.

>>570596
Or all monitors. It's very lucky that LCDs can't be harmed by indigestible video signals because CRTs made before about the mid-90s...nvm.

>>570585
Yes, and 320x200 had clear pixels with no visible scanlines.

>>570593
Scanlines are mostly caused by the interlacing hack to display 240p on a 480i CRT. It's not visible on most VGA monitors.

>>570628
Right...because NTSC is 200 lines while VGA is 400 lines

>>570635
NTSC is nominally 480 interlaced lines but because of overscan you're not necessarily going to see all of them. If you want progressive scan you have send all the fields with the same polarity to get 240p with obvious scanlines.

VGA is not intended to have overscan, but it's designed for multisync monitors and does 350 to 480 progressive scan lines. Lower resolutions (eg. 200 or 240 lines) are always line doubled.

>>570628
>It's not visible on most VGA monitors.
Over a dozen monitors on two dozen cards well over a dozen years. Always scanlines.
I guess, yeah not most VGA. Just most of them.

Pixellate > Nearest Neighbor

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/21199

Autism general?
Autism general.

>>570696
You had slight vertical variation in intensity. It's not "scanlines" like you get with console games.

>>570735
bricks should actually look like bricks general

>>570762
After seeing that I don't see how anyone can defend not using filters.

>>570762
>squishing the image

>>570789
see
>>570089

>>570082
God that's hot.

>>570065

Something was changed to the image on the left but I can't tell what it was for the life of me.

>>570848
Vaseline filter.

>>570665
>VGA is not intended to have overscan, but it's designed for multisync monitors and does 350 to 480 progressive scan lines

In fact straight VGA is not multisync and always runs at 31Khz (although the refresh rate is either 60 or 70Hz depending on the mode)

Some comparisons I made regarding CRT-Geom and Blargg's NTSC

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/21201
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/21203
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/21204
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/21205

>>570762
Now that's filtering done right.

Making your game ugly to masturbate to your nostalgia general?

>>570893
>Making your game ugly

Opinions
I think Nearest neigbhor is ugly past 2x

>>570779
It's not rocket science to cherrypick examples that look good with filters, there are thousands of games out there. I'm positive there are many games that look very bad with filters too.

>>570590
If you compare this image to their composite signal, it blurs it even more than the RF out does, and this isn't even the clearest shot possible.
Of course if they're gonna bitch about RGB vs composite and the RF is better, why wouldn't they just compare RF vs RGB. Especially given that RF was fairly fucking common.
About the only problem I noticed with RF really is that there is interference noise that's visible. Not sure if the switch I have has shielding and it the damn genesis and the RF box is sitting directly on top of a fucking wifi signal and across from another wifi signal and surrounded by a few wireless phone signals in relatively close proximity. So the noise I get is probably worse for that.

>>570914
Except that's how games actually fucking looked.
In many ways, those filters are actually sharper in some ways, not in others.

>>570897
>I think the same exact image is uglier when looking at it closer
Really?

>>570919

Yes. You aren't supposed to see it that close, makes the pixellation too obvious

>>570915
>If you compare this image to their composite signal, it blurs it even more than the RF out does

I thought it went the opposite.

>>570919
>>570924
see >>570338

>>570696

>>570918
Somebody posted a site with comparisons, if you use an RGB cable the game doesn't look like that, the pixels are much sharper. That's just the way the games look if you use that kind of filter.

ITT: Pixellation fetish vs Scanline fetish vs Smoothing fetish

That's all these threads ever are. Just use what you fucking like and shut the fuck up.

>>570937
>implying anyone likes smoothing filters
you're thinking of blurring, bud

>>570937
>YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS THINGS!

>>570932
That's a high quality image right there. The perfect picture to determine if a peculiar monitor had subtle scanlines.

>>570924
>makes the pixellation too obvious
No it doesn't.
It makes it exactly the fucking same.
It's a larger version of the same image. You need to do that to get the image larger on a larger display.
If you had a 9 billion foot TV that you viewed at the same ratio as you do a 32 inch TV with it upscaled nearest neighbor 9billion whatever, you'd see the same fucking image. No more blockier no less blockier.
Fuck off. You're probably the same fucking retard who got schooled last time on this very subject and went lalalalala...

>>570942
>not liking smoothing filters

You got shit taste son?

>>570924
That's it for me. Even though I've been playing games since the 80's on the original consoles I must've missed the text that said you had to be 2 meters away from the screen for the game to look good. Have fun

>>570953
That just looks really bad.

>>570952

You're a fucking retard.

If you increase the size of the image with nearest neighbor, you increase the size of the pixels. It is, by definition, not the same image.

Learn how scaling works before making stupid claims.

We should petition for making a filter thread a bannable offense. They are only full of shitposting.

>>570960

No it doesn't, you just have really shitty opinions.

>>570937
Actually, it's more like graphical accuracy fetish. Wanting it to look right. Having that information available without retards distorting the fact that games were made with this shit in mind.

>>570953
Awful.

