/vr/ - Retro Games

Yes.
I won't elaborate.

>filters

>>9541785
shader, whatever

>>9541847
>shaders

>>9541762
Of course not, its fundamentally impossible to emulate a superior device on an inferior one.

>>9541869
filter, whatever

>>9541883
ever, shaderwhat

>>9541927
>ever

>>9541762
Shaders are only half of the equation. The best ones already emulate scanlines and phosphor masks very well when used at very high resolutions. However, the display matters a lot as well, and it's where the bottleneck truly lies. You need at least 4K resolution, HDR with very high brightness and strobing to properly replicate things like scanline bloom and smooth motion while having a nice vibrant picture. In lieu of that, some shaders try to fake the bloom and glow of a CRT screen, but these aren't all that convincing.

>>9541762
watch this for one of the reasons why it'll never really look the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea6tw-gulnQ

>>9541931
Agreed. This is what I assume is needed.
The average filter like on OP's pic is an objective downgrade that looks worst than pure LCD.

It feels like most people using filters either have only seen really shitty CRTs or have never seen one at all.

>>9542227
OP's pic is an actual CRT.

>>9542236
It is not

>>9542241
Bruh, you can see the phosphors in the black areas around Ryu light up ever so slightly due to light bleed, which AFAIK no CRT shader does.

>>9541762
Filters will only ever look remotely close to CRTs if looked at from an OLED with a high nit setting, minimum. Any other panel shits the bed.

>>9542236
>>9542241
kek the absolute state of crt fags
you can't even tell the difference between a shader and an actual crt

>>9541762
Yes it's called a 10000 to 20000PPI display
CRT shaders suck and CRTs suck too

The future of retro games will be 240p games near-neighbor scaled to +300K resolution 30 inch displays and it will be glorious

>>9541939
>Posting videos from this fat troon
Go back 2 reddit

>>9542227
>>9542241
lmao fucking retard

>>9544245
>>9544249
>>9544252
seek help

>>9544257
kys nigger

Who cares? Are you going to play videogames or just take pictures of them?

If the games look good to you then that's all that matters. Imagine if instead of shitposting about "the right way to play" you actually spent that time playing the damn games (or getting yourself a life), but that's too much for the average elitistfag in this board.

With 8K HDR display will be possible. It's just a matter of time

>>9546123
cool head canon, you came up with all that shit yourself, no one mentioned the right way to play except you

go outside, faggot, this place is rotting your mind so much you're making up arguments

>>9541762
You are making a hyperbole. There are great CRT shaders available already. Also there are different kinds of CRTs. It doesn't have to look a single way.
>>9546138
8K doesn't matter that much unless we are talking like 80 inch. 4k is more than enough. OLED matters much more, but they are likely to get damaged with CRT shaders.
>>9541931
>You need at least 4K resolution, HDR
While that is ideal even at 1080p CRT shaders look much better compared to no shader.

>>9546334
>While that is ideal even at 1080p CRT shaders look much better compared to no shader.
Oh I agree, although you're definitely more limited when it comes to masks. At 1080p, the most convincing look is a PVM-esque aperture grille. Slot masks and lower TVL emulation requires more pixels to look good.

>>9541762
Sure. Probably within the lifetime of the average /vr/ shitposter. Unless tidepods.

CRT blur comes from its physical makeup. To emulate that makeup, you need high pixel density, so you not only display the signal, but the output device's look as well.

>you see, when I take a screenshot and zoom way in the CRT illusion goes away, I can't play this shit

>>9542248
anon...

I dont understand.Wwhy just not buy a small CRT and use it for original hardware?
It's cheap, it's low commitment and it will be better than any filter on a crappy digital display.
If emulation is the focus, get a small CRT monitor and use 480p+scanlines to get a PVM look.
Why keep insisting on roundabout ways to get mediocre results?

>Another luddite thread complaining about new, free options as if they were going to take CRTs away
Where will your original hardware supremacist attitude land you when it is no longer possible for CRTs to function due to the irreparable decay and magnetic erosion of their components? It is absolutely imperative for emulation on modern hardware to eventually be able to perfectly match a CRT. Software preservation is not a pissing contest. You are going down with a sinking ship, cheering that the life rafts are not large enough to hold all the passengers.

