/vr/ - Retro Games

crts have been dead for a decade

>>7462227
>For modern games it will suffice to run them at 1000fps natively.
what the fuck

>>7462240
are you lost? /v/ is over there.

I love progress!

>>7462248
Pretty much.
You have two choices: add black periods between frames, or increase the framerate. Or a combination of both. If you want zero motion blur + zero flicker, the only thing you can do is add frames.

https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

Nerds will figure it out, chill

More information about emulating a CRT temporarily: https://github.com/mamedev/mame/issues/6762

>>7462227
For the sake of your own well being put half as much care, effort and money into getting laid as you do about whether 25 year old video games that 99.9% of people played on RF or composite connections on a $60 chink TV are achieving perfect picture clarity.

>>7462297
Go worship women somewhere else. We're talking about the future.

>>7462297
Unabashedly based

>>7462297
Simp

>>7462240
fpbp

>>7462297

>>7462227
>So in summary, I'm a zoomie tard spewing bullshit
So just another typical /vr/ thread. zoom zoom

>>7462639
>Durr durr everyone who likes CRTs are zoomers

>>7462227
>So in summary, in the year 203X you will throw out your old CRT monitor once and for all, and make the upgrade to a 1000Hz 8K MicroLED monitor. Oh, and you'll probably need a beefy GPU to handle the shaders, phosphor decay simulation, high resolution, and refresh rate all at once.
So in other words, holding onto CRTs at that point is still a legit and cost-effective alternative.

>>7462765
Your CRTs may not be in working condition by then. I still recommend you hold onto CRTs for as long as you can though.

>>7462227
I love CRTs to death, I own 3 of them. Two being late model Trinitrons I use for all of my retro gaming. But for every normal non-autistic person in the world CRTs have already been replaced and they have been for a long time. Even budget Walmart TVs have comparable black levels now. I mean they aren’t going to hit the luminance, motion clarity, or input lag as well, but the input lag and luminance are going to be a complete non-issue in the near future. They already are on quality sets.
Obviously you don’t get the phosphor look but again there isn’t a single normalfag in the world that cares about that, and whether you like it or not the majority is what dictates what technology is worthwhile for companies to produce. No matter how wrong you believe they are, your views will never influence them, and in turn your views will never influence display manufacturing and what takes priority within that.
You can love and use CRTs all you want. I encourage you to. Just don’t expect the modern world of displays to meet what the niche market values and expects out of the technology because it will never be priority. You may get closer to CRT image quality simply down to technology advancement over anything else but don’t expect the majority to ever give a shit about phosphors or response time as much as you do because for a vast majority of people these things will simply never matter. We’re talking about consumers who actually believed fake 60fps smooth motion interpolation was a good thing, so they could watch episodes of The Office with omg super smooth clarity.

>>7462227
But can it play Wild Gunman?

>>7462813
>Just don’t expect the modern world of displays to meet what the niche market values and expects out of the technology because it will never be priority
Wrong. NVIDIA and ASUS now have roadmaps to 1000hz displays. High refresh rate is needed for applications like VR. It just so happens the display properties CRT games care about are exactly where the display industry is heading.

>>7462937
I think so if we're talking about MicroLED.

>>7462297
>put money into getting laid
ngmi

>>7462270
Wow. It has been a long time since I've seen a useful french canadian.

>>7462813
We're like platonician epistemologists.

We ain't going nowhere. There's always a basement for us to lurk in.

really all i want is a display technology without native rez again

>>7462941
You conveniently left out this part of my post, which was literally the very next line:
>You may get closer to CRT image quality simply down to technology advancement over anything else
which mirrors what you say here:
>It just so happens the display properties CRT games care about are exactly where the display industry is heading
You seem to be agreeing with me while claiming I'm wrong. Assuming you didn't just stop reading my post at that exact point, I strongly suggest you spend some time away from here for a while.

I only visit this board to nostalgia and don't play games much, but I really miss my CRT computer monitors for desktop use. easy on the eyeballs

>>7462639
This board really has gone to shit

Yup. *crack a can open*
They don't make `em like they used to.
*SIP*

>>7462227
I will give CRTards credit for one thing.
It takes extraordinary levels of dedication to their delusions to justify their embrace of inferior and obsolete technology.
Congratulations, you are video gaming's equivalent of audiophiles.

