/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.2785875]

>as a kid never noticed dot crawls with composite a/v cables
>play hd pc games for 5 years and then go back to old consoles
>the dot crawl is so bad i cant play an old console without atleast s video cables now
GIVE ME BACK MY INNOCENCE

[Anonymous No.2785881]

>>2785875
I can't look at old games on tube TVs anymore now that I've seen how amazing they look in HD. Sometimes you just can't go back anon.

[Anonymous No.2785895]

All caps "GIVE ME BACK MY INNOCENCE" could replace a good portion of the posts on this board without even affecting the conversation.

[Anonymous No.2785896]

>>2785881
>>2785875
Prepare for the crt fags

[Anonymous No.2785905]

>>2785896
I'm on /vr/. I come prepared to deal with them, around here you have to.

>>2785895
This as well. People here actually cling to nostalgia like it's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.2785913]

>>2785895
>>2785896
>>2785905

You're no better than "CRTfags" by forcing your opinion that SD games can look good on HD screens (which is just not true), you're aware of that, right?

[Anonymous No.2785915]

>>2785905
>rotated pixels

[Anonymous No.2785917]

>>2785905

That's now how Mario looks in-game. The NES cover's Mario sprite is stylized, see these lines that depic movement? That isn't in-game.

here's how Nintendo showed how the game is supposed to look like, in the back cover.

I remember your pic from your shitpost thread last time and how you got told.
Nice try though, but you might want to start looking for other picture as that one can easily be countered.

[Anonymous No.2785928]

Play the games in a way that makes them look like how you want them to look. Don't like someone else's answer to that? OK.

[Anonymous No.2785932]

>>2785913

I didn't mention CRTs or LCDs or screens at all, and in fact wasn't even thinking of that when I made my comment.. Merely making an observation.

[Anonymous No.2785943]

>>2785913
>SD games can look good on HD screens (which is just not true)

Well we all have opinions. I think SD games look magnitudes better on an HD screen than a CRT. CRTs, even the best ones ruin the image simply by the way they're designed.

You can use them if you want, but I'm not going to just pretend I like them to satisfy you. CRTs are ugly as fuck and I'll say it any chance I get.

>>2785917
Right, but it's how they thought he ideally SHOULD look. Big clear pixels, not a blurry CRT mess.

>>2785917
I didn't get told at all, and it wasn't even a shitpost thread. I'm fully serious about this. CRT fans claim that's the "proper" way for the games to look. I fundamentally disagree and have proof to show.

It's the CRT fans who couldn't provide any proof at all.

[Anonymous No.2785947]

>>2785943

It was a shitpost thread, you shitposter.

Nobody cares about your opinion, go play SD games on HD screens, nobody cares, really.

If you get triggered when people discuss CRTs then that's not /vr/'s problem, stop spreading your autism.

[Anonymous No.2785950]

>>2785943
>it's how they thought he ideally SHOULD look
According to who?

[Anonymous No.2785953]

>>2785943
I agree with you, but you can never say tat on /vr/. CRT"s just fundamentally look like shit. I strongly prefer playing my games on a good plasma set through an emulator.

[Anonymous No.2785960]

>>2785950

Nintendo of America, it appears like.

Nintendo of America also added these movement lines to Mario's sprite on the cover, so I guess we should get some modding to make Mario get movement lines when he runs, so that it can be even more accurrate to NoA's original vision about how Mario should look like.

Mario's sprite also appears rotated in the cover, so we should add another mod that allows his sprite to rotate when he jumps out of a lava pit.

[Anonymous No.2785961]

>complain about composite signal
>starts a crt vs lcd flamewar
i do not understand

[Anonymous No.2785964]

>>2785961

/v/ is bored because of Fallout 4 shitposting so they come here to vent. Nothing new, it happens everytime a big AAA title releases

[Anonymous No.2785965]

>>2785905
>>2785917
>>2785950
Pixel art looks better with sharp pixels. Thick scanlines are a side effect of the hack used to show 240p on a 480i display. 15kHz CRTs make an unacceptable noise and are unacceptably blurry.