>>570415
Fuck me that looks good actually. I was all the pixelated until this just because I hate the blurriness

>>570945

>MY FILTER > YOUR FILTER
>disussion

Fuck off

>>570953
There's a very few set of of games that shit looks okay on. It's otherwise rather horrid especially for motion artifacts, it SHOULD be done layer by layer to remove those artifacts, but they won't, it's all post-processing.

>>570963
Why are you so asshurt about this? Anyone with a brain knows smoothing is literally the worst sort of filter. At least scanline fags have the excuse of masturbating to their nostalgia.

>>570969
>IT'S NOT COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE SO IT DOESN'T COUNT AS DICUSSION!

Fucking learn to ignore threads you don't like faggot. It's a slow board, it's not hard.

>>570961
It's almost like you're actually mentally handicapped.

>>570981

You definitely are.

>>570415
The lighting is the only thing that really looks better.

>>570961
Here's your chance mr smarty fucking pants. Which one of these is nearest neighbor 4x.
Just look at the pixellated one and tell us which one it is.

On a somewhat related note, I have a Euro SNES (I'm from Belgium), and I'm wondering what is the best way to hook it up? So far I've always used one of the 2 in this picture...

>>570996
0/10

>>571007
0/10 is right. Because that's how well he can tell the difference.

>>570978

No these threads are objectively shitty.
Just like those ZSNES vs everything else threads

>>571006
Both of those are fine.

>>571012

It's 0/10 because it's a shitty troll because both of them are upscaled because the text is anti-aliased at 1x scale.

>>571013
>factual information is objectively shitty.
Someone's living in denial.

>>571013
So fucking ignore them.

>>570965

>>571013
the zsnes threads are troll threads. everything is better than zsnes.

>>570965
>>571023

>>571020
>the text is anti-aliased at 1x scale.
No it's not.

>>571017
Wouldn't this one be better?

>>571049

Yes, it it fucking is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_rasterization

>>571006
You want nothing other than glorious RGB.

>>571059

>>571059
No it's not.

>>571074

That one? >>571052

>>571097
Yes. Just please don't use the aerial.

>>571128
The aerial is okay.

>>570082
bilinear only looks good if you upscale otherwise shit is going to be unbearably blurry

also how come scanline filter is worse than lcd unfiltered
i know there is better on this time and age but for potato pc's scanline is bliss

pic related scanlines vs unfiltered

I can see why someone would like either, but I prefer nonfiltered unless I'm playing it on a real TV.

If you'd sit at the same distance from your monitor as your TV back then (just like the developers expected you to do), your eyes would magically filter (i.e. blur) the images themselves.

The fuck is wrong with you guys?

Play the game as it is so you can appreciate the sprite art as it was intended to be shown, not filled with blur and screen bulging and TV lines.

Next you'll want a film grain effect.

>>572629
It was intended to be shown on a TV.

>>570082
emulated, crt, unfiltered is how i role.... play.

>>570483
Thanks doc.

>>572635
It was intended to actually be seen.
Unless you're going to tell me now that they purposely made games bright and vivid and sharp and colorful so that they could look grey and blurry?

>>572629
Telly lines and film grain both look great.

>>572905
Actually, yes. There was no choice back in the day, no TV had high definition. The whole "Pixel Art" phenomenon appeared recently because of emulation and lack of blur, thus making all single pixels completely visible.

>>572905
Are a retard or what?
The display device is a TV, therefore the graphics were intended to be watched on a TV.

Well, it is true VGA-era DOS games didn't have big scanlines like console games on CRTs due to the line-doubling on VGA monitors, but on later, higher resolution CRT monitors, they would have looked something like this.

And no, it's not perfect, nor can it be at this resolution. It's but a rough approximation of CRT monitor-esque scanlines.

>>570730

I keep seeing this. What game is it?

>>570730
A non-retro game.

>>573013
Monitors were always high resolution though. DOS games were extremely pixelated, and you could see each individual one.

Not arguing that the looking at console games on an SD TV doesn't look way better, of course.

>>573258
Not always, they weren't. CGA and EGA monitors had scanlines. In fact, Amiga monitors display 240p content from consoles with scanlines just like a TV would. It wasn't until VGA and the 13h mode that those resolutions became associated with line-doubling.

>>573290
Depends on the era, I guess. When I was a kid, I liked PC games for the more in depth gameplay, and console games for multiplayer, better action, and usually, better graphics. Because stuff like DKC or Mortal Kombat 2 on SNES looked super smooth compared to DOS games.

>>573308
Indeed, it always annoyed me as a kid how computer games didn't seem as smooth as console games. I still had favorites like Indy 3 up there, but for the most part I stuck to consoles.

Anyway, here's Prince of Persia with the line-doubled look. Once again, not perfect, especially considering this is, as usual, more like a Trinitron monitor and not a dot triad one like most monitors were. Can't do better than this with current resolutions, though.

>>573251

That actually looks really good.

>>573342
I do like it myself, but the problem is, there is currently only one way to get that effect, and that's through RetroArch, and only the 32-bit version has a compiled core for some stupid reason. And the core itself is kinda unstable, as it crashes if I try to run Jazzy Jackrabbit.

