/vr/ - Retro Games

>>6048038
People care about shit like this? Just play games designed for a CRT on a CRT and games designed for modern displays on modern displays.

>>6048041
>People care about shit like this?
Yes, some people are so stupid you couldn't believe it. They claim CRTs have magical properties which new TVs don't have.
CRT owners care so much they make a general thread for them, pick them up at junkyards, and even hoard them.
>Just play games designed for a CRT
That would be objectively worse by being less customizable, having worse black levels, a constant high pitched noise emitting from the screen, a smaller screen, a lower resolution for 5th gen games, and the embarrassment of having an old, hundred pound cube in your living space.

>>6048046
>That would be objectively worse by being less customizable, having worse black levels, a constant high pitched noise emitting from the screen, a smaller screen, a lower resolution for 5th gen games, and the embarrassment of having an old, hundred pound cube in your living space.
Oh so this is a retarded anti-CRT thread, got it.

>>6048047
>i just learned the one thing i thought was better about CRTs isn't true after all and i'm triggered
>w-well you're retarded

>>6048046
This entire opinion is retard--
>for 5th gen games
Oh, you're console rabble. Go on as usual. CRT bad, LCD good, buy new "gen", it's best, then get excited for newer gen. You don't want friends to think you're poor, do you?

>>6048038
JUST PLAY THE DAMN GAME YOU FUCKING TWAT!

>>6048038
I remember when LCDs first started getting popular and nobody wanting to use them because of horrible ghosting along with some other issues compared to the CRTs everyone was currently using. Maybe the more expensive modern ones have matched CRTs but I don't think it's a complete falsehood.

>>6048052
>>i just learned the one thing i thought was better about CRTs isn't true after all and i'm triggered
I'm just saying it's perfectly reasonable to play games designed to be played on a CRT on a CRT. You know, because that's the way they were intended to be played.

>>6048083
I thought CRTs were supposed to have better black levels. Looks like some pixels are just missing in the left image too, dunno if it was put through more than just a CRT filter.

>>6048083
This thread isn't claiming using a CRT is unreasonable. It's debunking the claim made every day here that CRTs have less motion blur than LCDs. Deal with it.

>>6048097
>This thread isn't claiming using a CRT is unreasonable.
Until you read the second post OP made, where he just openly voices his blind hatred for CRTs >>6048046
>That would be objectively worse by being less customizable, having worse black levels, a constant high pitched noise emitting from the screen, a smaller screen, a lower resolution for 5th gen games, and the embarrassment of having an old, hundred pound cube in your living space.
Can you please learn to read before coming on here? Thanks faggot

>>6048113
Learn to read the topic of the thread faggot. Nice try changing the subject but modern TVs have as good of motion blur as CRTs.

>>6048127
OP was the one who changed the subject and revealed what his actual point was behind making the thread you dumb shit.

OP's own image shows that only a fraction of LCDs have the capability to match CRT clarity.
The situation seems to be getting better, but you really have to do your research to make sure you're buying a display that can actually do it (not just do it at all, but set the lighting timing all the way down to 60Hz SD CRT level) and the ones that can do it will certainly cost you more than a CRT would.
Of the dozens of LCD displays in my house, the only one that has it is the absolute newest computer monitor, and it only has three options (off, low, high) with no precise tuning.
Not sure there is there even a single phone or tablet in existence that has light strobing.

tl;dr there exist a handful of gaming monitors that actually do allow for motion blur reduction to be set far enough to match CRTs but make sure you know what you're buying

>>6048097
>It's debunking the claim made every day here that CRTs have less motion blur than LCDs.
They do in general. Only certain gaming monitors (that are all TN panels, meaning worse colors, viewing angles, black levels) have 1ms response times. And the fastest input lag an LCD has achieved is 9ms.

Also, the claimed 1ms response times are gray-to-gray, and this is the number manufacturers use in their marketing. It's kind of like amplifier manufacturers claiming "2000 watts!" when the test was done using only a 1khz signal and measured peak rather than RMS.

Gray-to-gray is still used for these claims. See here. https://displaylag.com/gaming-monitor-database/

>Display manufacturers know that going from black-to-white takes longer than it does for it to go from gray-to-gray. It makes more sense for them to advertise the fastest number, because it makes the display look more attractive in the consumer’s eyes.

>Few LCDs can match/beat the benefits of a CRT in certain departments (motion blur), and it's extremely hard to get similar benefits on an LCD -- you need to raise Hz to compensate for the more harsh squarewave strobing of an LCD, but you also need to raise GPU horsepower to match the higher Hz -- and few monitors produce near-zero strobe crosstalk like a CRT can, without getting degraded colors or other artifacts such as inversion artifacts.