CRTs are great because they have low persistence with no latency penalty, but the best way to use them is 31kHz CRT + line doubler or emulator.

[Anonymous No.2785968]

>>2785965

>all that autism

dude, we get it, you have a "sharp pixel" fetish.
still no reason to shitpost this much just because of an opinion, nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.2785973]

>>2785968
You're the one with the blur fetish. I presented evidence that sharp pixels were intended.

[Anonymous No.2785975]

>>2785973

I have no fetish. I don't talk about how I play games because I don't think other people SHOULD care - evidently autist like you do, but I don't, so I don't comment on it. Maybe I do play games on emulators and LCD, but I'm just tired of your shitposting infesting /vr/, how about that?

[Anonymous No.2785979]

I was playing Metroid Prime on my gamecube last night for a few hours to pick up on an unfinished save on a sony 65" lcd. Neither the receiver nor the tv has s-video so I had to use composite which was some of the most glaring dot crawl and fuzziness I've ever dealt with having played mostly with pvm monitors in the past. Took me but just a couple hours after that to order a set of gamecube d-terminal (component) cables and a xrgb-mini. I know I may have just spent a ridiculous amount on cables and gear for gaming, but fuck it.

Maybe now with a nice upscaler and good cables I can enjoy a clean picture without color problems and dot crawl to the extent it was.

[Anonymous No.2785985]

>>2785979
>no space for a crt or tv my only screen is a computer monitor with built in speakers
>cant afford a mini so i had to buy a 20 dollar hdmi upscaler to play my old games
>all this motion blur
a-atleast i can play them now

[Anonymous No.2786000]

>>2785875
Based on the information provided you are still a kid and therefore notice "dot crawls" as a kid.
To give you back your innocence I need schematics for a time machine and the name of the bar your uncle was drinking in that night.

[Anonymous No.2786019]

What are the types of HD screens? I hear a lot of stuff about motion blur, but I've never seen it. I have a BenQ which I think is LED. Maybe because it's also supposed to work as a computer monitor and has a DVI as well as HDMI ports.

I play classic games both via emulator hooked up to the monitor as well as 360 which has had some releases. There's never any blur or input latency.

Is that a thing specific to LCDs? And if so why does anyone buy them?

[Anonymous No.2786031]

>>2786019
motion blur is specific to cheap displays. From my experience, BenQ displays are marketed a lot at competitive gaming and therefore have low latency and motion blur. LCD can look really good and perform just as well if you know what to look for.

Also the LED thing about your screen. That's just the backlight on the LCD. it's kind of a marketing thing to advertise newer screens as LED (maybe as an attempt to confuse people who heard OLED is good?). But any LCD can have different sources of light behind them. projectors that are lcd just have a bright lamp behind them.

[Anonymous No.2786034]

>>2786031
not just cheap displays but cheap upscalers too

[Anonymous No.2786036]

>>2786031
All sample-and-hold displays (the vast majority of LCDs) have motion blur.

[Anonymous No.2786040]

>>2786031
Interesting, thanks. I didn't want to derail the thread but it seems pretty baity anyways so whatever.

>>2786034
So when people talk about upscalers, they're talking about hooking up retro systems to new monitors and then using the upscaler to make it possible? I can certainly understand how that would cause latency.


>>2786036
So did I get lucky or something? I don't see any of it, and that's my main monitor for all the gaming I do both classic and modern.

[Anonymous No.2786046]

>>2786019
People usually hate LCDs because they've only seen the crappy ones. Motion blur and input latency aren't universal problems with them. The cheap and old LCDs do suffer from those, but if you do your research, there are LCDs with very low input lag and no blur.

The only real advantage CRTs have is that they can run natively at different resolutions, which makes low res games look better. A good upscaler can produce a similar picture on an LCD, though.