>>572951
Only if it's nostalgic to you.

Anyone have a good experience with Seiken Densetsu 3 running on PSP?

I keep running into graphical oddities or glitches/slowdown on multiple emulators.

lookin' good

>>575473
One problem with SD3 and the PSP is that SD3 uses a high resolution mode fairly frequently and the PSP screen is too small for it. The other one is that SNES emulation on the PSP is not very good.

This board is accruing a great number of assholes that belong in /v/, incapable of civil discussion.

bamp

Now with video:
youtube.com/watch?v=DCQJ1DOaYiI

>>581354
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PhT9Q10Eo

>>581361
utube.com/watch?v=MyBWTt9sp0g

>>581361
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyBWTt9sp0g

>>581373
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LCqJGdonAM

>>581376
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8IEwBo6VUA

>>581354
>youtube.com/watch?v=DCQJ1DOaYiI
Fuck these sound effects and graphics are amazing.

>>570296

What's this game ? According to the text it looks like to be a good rpg.

>>581462

>>581497

At least I'm trying to discovers interesting games instead of making useless pics and comments. Now who is the faggot ?

>>581503
If you don't recognize that game at a glance you really belong in >>>/v/.

>>581376
That right there.
That is perfect.

>>581503
How about the guy who can't read filenames?

>>581373
Oh god, is that PhosphorLUT? That shader is just not good for sub-4K resolutions, man. It just ends up looking like ass.

>>581541
I POSTED IT AGAIN!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL XDDDD

>>581462
>>581503
That's Final Fantasy VI/III.
Arguably one of the best retro JPRGs.
Also, read the file name.

>>581549
>>581551
You're worse than him.

>>581541
COOOOOOMMMMMMMEDY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDD

>>581541
Haha its funny because its true:) just look at any pic they all look like shit :)

>>581556
lel, he deleted it

>>581462
Seriously fuck off, you should know this if you're going to go post on a board specifically for retro games. If that's so hard you could google image search it, type the text itself into google, or even just read the filename. There is a limit, anon, and you have long since broken it.

>>581623
4edgy8me

>>>/v/

>>581514
different guy, but I would rather see snide and hateful people go to /v/.

I'd answer a dozen stupid questions if it meant avoiding having to deal with an asshole like yourself.

>>581602
>>581556
Saved for posterity.

>>581623
almost got cut

>>570124
Kfusion lets you add anywhere between 25% and 100% scanlines. Everything looks pretty good at 25% imo.

>>581625
Google image search gives the name. The file name has the former name. There's a limit on how much one has to spoon feed /v/ermin. /a/ has the right idea and spoon feeding is frowned upon there unless gis gives nothing.

>>581630
>>581637
lol, butthurt samefag

>>581646
>/a/ has the right idea
are you even fucking listening to yourself?

and nobody said it wasn't a stupid question, but are you really gonna sit here and defend the kind of parasite shitposter who sits back and says >>581650 "hurp derp samefag" when people call him on his bullshit?

you can both get back in your cage, as far as I'm concerned.

>>581650
You'd be right if you were right.

Fuck you, i'll just write my own emulator.

What do you want it of, /vr/?

>>581676
I never called anyone a samefag, only post I made was >>581623 - but I stand by what I said there, he should know what Final Fantasy is if he's posting on a game dedicated to the discussion of retro games. Considering that the only rebuttal I'm given is a stupid catchphrase maybe I'm not the one who would be more at home on /v/

>>581740
oil filter.

>>581765
I don't give a fuck what you said yourself, there are two sides of this conversation, and you're siding with the guy who's spouting "lol samefag" and spewing that "you don't deserve to be here" attitude that makes /a/ such a notoriously shitty board.

and if you'd like to see the random guy with the stupid question gone and you'd PREFER the company of the "you don't deserve to be here" crowd, then yes, you need to be on /v/, because you're scum and poison to any board you are on.

/v/irgin here.
Why do you guys hate /v/ so much?

>>581740
Wii U pro controller support

>>581840
Because you post offtopic shit.

Oh look, you're posting offtopic shit.

>>570090
>saging a video game thread

Go back to /v/

>>581802
>company of the "you don't deserve to be here" crowd
It's not about deserving or not. We just say that in /v/ he'll find more like-minded people and therefore that /v/ is a better fit for him.

>>581802
Why would you want a random guy on your board over anything? Everyone knows /b/ posters are the worst of the worst.

But hey, you're right. Why should the users of a board have to know anything about the subject matter, or be proactive at all by using the facilities provided? Just sit back and let everyone else bend over backwards to help them. Beats arguing about filters.

>>581840
Go on /v/, you'll understand.

I emulate most PS1 games without any filters.

But if the game has a lot of bright, thick, white lines in its GUI (Dragon Warrior 7 and Wizardry come to mind), I turn on filters to keep the headaches away. It may be slightly smudged, but at least I'm able to look at it.

>>571981
I can't even decipher what the fuck you were trying to say in your post but god damn those artifacts in the scanline image.

>>581871
yeah, god forbid we help anybody LEARN the things they don't know.

and your feelings of superiority and lack of charity are another reason why you are scum.