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5787

>>6048127
>but modern TVs have as good of motion blur as CRTs.
Quit lying. No they don't. Only certain gaming monitors do, and you need the GPU horsepower to get up to the 240hz+ where it can match the motion of a CRT. This means you won't be getting CRT motion from a retro game locked at 30fps or 60fps.

>>6048153
I honestly don't get the seethe against CRTs from people on this board whose interest is, you know, retro fuckin' games. It takes a shitload of fuckery (scalers, filters, researching into the actual performance of a display, rather than trusting advertising) to find a flat panel that even approaches a CRT's overall performance for retro. Even BlurBusters admits we're not there yet. From your link.

>Also, these new IPS panels don't solve much. They still have glow, they still have shimmer from the backlight, they still have BLB, they still have clouding, they still can't display black. And, as you said, they still have crosstalk. "A little bit at top and bottom" and not good enough. There should be ZERO crosstalk. None. Anything else is unacceptable because it looks like a defect when you watch it.

>There's still some way to go for displays to restore the strong points of CRT image quality.

Here's a convenient idea. Go to offerup. Type in tv, vintage tv, retro tv, etc. There will no doubt be a 20-27" Trintron someone is giving away or wants a cup of coffee for. Get tv. Enjoy retro gaming without all the hassle.

There's literally no drawbacks here, unless you're a noodle armed weakling afraid of lifting something heavier than a laptop.

>>6048164
>offerup
Isn't 95% of that shit a scam? thats all I ever heard about that place.
Two stand points that most people should go when actually trying to play fucking retro games, if any anons here do play them is.
CRT/PVM, Original Hardware or 144hz monitor and Emulators. Its not fucking rocket science.

>>6048170
>Isn't 95% of that shit a scam?
I've never had a problem aside from the occasional flaky seller or buyer.

Some people are so weird

The only bad thing about my CRT is that it's geometry is wonky

Anyone with eyes that work properly can see the difference right away if they played like, SOTN, or a fast racing game on an LCD for a while and then switched to a CRT and saw how that was re: motion

It's not even close, and the only thing that allows the LCD to approximate the image from an old console is a $150+ scaler

OP doesn't and maybe never has had a CRT because his mom won't let him have one and this is his way of coping that he can't be like the epic scanline retro gamer youtube guys

>>6048038
0/bait
0/troll
11/underage
11/cringe

>>6048182
>if they played like, SOTN,
>epic scanline retro gamer youtube guys
Go back to plebbit, retard

>>6048228

Sorry man should have named a more obscure 2D platformer to communicate my point, my bad

>>6048130
>my feelings are still hurt
>>6048158
>you need the GPU horsepower to get up to 240hz+
Wrong.

OP is a child that thinks his enemy are CRT-users, but doesn't know that the ultimate boss he must face are 4:3 SD plasma monitor-havers.
Your HD rectangles were never meant for /vr/ stuff, zoom zoom.

>>6048240
Reread the Blurbusters take on the subject.
>you need to raise Hz to compensate for the more harsh squarewave strobing of an LCD, but you also need to raise GPU horsepower to match the higher Hz
>You want strobing motion blur reduction feature with low strobe crosstalk, while keeping IPS color? The 240Hz IPS monitors have also shown great promise as superior strobed displays (at ~120-144Hz),
Translation. Running games at 30fps or 60fps (which all retro console games run at) won't address the issue (i.e. strobing(, since you need to be at 120-144hz, meaning more GPU power, at least as far as modern games go.

And then the other admin of BlurBusters (the authority you appealed to in your OP) responds with:

>Also, these new IPS panels don't solve much. They still have glow, they still have shimmer from the backlight, they still have BLB, they still have clouding, they still can't display black. And, as you said, they still have crosstalk. "A little bit at top and bottom" and not good enough. There should be ZERO crosstalk. None. Anything else is unacceptable because it looks like a defect when you watch it.

tl:dr the best gaming monitors that exist aren't there yet, which means that the best consumer televisions sure as hell ain't even close, as you claimed with this uninformed comment:
> but modern TVs have as good of motion blur as CRTs.

Did you just get some junky Chinese TCL 4K for Black Friday and in the honeymoon phase or something?

>>6048038
>crt bad lcd good
no one cares kill yourself zoomer

>>6048135
OP's own image shows that only a fraction of LCDs have the capability to match CRT clarity.
This.

>>6048083
Also this (image).

Not so friendly reminder that OP's claims only apply to the very newest LCD gaming computer monitors and since it's completely incompatible with any real retro hardware pre-assumes everyone is emulating 100% of their retro games.

Once 4K IPS monitors reach 240Hz at low response times CRTs will finally be dead! Any day now!

>>6048038
>"CRTs have better motion than LCDs"
>Image shows CRT have 1m persistence.
That's literally not what the image you posted sez.
UNLESS you're one of those >>>/v/ tards who actually want motion blurring on fucking everything.

You want sum EPIC MOTION!?!? Get a fucking Gameboy.