>>9547985
>Where will your original hardware supremacist attitude land you when it is no longer possible for CRTs to function due to the irreparable decay and magnetic erosion of their components?
Someone forgot to tell shango that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocm0-zZI6q8

>>9547983
its annoying as fuck to get a modern pc working on a crt


but this is where the mister shines

>>9548001
come on now, just use one of these babies and you're good to go

>>9546334
>8K doesn't matter that much unless we are talking like 80 inch. 4k is more than enough. OLED matters much more, but they are likely to get damaged with CRT shaders.
I don't think you have to be worried about OLED that much.
But anyways MicroLED is here.
And depending on what kind of CRT you wanna emulate you need more res.

But all of this is a meme anyways.
Brute-force upscaling via high pixel density screens(>12000PPI) is much better than CRTs or CRT Shaders.
CRT shaders are just a temporary band-aid.

And the motion which is the most important part has been figured out. It's just a matter of counteracting bfi brightness loss with enough light output which MicroLEDs have plenty of.
Heck even OLEDs are getting brighter and LCDs are pretty damn birght.
Even MiniLED Baclit-LCDs with enough dimming zones(>10000) might be a better fit than OLED(current OLED) because of higher color volume so don't just assume OLED is a magic bullet when (high end)LCDs still have advantages over it.

>>9548506
>Brute-force upscaling via high pixel density screens(>12000PPI) is much better than CRTs or CRT Shaders.
No it's not. The issues CRTs has and low res LCD screen door effect makes them look better. We are talking very low res here. Cleaner isn't always better. Just watch any old horror film in HD and SD.

>>9547985
When you spend 10K+ on a hobby and you realize others can download the same stuff for free, you go in copium overdrive. This what all original hardware vs emulation debates boil down to.

>>9541762
For now it just depends on what you want out of it. Eventually there probably will be a filter for OLED displays that will nearly be as good as the real thing.

>>9548512
>No it's not.
Yes it is.
Screen door effect and scanlines aren't good things
That's why 240p games looks much smoother on a low TVL 5 inch CRT for example

When you get to >12000PPI you are basically perfectly upscaling the original low resolution without any artifacts
Problem with current pixel densities, even pixel densities like 600PPI is that they still aren't enough so they still look noticeably aliased since the pixels still aren't comparatively small enough to reconstruct the original intent. But at >12000PPI(and ideally >20000PPI) that no longer is the case.

>Just watch any old horror film in HD and SD.
You are retarded.
The whole VHS Horror niche is stupid.
These films were shot on film and screened in Theatres originally(excepting the shit that was shot exclusively for direct to VHS).
You preferring to watch horror films in an inferior and originally unintended way is a matter of taste.

But anyways, you're missing the point.
+12000PPI won't turn 240p into HD/4K/8K etc.
This is not a rescan of a film, this is just a near neighbour scale.
The same would go for crusty VHS movies. 350i VHS tapes would still look 350i-sh if near neighbour scaled to 12000PPI. All an absurd high PPI does is give you the ability to better preserve the original stuff and with a higher PPI you get less screen-door effect at any screen size due to fill-factor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_factor_(image_sensor)

Ideally you'd want as less black space as possible

Yes, it's called HDR on a 4k OLED screen

Only thing it lacks is the same motion clarity as a CRT. Maybe one day

>>9548595
>Only thing it lacks is the same motion clarity as a CRT.
With BFI on an LG CX OLED you can get pretty decent results if you force HDR brightness.
Now OLEDs are getting even brighter.
And when MicroLED and 1000hz becomes mainstream in 5-10 years it will be a non-issue.

One thing people don't seem to mention is that if you play with original hardware and analog connection then the refresh rate might not be exactly aligned since consoles like the SNES ran at 60.09hz(and a bunch of other digits after the "09"). Generally old hardware never ran at exactly perfect 60hz.
This isn't problem for emulation with VRR etc. but I wonder if manufacturers will ever bother to make their panels accept all these odd refresh rate natively or will original hardware fags just put up with a crap solution like via the OSSC where you have the force 60hz option and fool themselves that they're getting an authentic experience?
Of course with HDMI mods they might be able to tap into VRR but many still want to play with analog connections and don't want to modify their consoles.