>random person means they're from /b/
and you're a fucking moron too, apparently.

>>581840
because they became /b/ 2.0, which is why the /v/ derivative boards were made, so that /v/ itself could be the firewall against shittiness.

>>581896
>yeah, god forbid we help anybody LEARN the things they don't know.
Because we don't have wikis dedicated to exactly that? I suggested three ways he could have found it out, all of which would have been quicker and less painful than asking.

And /b/ is the random board, it was just a joke.

>>571981
Nofilter is still interpolated as fuck

>>581942
good for you with those suggestions, but then you jumped on the "you don't belong here" bandwagon like a faggot.

protip: when you tell a non-malicious person to gtfo for no reason, they don't do it, they stay, and they become malicious.

>>581973
also, just wanna say:

inb4 the guy who started this argument comes back and says "hey, I was just kidding"

>>581973
I never actually told him he doesn't belong here, I just think would be better if he browsed the site before posting.

>>582008
Oh if only that were the case.

>>582008

<-- this is how a game should look

>>582040
I think it could just as easily qualify as "kidding", radical notion that is.

>>582052
>600x449

>>582048
I've heard of that

>>582052
Which will end up looking like one of these on a modern display. Neither looks good.

>>582097
I can't really tell the difference.

>>571981
...................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Those are yours, free of charge. Feel free to use them next time you post.

>>582142
it's not that they're very different, but both show moire on the scanlines due to the upscaling.

If you have a monitor that could display such a low resolution, it's not an issue.

so what the hell, I downloaded higan, to get BSNES, since I kinda concede the point about accuracy and I HAD been using ZSNES.

I don't have a bad computer, but the fucking accuracy mode isn't consistently 60 frames....

also, does this thing have filters?

It really is a game to game thing for me, honestly. I do a lot of Let's Plays and I generally just leave everything on default although I will use bilinear if there's a lot of close up detailed shit.

In my own play, though, it depends on the platform. For old school adventure games I use HQ3x or 4x because it looks a lot better for 720p upscale on youtube.

>>582165
Use Snes9x instead. The latest versions have some of BSNES's code in it and it runs like a champ even with filters.

>>582165
Don't use the accuracy core, not even most modern computers can run it at full speed 100% of the time. Use the balanced or performance cores. Both are still much more accurate than ZSNES and slightly more accurate than Snes9x.

If you want filters, you're best off getting RetroArch and downloading the bsnes core.

>>582198
>>582165

Just get Retroarch now and save yourself the hassle.

>>582206
>>582198
how is it with the regular libretro core?

To this day I still don't get the appeal of scanlines.
Ones that are light and barely noticeable? Not my cup of tea, but fine. I can see why some people would enjoy it.

But all these really dark and thick ones that darken the shit out of the games colors, blur the fuck out of them and are noticeable to the point of being distracting? And that fucking fishbowl effect?

90's TV's did NOT look like that unless you were using a really cheap and and awful piece of shit.

>>582247
I think the latter would have nostalgia appeal for some people.

>>582247

Trinitrons were really cheap and awful pieces of shit?

>>585302
10/10

>>585302

lel i posted it again!

I'm always torn between looking retro with scan lines, ntsc filters, etc and just gaying the shit out of it with clean & sometimes HD filters. If only life weren't this hard.

>>585302
how butthurt do you have to be

I was very much anti-filter of any kind, just pretty much default settings with a few tweaks here and there. However, i tried out scanlines after seeing a lot of talk about it.

I must say...most games made pre-flatscreen look better with scanlines. That being said, it is VERY easy to overdo them, as a lot of the screens in this thread show. A very light amount of scanline seems to make everything blend a little better, without the "smudged" look a lot of filters give.

Just my two cents.

>>585302
This picture sums up my feelings towards this whole scanline and retro-look argument. I've been gaming for 25+ years now. Yes, when I was a kid, and an NES and a shitty 13" TV was all I had, I was happy as hell. But I always always ALWAYS wanted my pictures to look better. I don't want my emulator to reproduce the old graphics and resolutions and blurs and lines and etc etc. Why? Because filtered images LOOK BETTER. I get to play my SNES games with them looking even more beautiful!

Now emulation audio, on the other hand... that's where I make my stand. I want the exact sound that my consoles produced. I want the music and sound effects to be spot on. Having said that, I am not ignorant nor judgmental of those who feel that way about their graphics. I just wish anons who are that way about graphics would understand not everyone is that way.

>>586082
>Because filtered images LOOK BETTER.
You are missing the point. Most people in these threads advocate for filters to emulate the look of CRT TVs and despise "enhancing" filters. Retro graphics were designed to be looked on a CRT TV, taking into account its quirks and artifacts.

>>586102
And I enjoy enhancing filters and don't desire the look of CRTs and their 'quirks'. That was my point. Also my point was to each their own.

>>570762
>sit 7-8 feet away from monitor, LIKE THE CREATORS INTENDED
>unfiltered image looks like a better version of the filtered image
>filtered image looks like blurry shit

>>570065

why do these threads keep coming up?

what fucking shit tier tv's did you have in the late 90's (because you're all hipster faggots in your 20s) that you had foggy ass thick scanlines?