>>6048292
4:3 plasmas are fucking shit though, despite Fudoh's meme.

>4 different anti CRT threads up right now
Cope harder. If flat screens were really that good you wouldn't feel the need to constantly make these threads.

>>6048858
Still better for SD gaming than rectangles.

> be kid
> enjoy playing Mario with your nes hooked up to the av port on your vcr with it hooked up to the coax on your old ass tv


> be adult now
> cant enjoy playing any game unless it's rbg modded straight into a pvm

>>6048861
>Cope harder.
Indeed. CRT haters are likely armlets (can't lift it), spacelets (no space to put one), and bosslets (wife is the boss).

What's wrong with a little bit of motion blur?

>>6048097
>It's debunking the claim made every day here that CRTs have less motion blur than LCDs.
But OP's image shows that CRTs have no blur and that different types of LCDs can have very high levels of blur. The lowest image persistence example says that CRTs achieve that.

>>6048153
>TN
Ded tech. Only autist /v/ tiers who only play FPS games while pretending they're pro e-sports fags want them.
>>6048164
>heavy
i'm a skeleton who lives in a small apartment , yes. i like some of them filters. i miss my 17" PC CRT monitor, but i like my 24" IPS just fine. we don't have to be /vr/ ISIS extremist. this is fake outrage.

CRT zoomers don't know what phosphor trails are.

LCDs are garbage for anything beyond looking at still images.

>>6049727
Phosphor persistence on a quality crt is tuned to refresh rate. If it was lower, the image would flicker.

Still doesn’t change the fact that retro look like fucking garbage in lcd, which is the only metric that even matters

>>6049813
If you're emulating your retro games using a powerful computer configured properly with properly set up controllers, the right high resolution shaders and the very specific gaming oriented LCD monitors you can get similar results, maybe even very slightly better by some metrics than some gorilla playing his Dad's old Genesis on some twenty year old CRT he fished out of somebody's garbage. That's the argument OP is oh so passionately making.

>>6049735
I remember paying a silly premium for a high persistence monitor so I would run Workbench interlaced without sending my eyeballs into epileptic fits. And I played a lot of games on that display as well. I wonder how triggered zoomers would get if they understood what any of that meant.

>>6049138
pretty based

>>6049138
>having wife bosslet
>not being fat armlet
>having job wageslave
>decorating with period correct hardware for muh hobby good

>>6049889
You were getting literally double the motion blur on your games that "LightBoost (10%)" and "BenQ Blue Reduction (Version 2)" get in 2019! How can you live with the shame of only having been comparable to such pathetic standards as "LightBoost (100%), Eizo Turbo240, NVIDIA ULMB" and "Oculus DK2". It's a good thing your father isn't still alive. He'd be so disappointed in you.

Eizo Turbo240 has a neat sounding band though I think I'll Google it

>>6048046
>zoomers actually think like this

>>6049138
This bro

just lifted 3 crts yesterday, found two getting thrown out, couple 26 inchers moved the old 24 i was using to another room took one back to the curb since it didn't work and the bigger nicer one is my new old console tv. Got me a good workout.

all games look better on a CRT, and old games look far better on CRTs

Well, it had nothing to do with 240p but the pdf explaining their process DID have this nice page in it about why CRTs are "magical" and what the problem with LCD technology inherently is (that they hope their method will mitigate)

>>6049987
I know I have brought shame and dishonor to my family by failing to play the games As The Developers Originally Intended™. I accept that I didn't actually beat those games because playing with motion blur is just like emulating. The only thing I can do now is commit sudoku and hope that my family can sell my organs for enough to buy an 8K OLED and fraMEMEister.

>>6050249
Nobody actually gives a shit if you don't play games how the developers intended, they just think you're dumb. This is a weak strawman.

>>6048038
CRTs are fantastic until they start breaking.
Then you need EE experience to fix them right. That means buying a $300+ multimeter and possibly an oscilloscope. Unless you wanna just replace every cap in one with Nippon Chemi-con/Nichicon/Panasonic caps, which will also cost a hefty sum.

>>6048038
OP, are you retarded?

>>6048097
>It's debunking the claim made every day here that CRTs have less motion blur than LCDs.

Are you blind? The image literally states that CRT's have the lowest persistance time and that virtually all LCD screens are strictly inferior to them when it comes to motion blur.
It says the exact OPPOSITE to what you have somehow managed to interpret.

>>6050315
As opposed to broken LCD screens where the entire unit is a scrapper 50% of the time?

>>6048038
microled has persistence measured in nanoseconds

>>6050526
Cool, and the one model in production has the low, low price of $750,000 USD

>>6050405
Difference being modern monitors/TV have warranties that didn’t expire in the early 2000s.

>>6050531
still cheaper than a PVM

>>6050304
You seem to give a shitload of shits. You're just jelly you never had a super expensive CRT with extra motion blur.