>>9548624
I have an LG C8 and it just werks with every console refresh rate I've thrown at it. At worst it black screens for 5 seconds or so when initially trying to display the output but it's fine after that

>>9548592
I didn't said VHS. I also think VHS is a stupid meme. I said SD. You couldn't see horror make up at cinemas. You can at HD.
>12000PPI.
Meaningless. You can't tell much difference at higher PPIs. Just compare 1080p smartphone with good screen to 4k.

>>9547985
>Where will your original hardware supremacist attitude land you when it is no longer possible for CRTs to function due to the irreparable decay and magnetic erosion of their components?
Don't care. Won't happen in my lifetime.

>>9547983
This anon is right. A lot of these filters tend to replicate the shitty composite look. Just get any CRT off a scrapyard and you're good to go. Get a Wii for emulation since they're cheap as fuck or buy a composite adapter to use with a computer.

>>9548628
It's not a matter of working or not working.
Of course it will work but if you just hook original hardware to a modern screen it won't look as smooth in motion due to the refresh rate mismatch, you'll get constant hitches you wouldn't on a CRT or on a VRR screen.
See this short video for a better explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CeZ0xbtfDo

It's especially noticeable with games like Mortal Kombat for Arcades which runs at like 53/54hz

Granted when we get to 1000hz displays start to act like VRR but I question if 1000hz has good enough granularity as GSync/Freesync/VRR considering that for example SNES' native refresh rate is literally 60.0988138974405hz
That's 13 digits after the decimal point ffs
You can see other refresh rates from other systems here
https://tasvideos.org/PlatformFramerates

what do you guys think of Mega Bezel shaders?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vh5aUnP45I

>>9548642
>You can't tell much difference at higher PPIs
I don't know what you're trying to say with this but there is definitely a difference with higher PPI. And a 1080p smartphone definitely looks noticeably better than even a 4K monitor due to the higher pixel density.

But a 1080p Smartphone is still 400-500PPI at best.
Look at the Analogue Pocket. It has a 615PPI 1600x1440 screen but it's stil not nearly enough.

I'm basing the 12000PPI-ish figure based on the fact that 64K resolution an 6 inch screen is needed to not see any pixels no matter how close your eyes to the screen are.
I read this somewhere before that that is the resolution they're trying to aim for with Virtual Reality headsets long-term.

>>9548659
i know this is a stupid question but do G-Sync and FreeSync run say 59.432 FPS correctly as well or just 59.0 FPS

>>9548642
>You couldn't see horror make up at cinemas. You can at HD.
You didn't see those movies in the cinemas who are you fooling?
Cinemas literally projected 35mm film which is higher resolution than 4K(35mm can be scanned up to 6K before showing too much grain). Of course the make-up was noticeable.

>>9548672
What I'm saying is that there are no big difference between a phone with a good 1080p and 4k screen. It won't magically look better. We are talking 240p very low res. Issues of CRT somewhat help in my opinion. 480i/480p are better at high res.
>>9548679
I saw some as a kid. I don't remember seeing make ups. Obviously I can't trust my memory of it.
I remember reading that the old projectors didn't had the capacity to show all the details. I'm not sure whether that's true.
I also remember reading 4K was the limit of 35mm, but I'm guessing your 6k is correct.

>>9548675
It actually depends on how good the implementations are.
G-Sync is usually better and has better granularity than Freesync for example but some Freesync implementations are better than some G-Sync implementations out there.

But in general Variable Refresh technologies beat the snot out of old-fashioned VSync.
At higher refresh rates even old consoles benefit because old consoles still had 16-17ms scanout lag due to 60hz-ish scanout but for example on a 360hz G-Sync/Freesync display you get 360hz scanout at all times which means you get far less scanout latency.

Compare for example SNES
16ms lag from game framerate(60fps) + 16ms framebuffer + 16ms lag from 60hz scanout = 48ms lag on original NES with 60hz CRT
vs
16ms lag from game framerate(60fps) + 16ms 60fps framebuffer + 360hz scanout(3ms) = 35ms(+ some varying degrees of lag if using emulation depending on frame delay settings etc.)
You get the point

>>9541762
Who cares about your experience.

Serious question. Who do you think cares?