>>585302
Right side has fucked up scaling. It should look like this.

I usually hate filters but the one in the OP has a lovely bloom effect, I like it.

>>570936
Link to the site?

>not using filters to make shitty ass old drab games look cool

>>586240
This is clearly the best filter ever made. Where can I get it?

>>586268
Get photoshop or the gimp.

>>586082
>This picture sums up my feelings towards this whole scanline and retro-look argument

The problem with both this picture and presumably your argument is how exaggerated the filter is. Games did NOT look at all like the picture on the left and no one advocates it looking like that, so you might as well be mad at literally nothing.

>>586527

i don't understand why anyone wants filters at all, other than to screw around

some people say, "but mah authenticity"

most of you emulator faggots never even played games on console, and complain about visual effects and audio bugs, but are ok playing on a 15 - 21 inch screen with a keyboard or shitty gamepad

quit trying to be cool, nobody give a fuck about your stupid ass filters or how cool you think you are with a perfectly tweaked emulator that you didn't contribute to at all

>>586568
Brash generalizations, strawman arguments, moving the goalposts, AND argumentum ad populum. Good job.

Anyone got shaders working under Linux with Retroarch? I keep getting:

RetroArch [ERROR] :: [GL]: Didn't find valid shader backend. Continuing without shaders.

and

RetroArch [ERROR] :: [GL]: Cannot find shader core for path: /home/tasty/common-shaders-master/CRT/CRT-cgwg.cg.

>>586601

it's not a fallacy if i'm not putting forth an argument

i'm just saying that I haven't heard any good reasons for a serious discussion about filters

>>586656
3/10, hopped into the thread to comment

just because you don't think their reasons are valid doesn't make their reasons for discussing something you clearly don't care about invalid

some people give many fucks about filters. not you and not me, that's fine, i'm not exactly what i would call an afficionado or anything, i just like to play games. some people take this shit really seriously.

what i'm getting at here is why do you care so much? if you don't care about filters then don't comment on filters. it's easy

>>586656
You are putting forth arguments.

You're saying that:
- there's no reason to use filters other than to screw around
- most people that use emulators never played the games on an actual console
- complaining about visual and audio bugs and playing on a monitor with a keyboard or gamepad are contradictory
- no one gives a fuck about what filters people use
- people think they are cool when they use a perfectly tweaked emulator

These are all arguments you are putting forth. All of them are fallacious in some way.

>>586568
defecation posting

>>586527
seconded, the filtered imaged is screwed on purpose to support his unfiltered pixelated mess

>>586102
>Retro graphics were designed to be looked on a CRT TV, taking into account its quirks and artifacts.

> implying that's true
> implying games were designed to incorporate things which took the CRT's design in mind

The ONLY situation where that is true is with old Apple IIe games (etc) where the designers used little tricks like this to squeeze a little more resolution out of the game (pictured), as well as making games "title safe" because of how CRTs cropped the image.

However, because CRTs were not unifed, all they could do is design it in "pixel perfect" mode and expect that standard RCA or RF outputs render it properly. Even in taking "title safe" in mind, it was still up in the air because of how different TVs cropped the image.

Even the Atari 2600 had no way to take the CRT TVs in mind; in fact, Atari 2600 programming IS "pixel perfect" because the developers HAD to take every pixel into account.

>>586686

no, that's why i'm being a prick.

I've seen at least one of these threads created every day since /vr started up

there's no need for this, just like there's no need for the repetitive thread creation on any other board

in any case, it's not possible to take emulation seriously. it's all a joke

even if you buy a console to usb adapter and play with a crt monitor with the best cycle accurate emulator, it's still not going to be the same as playing it for realsies

pretend all you want that filters matter, but they don't. anytime a shit thread like this comes up, i'll be there shitposting

>>586714
did you ever heard of dithering ? that is an example of taking the crt design into account .
2deep4u

>>586729
> completely missing my post
> saying you're 3deep6me

In any case, dithering is used only to expand the NES' et al. limited palette.

It's less about taking the CRT into account and more about just trying to make the game look less "flat". It's useful regardless whether you're playing on a CRT or not.

>>586761
More dithering examples.

They look better with the dithering whether or not you're looking at a CRT or LCD screen.

someone else find my scanlines odd or its just me?

>>586761
on addition dithering is also used to display transparencies on the sega genesis

>>586771
It is odd. And not because I'm trying to troll.

Each pixel looks like someone recreated it using physical LEGO bricks; each pixel has a "shadow" to them. It looks really awkward.

>>586729
>dithering ? that is an example of taking the crt design into account .
But that's incorrect. Dithering is used when the pallette is small and gradients are impossible, you stupid fuck.

(I ahven't read the thread. Is the whole thread as stupid as that guy?)

>>586761
so using a feature only the crt's have is not taking their design into account, fine
try playing sonic ON a console plugged to your lcd or search how the dithering was supposed to display waterfalls

>>586771
You're getting scaling issues that are messing with the way the scanline filter works. Make sure you have integer scale turned on and that the aspect ratio is set to 4:3.