>>7462769
as long as parts to repair them are available, CRTs will be maintainable for a long, long time. There are still sets from the 50s being maintained and sold by hobbyists. i mean i guess if you dont want to deal with them, this is an option, but i dont see it being an outright replacement in the case all CRTs just magically stop working and parts are non existent

>>7463785
Today we can emulate the visual properties of a CRT with spatial HLSL. Tomorrow (in 1-3 years) we will have the first implementations of temporal HLSL. Within a decade we will have 1000fps@1000Hz. Spatial HLSL + Temporal HLSL @1000fps@1000Hz = indistinguishable from a real CRT. We don't have to influence normies or manufactures to give a shit about phosphors.

>>7462227
Or manufacturers could have continued to develop CRT technology instead of switching to others because "the environment"

>>7464030
that would be fucking stupid at this point. Modern displays have a lot of advantages, and yes, energy use being one of them. But also less weight and thickness. Don't worry though because we'll be able to convincingly emulate CRTs in a few years as I described in >>7463909

>>7464030
>because "the environment"
that's actually kind of important to consider when you're at the scale of the primary display device for billions of humans.

>>7464030
the main driver of display tech is industry, an area where the advantages of crt(motion clarity, contrast) are largely irrelevant outside of the visual arts field and its drawbacks(weight, energy consumption) are non negligible. As far as home entertainment, the large size and widescreen format you could much more easily obtain with lcds made it a draw at best for crts.

>>7462227
in 203x I could make my own crt

>>7464201
big doubt

>>7462731
>Durr durr everyone who can't into reading comprehension are zoomers

>>7463835
It really has. And zoomies obsessed with spewing bullshit about things they don't understand is a major cause.

>>7464331
all zoomers reading this should know their place and lurk

Weird that you think we'll keep being satisfied with diminishing returns and find another way to boost performance like we did with multi-core processing but go off

>>7462227
No
Everything you said is wrong. Are you some CRT ebayer trying to get idiots to fall for CRTs being as good as current OLED/pcmonitors to sell some CRTs you have laying around?

>>7462227
>1000Hz 8K MicroLED monitor
It would actually be much easier to just use a VR headset.

>>7464392
And it even works with lightguns. When every CRT dies and big tech companies ban people from making new CRTS due to "environmental pollution" this might be the only history of them left.

>>7464395
oops I meant to post this one.

>>7462227
I don't think normal CRTs are ever going to be a thing simply because they are too heavy and the tubes are just too difficult to mass produce. However we might be able to get away with making a FED or SED display.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-emission_display
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

or an idea I had posted in another thread >>7400515 if we were able to make an actual color tube. Essentially we just make a bunch of smaller CRTs that connect together to make a larger displays. That would be cheaper, easier to transport, and easier to replace than a standard tube.

>>7464428
there was some other alternative that used a laser to light up phosphors
it was still kind of bulky, but probably less harmful than electrons and wouldn't need lead?

>>7464392
The literal state of zoomers

>>7462227
>need a beefy GPU
What for? Oh, wait.
>he plays ROMs on a pc

>>7462227
I doubt 1000 fps will be enough, it's phosphorus yes... But it still light! We will most likely need to break the celerity laws of physics. You think any mere mortal could handle the power of crt ?

>>7464392
Not it wouldn't for 3 reasons:
1. It's not spatially emulating the CRT at a high enough resolution to be accurate.
2. It's not temporally emulating the CRT at all so you get the bad motion blur.
3. Even if it did item #2 it would need HDR to match the luminance of a real CRT.
Luckily there's a Retroarch bounty to do items 1-3, we just don't have the hardware to take advantage of it.
>>7464395
A 1000Hz monitor should be able to play Duck Hunter and similar games using the original lightguns.
>>7465097
Needs a beefy GPU to push out 1000FPS at 8K with shaders

>>7462227
>in the year 203X
That is only a decade away. Most tv's and monitors that currently work will still work. They were still shipping CRTs well into the 2000s. If 1980s CRT work in 2021, it would be weird for a 2005 CRT to fail before 2040.

They may need a tuneup at some point. The autists will start recapping them weather they need them or not due to an overwhelming fear that their monitor diminished one day while they were not looking.

>>7465182
You could still buy some new CRTs in 2006/7 I think, I bet manufacturing didn't stop till the late 2000s
God I hope people don't start arbitrarily replacing caps in old TVs and monitors, surely a good amount will be ruined by idiots attempting

>>7465182
>monitors
not from my experience, gotten several and most of them had noticeable degradation in some way. If you're not willing to take the plunge of some pretty serious repair work you probably should stick to tvs.