LEDs aren't much different from LCDs, the only difference is that they use a different kind of backlighting.

[Anonymous No.2786117]

My CRT recently crapped out on me, so I've been having to use my HDTV to play Super Mario RPG. I guess I'm not as picky as some people, but it really doesn't look that bad. I know it's not as great as it could be, but I see no problem with it as it is now. I'm still on the hunt for a new CRT, though.

[Anonymous No.2786140]

>>2786040
>I don't see any of it
If it's an unstrobed 60Hz LCD, it has sample-and-hold blur. If you don't see it you still have your innocence.

>>2786046
No LCD can match CRT latency.

[Anonymous No.2786154]

>>2786140
What does innocence have to do with anything? I'm at work and don't even remember the name of it to post here, but all I'm saying is that this motion blur thing people talk about can't be universal. And I play many fast paced games where blur would be an issue if it existed.

If latency is already low enough it's unnoticeable, then what's the need for even better latency?

[Anonymous No.2786256]

LCD latency is in the order of milliseconds
CRT latency is in the order of nanoseconds (if there isn't a lot of video processing going on)

That being said, that kind of decrease in latency isn't going to make people any better at games considering the high performance LCD displays that are on the market these days for pc. I personally think if people who were die hard CRT users for the sake of latency were to try a high performance, high refresh rate LCD, that they might consider the difference negligible.

I might be wrong though, but once OLED is used for pc monitors and developed more / cheaper, then CRT will be pretty useless in terms of picture quality.

[Anonymous No.2786362]

>>2786154

So this actually brings up an interesting question of the threshold for the perception of human latency. I found a mention from John Carmack once that 20ms is an extreme lower threshold.

Though, also, it might simplify things to put everything only in terms of latency. Are there other important qualities that might affect this as well?

[Anonymous No.2786367]

>>2786154
>this motion blur thing people talk about can't be universal
At least 95% of LCDs have sample-and-hold blur. If you're playing low framerate games then you might not notice it because motion quality is bad whatever display you use in that case.

>>2786256
At least 99.9% of OLED displays have sample-and-hold blur.

[Anonymous No.2786374]

S-Video and better looks fine on a HDTV. Composite and RF don't fare as well, but composite looks fine on a CRT, if not as good as S-Video or RGB SCART.

[Anonymous No.2786381]

>>2786367

What's the threshold of human comprehension of that though?

[Anonymous No.2786382]

>>2785875
>>2785881
Thread rendered worthless in one post less than five minutes later.

[Anonymous No.2786394]

>>2786382
The thread is worthless because someone else prefers a different kind of monitor than you do?

[Anonymous No.2786398]

>>2786256
>LCD latency is in the order of milliseconds
>CRT latency is in the order of nanoseconds (if there isn't a lot of video processing going on)
I haven't seen a test yet where the CRT didn't have like 1-2msish of lag. You also have to account for a top down refresh. Which can take up to about 16ms with 60hz input. So a CRT easily can have over a frame of lag if you measure at the bottom.
Averaged out SD CRTs have around 8ms of lag.
What CRTs do that LCDs can’t do is start drawing the frame well before a LCD begins it’s refresh. However, there are 144hz monitors with 4ms and under input lag.
>That being said, that kind of decrease in latency isn't going to make people any better at games considering the high performance LCD displays that are on the market these days for pc. I personally think if people who were die hard CRT users for the sake of latency were to try a high performance, high refresh rate LCD, that they might consider the difference negligible.
You’re talking about like 10ms max difference in lag with good LCDs.

>I might be wrong though, but once OLED is used for pc monitors and developed more / cheaper, then CRT will be pretty useless in terms of picture quality.
CRTs are trash for picture quality.
Shit sharpness
Really shit contrast
Shit geometry
All they ever had was amazing black levels and good color reproduction.