>>586790
There's this site I found:
* http://retro-sanctuary.com/comparisons%20-%20differing.html

However: "There are unfortunately a few very major problems with dithering, the main issue of which being that it only really works with low end cables (coaxial or composite leads), and only with small to medium sized televisions. Better cables (such as S-Video or RGB) and emulators have good definition, so they clearly show the dithering in its original form as lines, removing the effect and causing the dithering to make the graphics look a little uglier when compared to games which don't use the effect."

The thing is, IIRC S-Video was available in the 80's and 90's, which means that developers no more kept CRTs in mind than they did other kinds of screens which provided higher resolutions.

>>586714
>> implying that's true
>hurr durr implying graphics designers take into account how brochures look on print
>hurr durr implying web designers take into account how webpages look with different browsers
You are a retard.

>>586815
you imbecile the wholepoint is that lcd's do not dither and the original console output would only display correctly on an crt
screw whatever the purpose of dithering is

>>586838
>implying you never saw those "this website looks better on xxx browser and at xxxx resolution" on webpages

you are too new to the internet

>>586818
Read >>586831

And even then, some developers may have kept CRTs in mind, but only to do something like this picture. Certainly NOT the "uber-ultra scan lines du jour!" style some people think is the developer's intentions.

Also:
> implying the developers, during development, used low-quality consumer CRTs and RF plugs and not, y'know, PROFESSIONAL CRTs with S-Video/RGB connectors

>>586815
See:
>>570498

Yup. Clearly being used to expand the palette in order to fake a gradient there. OH WAIT YOUR A FUCKING SPASTIC.

The devs clearly intended the road to be displayed as a checkerboard rather than a transparency too, right? OH WAIT YOU'RE STILL A GIGANTIC SPASTIC.

As for your gradient shit: The whole reason that worked is because of the inherent blurring when viewed via composite NTSC would make it a smooth progression. You're disproving your own point.

>>>/vg/

>>586859
>implying you know anything about display technology at all

The higher quality a CRT is, the more visible the scanlines are.

>>586857
Shitty websites did, just like shitty games didn't even take into account the aspect ratio of the TV.
Good designers take into account the medium: print, web, TV, carving, etc.

>>586838
I'm lost as to how those examples are relevant to the discussion.

> implying graphics designers take into account how brochures look on print
Of course they do.

> implying web designers take into account how webpages look with different browsers
Of course they do.

Are you claiming that they DON'T?

>>586871
still that doesn't make it something that didn't happen or existed and no it weren't shitty websites
because the resolution was aiming higher (1024 x 768, i had an 800 x 600 monitor) and they were using newer browsers like firefox

>>586879
I replied to someone who claimed to graphics designers DIDN'T take into account that graphics were meant to be displayed on a NTSC TV. I'm applying his ridiculous claim to other areas of design.

>>586870
>implying you know anything about display technology at all

> implying pointing that out means you do as well

Lower quality CRTs and connectors blur the scanlines.

Middle quality CRTs and connectors have clearer definition between scan lines

High quality CRTs and connectors keep a crisp picture and reduce the scan lines to being almost non-existant.

>>586859
If they weren't taking in to account the fact that most home users would be playing via composite NTSC then why does such an enormous bulk of the 16-bit library make use of dithering in one form or another? You'd be hard-pressed to find many SNES or Genesis games that don't feature even a minor use of the technique.

>>586895
If they designed for a certain browser you'd expect that they tested on that browser. Likewise if they design for print they test how it looks on print. If they design for display on TV they test how it looks on TV.
Not a hard concept.

>>586910
yeah not a hard concept that is unrelated to whether the websites were shitty or if they never advertised how they looked better using certain settings

then again all that is off topic

>>586909
>why does such an enormous bulk of the 16-bit library make use of dithering in one form or another

> implying dithering is ONLY applicable for CRT use
> implying dithering wasn't used to maximize the console's limited palette

PICTURED: Virtual Racer screenshot, with dithered shadows. That dithering was CLEAR and SHARP on the arcade's large CRTs

>>586929
>off topic
It is not off topic because it supports the assertion that graphics of that era were designed with TV displays in mind.

>>586714
Funny you bring up the 2600, because it did depend on CRTs and the shitty RF signal to make graphics blend better, and for some effects as well:

http://www.bogost.com/games/a_television_simulator.shtml

>>586904
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about, as evidenced by the fact that you posted a fucking picture of a deinterlacer outputting to an LCD screen in a discussion about CRT's.

>>586931
the claim is that display output was not taken into account , that is clearly a fallacy

dithering is only an example of it , then when someone brought it up they tried to disacredit it by saying that not many games used it, but even then it doesn't making it nonexistent that was like like "a tree falling on the jungle and none knows so therefor it didn't exist" approach

>>586956
wtf i am on your side

>>586981

it's not a fallacy, it's just wrong

quit slinging around buzzwords you picked up on 4chan you fucking twat

>>586981
>wtf i am on your side
Just some friendly fire, carry on /vr/other.