>>7465157
>spatially emulating
>temporally emulating
Holy Cringe!

>>7462240
You can buy brand new CRTs today.

>>7463857
Audiocuck detected

>>7462227
It's never really going to happen and certainly not by 203x. Even if there were some breakthroughs and it actually happened, you won't be able to tell for sure that it does - people are tired of being lied to and manipulated and rather than spend hours investigating will just stick to their CRT. For what you're suggesting you're looking at 205xs or later (it happens at all). Moore's law notwithstanding (which is itself of course dead now) it's usually very hard to predict future technologies. Monitors might get down to say 100 times the response rate of CRTs and stop there, that would be a much more likely scenario. Some people would claim there is no difference others would say hang on there is and there's something else odd going on as well. In a world of anti-vaxxers even when the queen of england has had the vaccine there are certainly people who will be clinging onto their CRTs until the very end.

>>7466409
You don't get it. A 360Hz screen which you can purchase today can get down to 2.7ms (1/360sec) of pixel persistence using temporal HLSL. For 1000hz display = 1ms (1/1000ssec) pixel persistence irrespective of refresh rate! We are already 1/3 of the way to CRT level motion blur.

OP here. I want to make sure you all understand something. There is no magic blur-reducing dust sprinkled inside CRTs. The reason CRTs handle motion blur better than modern display technologies is because they strobe. We can strobe a LCD too using a technique called black frame insertion wherein a black frame is inserted every other frame. The problem with BFI is that it produces more noticeable flicker than a CRT. That's because a CRT produces a constant amount of light - the rolling bar is always illuminating one part of the screen meanwhile 99% of the screen is black.

Bottom line: There is nothing standing in the way of emulating a CRT rolling bar in a modern LCD or OLED. We can do it today with 240Hz or 320Hz displays with substantial reductions in blur. And once 1000Hz becomes available, we'll be down to 1ms pixel persistence and CRTs will officially become obsolete.

>>7467226
Some more information for anyone curious:

On a LCD (or OLED or Microled or any non-strobed display), motion blur is proportional to frame length/persistence which is inversely proportional to refresh rate. Greater refresh rates -> shorter frames -> less blur.

So a 60hz display has a framelength of 1s/60 = 16.7ms of blur.

On a CRT or other strobed display, motion blur is proportional to frame length, but unlike a LCD, frame length is not affected by refresh rate. Frame length on a CRT is basically how long it takes for the activated phosphors to decay, which is about 1ms at any refresh rate.

That's why a 60Hz CRT has less blur than a 240Hz LCD.

But what happens when refresh rates get to 1000Hz? Well, at 1000Hz, each frame has a persistence of 1s/1000 or 1ms, which happens to equal the frame length on a CRT.

So...1000Hz LCD = CRT equivalent motion blur at any refresh rate.

>>7467328
That would be great if we can actually achieve 1000Hz without the monitor bursting into flames or getting burn in after an hour. Idk if I could trust the modern manufacturers to build a robust monitor that can last years instead of 1 year like they want them to.

>>7467328
One caveat here is that you need 1000FPS@1000Hz to get 1ms of blur on a non-strobed display. A 60FPS locked game @1000Hz = 16.7ms of blur. Repeated frames = longer frame length for the purposes of calculating motion blur.

But that's for a non-strobed display. With sheer high framerates, we can emulate a CRT rolling scan on a LCD to make it strobed. Let's see how this works on a current display:

For 60fps@240Hz, you would have 4 frames to emulate a rolling bar per game update.

Frame 1: draw 1/4 of the screen from the top, leaving the remaining 3/4 part black.
Frame 2: fade the top quarter and on the same frame, draw the second quarter under it.
Frame 3: fade the second quarter, draw the third quarter under it.
Frame 4: fade the third quarter, draw the final fourth part of the screen.

So, how does this affect blur? It takes four frames to update the screen completely, but each quarter of the screen has a 1 frame duration. And in this example, one frame = 1s/240 = 4.1ms.

That's already 4 times better than if we didn't have strobe (1s/60 or 16.7ms).

We can scale this up as soon as higher refresh rates become available.