I will never, ever, ever understand why these screaming, seething, sharting purists are so obsessed with how other people play video games.
>NO!!! YOU CAN'T DO IT *LIKE THAT*!!!! THAT'S NOT HOW I DO IT!!! STOP IIIIT!!

>>9548694
>What I'm saying is that there are no big difference between a phone with a good 1080p and 4k screen.
And I'm saying that there objectively is, especially if your eyes are closer to the screen etc.
240p isn't all that different from 480p or 160p or whatever.

But the point is that you need a fuckton of resolution before you resolve the problem.
One of the biggest draw of higher resolutions is to not have to use anti-aliasing anymore. Even on a 4K monitor you still see aliasing problems in modern 4K games, that is if you mod them on PC to disable the Temporal Anti-Aliasing all of them use nowadays. 4K on 27 inch screen is aroud 160ish PPI and it's still nowhere near enough without AA applied. Even on a 300PPI screen phone if you play a modern game without AA it's still not enough.

To give you a perspective
To reach 12000ish PPI on say a 30 inch screen you would need a resolution of 320000x180000 which translates to a dot pitch of 0.0021mm which means each pixel is about 2.1 micrometers small.
So yeah it's a long way off but there is a solution to get rid of these screen-door, scanline artifacts and all this bullshit long-term.

Of course display researchers will never stop researching and improving displays and I think the limitation for color displays is about 700 nameters since below that you can't display Red primary but yeah.

>>9548694
>I remember reading that the old projectors didn't had the capacity to show all the details.
This just isn't true, even old projectors from the 50s were more than good enough.
I think it might be your memory. When you're a kid even somebody with make-up might look more convincing.

Though there can be an alternative explanation such as maybe directorial changes on newer releases maybe?

>>9548787
Thank you anon. I didn't know old projectors were capable of displaying it. I will look more into it.
I always found VHS/LaserDisc fad stupid but this makes it even more stupid.
VHS image quality was terrible even for it's release. I remember reading engineers didn't want to compress it so much, but they did it anyway to make sure you could record an American Football game.
Makes sense for the time, but insisting on it today...

Regarding 64k, I don't think resolution could improve much given the limits of tech both from GPU, display side and stream/download. Unless there is a breakthrough of some sorts.

>>9548787
>I think it might be your memory.
It most likely is. There are other differences with releases obviously, but if projector can display it that's the most likely explanation.

>>9548812
>but they did it anyway to make sure you could record an American Football game.
Actually on VHS or Beta or Laserdisc recorders you had the option of recording in the highest quality or lower quality but longer runtime.

>>9548812
>Regarding 64k, I don't think resolution could improve much given the limits of tech both from GPU, display side and stream/download. Unless there is a breakthrough of some sorts.
We'll get there evetually altough 64K is only good enough for 16:9 6 inch screen as I pointed out for a screen size like 30 inch 16:9 screen 320K is needed to get the same PPI.

32K is already somewhat relevant enough to have its own wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32K_resolution

There's this interesting new technology from a company called Porotech called "DynamicPixelTuning".
What this allows is for a single emitting LED to display the full color wavelength. This means you can get rid of the conventional RGB subpixels and this way according to them you can quadruple the resolution(4K screen turns into a 16K screen) and of course you get significantly better color purity with Whites being extremely pure due to not being an RGB mix and Violets, Cyans etc. looking purer.

One final thing I have to note is that running modern video games with cutting edge graphics at a native 320K probably won't be feasible in our lifetimes but running them a a more conventional 1080p/4K resolution and then near neighbour upscale them to 320K seems more feasible.
By that token I doubt we'll ever even see 4K TV broadcasts become mainstream in my lifetime but upscaling 1080i or 4K to absurd resoluton will look just as good as their native counterparts with the only thing remaining being the quality of the video bitrate which with better compression algorithms over time is getting better.

>>9548829
>There are other differences with releases obviously
Look at The Matrix
Yeah, an extreme example I know, but they never got the color timing right in any of the home releases

With a recent HDR release I've heard people claim that it's the closest it's been to the original cinematic version in 1999

I'm not too sure how much light film reels capture although typically old traditional film projectors themselves actually didn't get very bright compared to newer digital projectors which can get much brighter.

>>9548749
You won't get the benefits of faster scanout with a real SNES. The SNES spends that whole 16ms period drawing out to the screen.