>>586985
i'm sorry professor but that other kid said it was a sentence enhancer

>>570065
>Emulation filters general?

http://emulation-general.wikia.com/

And the real emulation general:
>>>/vg/34191815

>>587292

you guys are worse scum than MLP

>>570415

I'll take the pixelated one, because this actually hurts my eyes.

>>587294

I'm sure you're in a position to make judgements like that

>>587292
>implying that my question will actually get answered in a decent timeframe on that thread
if i answer a question i want my answer before the dawn of time.

I've been gaming on C64 and Genesis, and I always, always go for pixel-perfect resolution. (Not sure how to feel about polygonal resolution, which usually makes the games look like Quake on a modern system)

I paid thousands of dollars to have my eyes fixed. There's nothing that will make me want to introduce more blur to anything, and I don't give a shit what the developers did or didn't intend.

For some of us, crisp, clear accuracy is a fundamental necessity.

>>570296
>A NTSC filter is necessary to enjoy the graphics as the artists intended to be watched and avoid a pixelated mess.

Only pixilated because it's scaled. This is the demon you must defeat. The problem lies with digital displays, and how they're really bad at displaying low resolution 2D games.

SD displays (crt tvs) for SD games (old console games).

>>587325
>>implying that my question will actually get answered in a decent timeframe on that thread
>if i answer a question i want my answer before the dawn of time.

It's like a real forum though. You post. Maybe you don't get something right away. You can check back in a few hours. But the people there are pretty knowledgeable and you get good technical responses.

Posting in a filter thread ought to be a bannable offense.

>>587374
with the way 4chan works, trying to track someone responding to your post after 300+ posts is almost impossible. so i want an answer within a reasonable time.

>>587413

I've never had a problem with it. Just search for a terms you used in the original post. Or use an easy to remember image and scroll down/up.

>>587340
Not everyone has a multiscan PC monitor, though. Most people have to scale the graphics for display on an LCD.

>>586904
>High quality CRTs and connectors keep a crisp picture and reduce the scan lines to being almost non-existant.

>>587484
>muh hospital PVM

Why don't you autists sit away from your monitor like mom made you back then for an authentic experience?

>>587292

So Squarepusher is a filter fag, huh

>caring this much about filtered or non-filtered, CRT or LCD

Just play your fucking games.

>>588026

>how detect invisible aliens
>does alcohol kill aliens

>>587972
Could have been just a shitty impersonator, although if so, he was a damn good one. He captured his asshole behavior down pat.

>>585302
You know, I've never seen an argument like this in favor of unfiltered that wasn't a horrible strawman.

I respect your opinions and all, but for god's sake, stand up for yourself every once in a while.

>>570415
wow, the lighting actually looks way better!

>>588026

>>588081

>>588086

>>588081
mah nigga

>>588102

>>581354
>>581361
>>581373
>>581376
>>581386
>not playing streets of rage II

>>581403
I like streets of rage II more

>>588026
>Just play your fucking games.
My sentiments exactly. Lean less on what style is better and more on what makes YOU happy. That's what games are for: for fun!

> GUYSE JUST PLAY THE GAYMZ GUYSE
> taking care 10 minutes to one hour (worst case scenario) that your game looks a bit better means that you're an autist that doesn't enjoy playing video games

Caring How Other People Play Single-Player Games General

This is like getting upset that someone uses cheats or mods.

How is this thread not deleted yet?

>>590956

People could argue for days about this but it really just depends of what you have, what you're willing to deal with, emulator, tv, blah blah


tl;dr have fun guys

>not using a truly accurate filter such as Advance_Window Sglare

>>590993

its like you want to give yourself eye cancer

>>590993

Somebody actually made this. This is an actual thing. I can't stop laughing.

>>590993
>window glare
JUST LIKE THE WINDOW I HAD GROWING UP 10/10

>>591025
>>591063
>>591067
http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3817

I like smoothing filters cuz it maeks the game look like flash games

>>581386
What really bothers me in crtgeom-halation-interlaced is the white on black, it's too fucking bright and we see that glow around it so clearly, it really bums me out, but for everything else it looks pretty good, but whenever I see that white text on black background (which is a lot) it really takes me out of the game.

>>570953

>>592135
chill man everyone goes thru that phase , it's just like puberty but with videogames

>>592135
>absolutely heretical
>not zalmo

I don't bother with filters or anything because my laptop hooks up to my CRT TV. It's not a difficult setup to achieve.

>>575301
Nostalgia doesn't necessarily have to be involved. They're an appreciable aesthetic on their own that add a nice sense of imperfection.

>>593159

You are insane if you think somebody who didn't grow up with CRT TV's can appreciate "telly lines".

>>593314
You're blind if you can't see how much "telly lines" improve sprite games when done right.

>>570361
The thing is these filters look nothing like how they actually look on a CRT. A large majority of them are made by lazy people who decide to slap black lines across the screen and call it a day. Scanlines on an actual TV are not even that noticeable unless you get really close or it is over something that is white.

Not bad.

Very bad.

Prerendered looks awful with filters.

What does /vr/ think of this one?