For 60fps@1000Hz, you would have around 16 different screen segments in the rolling bar simulation, each with a 1ms duration - this is equivalent to the blur of a real CRT.

>>7467163
>so if we spend enough money to make it work like a CRT, it will perform almost as well as a CRT!

>>7463909
>If we spend enough money trying to make it work like a CRT, it will perform almost as well as a CRT.

>>7463909
You fucked up their genius, where did you go to school clown college? /sci/ is available for larpers like you.

>>7468093
It will though. In my previous three posts I explained how.
>>7468168
What happened to this board? Do I have to spoonfeed you?

By the way, if you want to try out CRT phosphor decay emulation on a high refresh rate monitor there is https://github.com/TomHarte/CLK

1000Hz isn't a clean multiple of 60Hz, it would fuck a lot of games up

>>7468530
>In my previous three posts I was retarded
That's why everyone's laughing at you kiddo

That's still leaving out the effects the glass elements of the CRT have on the final image.
In photography there is a concept known as micro contrast which affects the image quality of photos depending on the quality of glass used in the manufacturing of the lens.
I believe CRTs will exhibit a similar effect.

>>7468608
No, see the section "Emulator Hz and destination Hz doesn't need to be divisible." here:
https://github.com/mamedev/mame/issues/6762
>>7468643
>I'm a retard therefore you're a retard
>>7468678
Sounds like something that CRT shaders already address. Also, don't discount the possibility of curved MicroLED displays.

>>7468687
>Sounds like something that CRT shaders already address.
They have. Basically by eyeballing the screen and adjusting contrast and using sharpening effects to try to match a real CRT. But it's still a rough approximation.

btw I am a big supporter of shader usage after being a CRT collector and enthusiast since the late 90s. Right now current shaders can do amazing things with high quality LCD or OLED displays. Especially if you already know quite a lot about CRTs and know how to dig into the shader parameters and adjust them to suit the type of display you're using and to be flattering to the type of game you're trying to play.

>>7462227
I don't want some retarded monitor that requires to be driven at 1000Hz to not look like shit. The only acceptable monitor is one which functions exactly like a CRT, you put 60hz in and it displays 60hz using a continuous rolling scan, nothing else is acceptable. Also it has to accept any resolution and not look like complete ass. No frame buffering or other signal processing bullshit either, any pixel that enters the monitor should appear on the screen instantly.

To simulate CRT scanning with OLED should be possible, but it would need a rather different display design to what currently exists. Some kind of passive matrix will probably be required, and it must also allow for multiple lines to be scanned at the same time, to allow for lower resolutions. But that is not going to happen, they will never produce a good display, just continue with the bullshit they make now.

>>7468858
>The only acceptable monitor is one which functions exactly like a CRT, you put 60hz in and it displays 60hz using a continuous rolling scan

A 60hz CRT has the same amount of motion blur as 120hz CRT or any Hz CRT. The frame time is always 1ms because that's how long it takes for the phosphors to decay. The equivalent frame time needed on a non-strobed display is 1000hz.

>any pixel that enters the monitor should appear on the screen instantly.

OLEDs are on par with CRTs in terms of response time - not that it really matters, motion blur is affected by pixel persistence, not response time.

>To simulate CRT scanning with OLED should be possible, but it would need a rather different display design to what currently exists

We can simulate CRT rolling scan on OLED or LCD today. We don't need new display technology. The barrier is refresh rate.

>>7469038
OLED/LCD rolling scan is a poor imitation at best. I want true rolling scan, each pixel should appear on the screen within microseconds of entering the monitor. Basically if I cannot use a light-gun with it, its not good enough.

>>7462240
this
the only people who still care about crts are yuppie art students using them for display pieces
everyone else moved on

>>7469038
>>7469132
This is how it should be done. No buffering, no signal processing. Image data is converted directly to analog RGB and put directly to the pixels. Just like a CRT.

>>7469132
this thread might be of interest to you https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5890

>>7464392
>VR 90s room with consoles and games and shit
>ruined because all the monitors use shitty retroarch CRT filter.

>>7469273
Nah, I have no interest with scanning back-lights, its like putting lipstick on a pig. The only design that would ever be acceptable is whats shown in my diagram.

>>7462335
>calling someone a simp for being sexually active
are you unironically a virgin? lmfao

>>7462297
>chink TV
wait, what? Nobody played on chink tvs.