[Anonymous No.2786409]

>>2786381
Probably somewhere around 1000fps. No sample-and-hold display on the market reaches it.

[Anonymous No.2786412]

>>2786154
>>2786040
If you don’t see motion blur you’re just a scrub man. Bought all there is to it. Not anything wrong with that. Most games these days force blur filters or very low frame rate in cut scenes anyway.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates

Strobes and scanning backlights get rid of blur as well or better than CRTs.

[Anonymous No.2786413]

>>2786394
It's one of the most unpopular opinions on one of the most contentious topics on the board, basically an automatic thread derailer.

This thread could be salvaged if the discussion on the topic could be contained in the troll thread created here:
>>2773424

But let's be honest, that's not going to happen and this thread is now worthy of hiding.

[Anonymous No.2786419]

>>2786398
>However, there are 144hz monitors with 4ms and under input lag.
That's impressive if true. Assuming CVT video timing, frame data transfer takes (1080/1177)*(1000/144) = 6.37ms. Divide by two for the average frame transfer latency, and you get 3.18, so there's only 0.81ms latency caused by pixel response time and data processing. I suspect this is measuring latency to the start of the pixel transition, not the end. And don't forget you get at least another 3.18ms latency if you're strobing.

[Anonymous No.2786443]

>>2786398
I always thought it was much lower for CRT, if you could post a link for those measurements that'd be cool. Don't mean to spread any false info is all.

[Anonymous No.2786446]

>>2786419
Oh hey it's the dumbass who still thinks a strobe adds latency.

You're still wrong about everything.

No idea where you’re getting that information other than your ass. You throw a blanket standard out there to seem smart but you’re making yourself look like an idiot.

As I said in the other thread. Multiple sources have measured the lag and it’s equal.

[Anonymous No.2786452]

>>2786409

Do you have any data for that? 1ms seems pretty extreme. I mean, beyond the fact that there is probably a Gaussian distribution over human reactions like that.

[Anonymous No.2786453]

>>2786446
And time travel still isn't real. CVT timing specifies 1177 lines vtotal per frame at 1080p144. That means 6.37ms during which the backlight has to be turned off. Your only source was some anonymous guy with an Arduino who didn't specify where on the screen he measured. As >>2786398 points out, you have to account for top down refresh.

[Anonymous No.2786456]

>>2786443
It's how a CRT works. You don't need a test for it. Here's the spoon though.

[Anonymous No.2786457]

>>2786452
Sample-and-hold blur depends the speed of movement and the frame rate. Sample-and-hold blur is still very clearly visible at 120fps despite it being half that of 60fps. I estimate it would be insignificant at 1000fps (although 1000fps is not high enough to display all possible motion, as you can confirm yourself with a fast strobing LED and rapid eye movement).

[Anonymous No.2786463]

>>2786456
LCDs work in the same way, which is why >>2786446 's claim is a mathematical impossibility.

[Anonymous No.2786469]

>>2786446
And it's the dumbass who posted a 120Hz strobe scope trace without understanding what it meant or even that it was 120Hz.

[Anonymous No.2786472]

This only matter when you're sitting on your PC talking about it. If you were actually playing your games instead of obsessing and getting anxious over details you'd forget about little display details within 5 minutes.
Learn to enjoy what you have. You'll save money and you'll be happier.

[Anonymous No.2786486]

>>2786472
I agree, probably best to just get a halfway decent upscaler and forget about lag and blur unless it's noticeable. Or even cheaper, just play with composite on LCD and think of all the money you'll be saving.

[Anonymous No.2786510]

>>2786453
I'm not getting into this again so let me just put out all info and leave it at that. Feel free to continue to spew your diarrhea with zero support.

Strobes aren’t top down refresh. The strobe is on for a set time then shuts off.
Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
As the video shows. All the backlights come on at ounce and then go off bottom to top.