>>594845
Megaman Xover? Not retro.

>>594860
Why is the klansman red

This looks pretty good.

>>594763
Well a lot of the shit posted in this thread seems to be butthurt fags trying to misrepresent the argument of the other side rather than actually arguing their own. Of course a scanline filter can look like ass, nobody is contesting that. But when they are well done, they make most games look much better and more like they should look like. Now there's some games where I agree that the raw and unfiltered pixels look better but those are far and few in between all the ones that look better with mild scanlines and a NTSC filter.

>>594827
The fuck are you smoking, nigger? That's fucking terrible. Shoot yourself.

>>594830
>>594837

They are all terrible. I don't think anybody here is talking about those kind of filters and defending them.

>>594906
I guess I was wrong about /vr/ not being full of autistic faggots like /v/.

>>594865
He bathed himself in nigger blood.

>>594918
What? You honestly think what you just posted there looks good?

>not using both scanlines and bilinear filtering up the ass and HQX

It's like you enjoy being retarded

>2013
>not using ntsc+CRT filters for maximum fidelity

These are the most hilarious threads on /vr/ and I hope they never go away.

>not using filters

This looks at least 3x better than the original

inb4 pixel purist hipsters throw a fit over my superior opinion

>>594874
>Well a lot of the shit posted in this thread seems to be butthurt fags trying to misrepresent the argument of the other side rather than actually arguing their own.
>implying emulation threads aren't all this
as an example, recently squarepusher and mudlord have been stinking up /vg/'s emulation general
>>>/vg/34191815

Question:

Currently I'm playing games on old behemoth 50" HD CRT (widescreen) which former house tenants left behind. Would the picture be better old 4:3 CRT like a Trinitron? I was looking at a 36" on craigslist.

>>597902
That's nauseating.

>>597902
fawful dies but saves cackletta

>>597902
Uh oh! Time for an epic meme picture!

>>598000

>36" CRT

>>570065

not /vr material

>>599708
>not /vr material
If we have enough discussion here to make a general it is /vr/ material.

>>599675
I have a 40'' Trinitron, you aint seen nothin

>>598000
>50" HD CRT (widescreen) which former house tenants left behind.
A rear-projector, you mean?

Is it actually HD? What kinds of inputs can it accept?

>>582158
The original does that.

bamp

>>595431
started doing this after somebody showed me a comparison picture from the pixel "lighting" in streets of rage.

been playing fantasy star 4, and blurry anime looks a fuckton better than pixalated anime, and both look a HELL of a lot better than monstrosities like >>597902

>>570065

not /vr material, please remove

>>604186
you lie, please shut up.

>>604204

if the janitors clean up stuff like mircroboys, then this shit should get cleaned up too

1. emulation is shitty
2. trying to make something shitty look better still makes it shit
3. take up the hobby of polishing dog shit, you'll be happier

>>604219
ah, so you aren't actually retarded enough to think emulation is not /vr/ related, you just have some kind of purity boner and emulation offends you.

got it.

>>604226

no, i'm saying that there are rules about what can be posted on /vr/ and the content discussed in this thread is post 2000, so it should not be included

>>604226
Whatever your feeling are, emulation of retro games is /vr/-related. Likewise, efforts to imitate the retro experience are also /vr/-related.

>>604229

so why does hardware made after 2000 get removed, since it also recreates/plays retro games?

>>604229
I think you meant to link to
>>604228

>>604235
I meant to link >>604219

>>604238

i meant to link >>570065

>>604232
we're not mods, so how about you ask /q/ rather than harassing other on-topic threads out of some pathetic bitterness?

>>604232
Because it doesn't?
There have been psp emulation threads here. The key is that the focus has to be on retro topics.

>>604241

i'm on topic. i'm talking about how shitty emulators are, and you should feel like cancer for contributing anything constructive towards it

>>604241

because you're the faggots that are saging threads for your own bitter reasons

>>604247
on-topic, but unconstructive, vitriolic and non-condusive to discussion

ie shitposting

>>604249
I'm just one faggot, actually, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>604247
well good for you that you have an opinion, now come back when you have an argument.

this is the filter I use
I would often spend my days watching my brother play through various games. when I watched him I would always lay on the floor with my hands supporting my head, looking up at the screen
it's the most nostalgic way for me to experience games

>>604296
Five star post, sir.

>>570296

What emulators have this shader, then?

Nobody ever fucking includes that kind of information in any thread about filters.

>>606880
That's just blaarg' ntsc filter + bilinear. It comes with snes9x.

>>594853
You go eat a dick.

>>604296
>/vr/ in one post

>>604296
Sides expanding and contracting on their own.

>>606892
How do you know it has bilinear as well? What does the bilinear filter add to blaarg's?

blaarg's composite, right?

With what filters should Chrono Trigger on snes9x be played?

>>607334
Bilinear is an option of the opengl renderer, separate from the filter.
Blaarg has three presets: composite, s-video, and rgb. You can also adjust several sliders if you don't like the presets.

>>588179
>that pic
what in the holy fuck is that?

>>607349
I'd say either ntsc or nothing.