>>7470017
yeah not sure what that poster was talking about, Japanese, American and European brands were all affordable provided you didn't need something extravagant.

Why would you want to make image quality shittier? I am glad we moven on from CRTs, it was a terrible tech.

CRT haters jelly

D

I have a couple of CRT's, one of which many consider to be the best 4:3 CRT ever made. I still prefer to play my retro games on my 4k OLED with CRT shaders. Better screen size, perfect blacks, great colors and 4k shaders get real close to emulating the experience. Not perfect, but close. Also you don't have to deal with all the geometry quirks that CRTs have (this is the big one for me, wonky geometry just ruins the experience entirely for me)

The only big advantage CRT's still have is motion clarity. Which is kind of fixed with BFI, but it;s not quite there yet and not worth the brightness loss and flickering. But soon

>>7465264
By monitors do you mean PVMs or computer monitors, or both?

>>7470746
computer monitors

This is the actual delusion of people whose brains have been fried by old-ass CRTs leaking cancer.
I'm 50. I lived through years of having to look at CRT bullshit and hating every moment of those piles of fucking shit. Sure, when LCD was new, it was kind of crap, but now? There's no fucking reason to not use LCD/LED. Stop being contrarian to gain imaginary internet points from your fake internet peers and admit no one gives a shit about CRT in 2021.

>>7470753
I get the sentiment but IPS glow fucking sucks, and your only options to avoid it are luxury panels like oled, or VA with even worse problems.

>>7468687
>no u
Everyone's still laughing at you kiddo

>>7470750
Can you elaborate on the kinds of degradation you saw?

7470753
7470609

>>7464428
SED and FED a shit because hard to manufacture, and still fixed pixel, they would've been more of a plasma alternative than a CRT alternative.

>>7464490
Prysm LPD was limited by the physics of how fast you can spin a mirror and still get good deflection, in the second gen ones they only got a native horizontal refresh rate of 5.8kHz * 10 sets of lasers for 320i 360Hz which really ain't great resolution (but good for retro™)

>>7470945
Can you explain how a CRT with a shadow mask isn't "fixed pixel"?

>>7462227
>how CRTs will be replaced
They already have.
Deal with it, retard.

>>7471130
You get "splodges" of light even with a shadow mask. It doesn't have infinite resolution, but neither does it have aliasing artefacts where pixels don't align to a pixel grid. You can feed it any reasonable resolution and it will still look good, not just integer multiples of it's native resolution.

>>7467226
Trinnytrannies eternally BTFO

>>7462297
>he says on the retro games board where people talk about retro games and how best to play them
go somewhere else, clearly this place isn't for you

>>7462813
Anon nobody wants to make a shit display. We'll get good CRT emulation just out of pure advancement for other things like esports, VR, editing and whatever else. It isn't a big deal, and all the software needed to do it can be written open source by some autist once the display tech gets there.

>>7462941
>roadmaps

Ask Intel how those work out. I love my 3nm Intel processors

>itt: OP is 100% right and too high IQ for the posters here to understand

>>7472969
Just an issue of bandwidth and response time.
DisplayPort 2.0 has enough for 10 bit 8K at 240Hz if you use DSC.

>>7462297
>putting effort into getting laid
this is why i know you're an incel

>>7464392
Pretty based how it simulates shadow mask on zoom in.

>>7471436
Thanks. Your use of technical jargon that only a true CRT wizard would know, such as "splodges", and your firm grasp of how a shadow mask totally isn't a grid of holes has convinced me that you are indeed a genius and not some dumb kid fantasizing about shit he doesn't understand. lamo
Imagine spewing all that shit in all those shitposts and not having a clue how the technology even works

>>7462731
People who like CRTs:
Zoomer bandwagonners who fetishize the past
Millennials and older who used them when they were the mainstream tech
People who think they provide a better gameplay experience, for refresh rate, colors, effect, whatever

People who hate CRTs:
Impoverished zoomers who missed the bandwagon
Zoomers who want to dab on those goddamn 30 year old boomers

People who are indifferent to CRTs:
Regular people who update and simply use modern tech as things move along

>>7473884
I was sick and tired of CRTs by the time other options like the first LCDs started rolling around. I was more than happy to finally stop using the incredibly heavy, warped looking pieces of shit.

Their advantages are nice but not nice enough. Virtually no one owned one of those god panels that wasn't a super blurry bundle of garbage at the time.

>>7463857
>inferior