The retrotink 5x has one that looks real real good, and I'm a big crt fag. When the 4k one comes out I might bite

>>9548595
>Maybe one day
I am pretty sure they could make a low persistence OLED right now. They just choose not to.

The active matrix has a capacitor which holds the brightness until its updated. It seems like it should be possible to put a resistor across this capacitor. This would give CRT like decay. I suppose they might not want to do this because it will massively reduce the brightness and make it flicker like a CRT, and since it would be built into the matrix, it can't be disabled.

>>9548893
That's true that a normal SNES can't do that but it could probably be done with an HDMI modifcation.
QFT is all about sending the frame faster through the wire.

>The SNES spends that whole 16ms period drawing out to the screen.
That's the rendering part which is different.
You'll always have that 16ms lag with 60fps.

>>9549251
>I am pretty sure they could make a low persistence OLED right now. They just choose not to.
They already did.
It's called an LG CX.
It can do 3.5ms MPRT.

>The active matrix has a capacitor which holds the brightness until its updated. It seems like it should be possible to put a resistor across this capacitor. This would give CRT like decay. I suppose they might not want to do this because it will massively reduce the brightness and make it flicker like a CRT, and since it would be built into the matrix, it can't be disabled.
That's really not how any of this works.
To emulate phosphor decay you need 1000hz or more but 360hz can also do a good job.

Phosphor decay doesn't really make motion smoother, the opposite, you trade off some motion smoothness in the fall times for less flicker.

You can't accurately emulate a CRT with OLED however if you want it as authentic as possible.
OLED isn't as fast a CRT.
CRT's pixel rise times are on the nanoseconds(with the fall times aka the phosphor decay being much slower on the half millisecond to a few milliseconds).
MicroLED can do it no problem though.

>>9549387
Emulating phosphor decay using frames is gross. The only acceptable way for a display to function is to output one pulse of light per frame.

>>9541781
based

People who have extensive experience with high-end CRTs
>CRT Shaders can look very nice. I've put them side by side with my personal collections and they looked close. They are certainly a viable alternative.
People who have only seen a handful of consumer CRTs or are going off of memories from 15+ years
>ALL SHADER USERS SHOULD BE SHOT ON SIGHT. THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE ANYTHING THAT LOOKS EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I THINK CRTS LOOKED LIKE.

>>9549397
>Emulating phosphor decay using frames is gross.
It's functionally the same.
Frames themselves are an abstract concept since irl we don't see in frames.

>>9541762
No. Just get used to playing pixel perfect man.

>>9548007
I have one of these. How can I use this to connect my PC to my CRT? It has composite, s-video, and component inputs.

>>9549437
Depends what you mean by pixel perfect
15khz CRTs literally display 240p unscaled whatsoever

If by "pixel perfect" you mean near neighbour scaling then that won't be perfect until we reach around 12000PPI resolutions in displays

>>9549437
>just get used to playing with lower physical resolution
"no"

>>9549373
Not unless you create your own PPU. All you have to read is the analog signal that comes out from the PPU. There's no real framebuffer either.

>>9548652
Care enough to be a bitch and screech at how other people play their games AND reply.

>>9547779
Consumer Slot by far, only later Arcade games looked good on Hi end RGB monitors

>>9541762
> EVER
no. never. end of story.
you cant imitate an electron gun zapping phosphor by making pixels darker. its a retarded fucking concept. any photo you see of a CRT on an LCD display DOES NOT look like a CRT does in real life to the eye. just enjoy your blocky ass squares on an LCD display for the love of god

I want to get a CRT, I can pick this up for 60€ near my place. Is it a good deal? Good CRT regardless of price? Keep in mind I would use it with retroarch exclusively

Model is Philips 109P40

>>9549776
subjective

>>9549920
Low IQ take.
As the tech keeps advancing (both screens and crt-shaders) it will become indistinguishable from a real crt.

At the same time crts are no longer being made, and will slowly die out one by one

>>9549484
>zoomer thinking low res upscaled to high resolution is good

>>9549920
When will we have a Nearest-Neighbor only thread?

>>9550726
We used to have two CRTs in our home and they both died

>>9552241
>doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about or what physical resolution means

>>9549920
Who said a CRT shader has to be on an LCD?