Strobes will get rid of all blur as well or better than a CRT
Evidence: “LightBoost = 10%: Backlight strobe flash of about 1.4 milliseconds per refresh.
This results in approximately ~1 pixel of motion blur during 960 pixels/sec motion.
The alien eyes are now crisp, and vertical edges are now crisp.”
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/10vs50vs100/

[Anonymous No.2786513]

>>2786510
Strobes do not have any increase in lag.
Evidence:
“The latency of ULMB and LightBoost appears almost identical (less than 1ms difference), when I do the photodiode oscilloscope measurement.
Measurements showed ULMB seemed to have a fraction of a millisecond less latency than LightBoost. Insignificant, but at came up as slightly less.”
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/
“Analogue 1080p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,5 ms, without BL strobing: 8,4 ms
Analogue 720p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,8 ms, without BL strobing: 8,8 ms
Analogue 480p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,5 ms, without BL strobing: 8,2 ms

Digital 1080p (General) - with BL strobing: 57,9 ms, without BL strobing: 59,9 ms
Digital 1080p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,7 ms, without BL strobing: 9,3 ms
Digital 1080i (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,6 ms
Digital 1080i (Game plus Deint.) - with BL strobing: 43,4 ms
Digital 720p (Game) - with BL strobing: 7,0 ms, without BL strobing: 9,4 ms
Digital 480p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,4 ms, without BL strobing: 8,5 ms

What's clear from all the readings is that the Sony is quite fast indeed. If you don't exactly minimize the backlight setting, then all the important operating modes give us readings below half a frame of delay. Proper deinterlacing in game mode is not exactly desirable for fast action games, since two more frames get buffered. For the "normal" scene modes three frames get buffered (which is necessary for the proper cadence analysis with enabled film mode, which converts 60Hz input signals into 24p as long as we talk film-based material.).”
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=48662
Neither are using Leo Bodnar style tests.
It’s clear there is NO lag induced from a strobe.

Have fun copy pasting more standards that you don’t understand, champ.

[Anonymous No.2786514]

>>2786510
>Strobes aren’t top down refresh. The strobe is on for a set time then shuts off.
Which is exactly why they add latency compared to a CRT. If the strobe was top down ("scanning backlight") then there would be no added latency (other than the normal LCD pixel response/processing latency, which can be very low on fast TN panels).

>Strobes will get rid of all blur as well or better than a CRT
Of course. But there is a latency cost to this.

[Anonymous No.2786515]

>>2786486
Or just plug your systems into your CRT without bothering with any scaler nonsense, even simpler. Can't get cheaper than that.

[Anonymous No.2786516]

>>2786513
Comparison between two modes on the same LCD, not a comparison with a CRT.

[Anonymous No.2786528]

>>2786515
Yeah, I've got some old tubes I play on as well, but the geometry and convergence issues really bug me sometimes and I don't want to deal with fixing that.

[Anonymous No.2786535]

>>2786457

I was wondering more if anyone here was familiar with human vision system enough to give us any empirical evidence on any of these things.

It's a complex question though.

[Anonymous No.2786542]

>>2786516
I wasn't comparing to CRTs. Great reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.2786685]

>>2786542
If you're not comparing to CRTs then everything you say is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.2786695]

I play old games on HDTV, too and will soon continue to play in UHDTV. If a game looks really bad I emulate.

[Anonymous No.2786696]

>>2785979

Wii...

[Anonymous No.2786697]

>>2786685
>o-oh... well you're still wr-wrong!

[Anonymous No.2786701]

>>2786697
Who are are you trying to insult? The argument has been about LCDs vs CRTs from that start. The crazy time-travel believing anonymous has now admitted he's lost by abandoning this comparison.

[Anonymous No.2786702]

I once tried playing an old game on a CRT. It was indeed a bit sharper due to correct interlacing processing, but that was about it. The difference wasn't that big. I was like that was it? It was a little bit of a let down for me. I immediately then switched back to HDTV because I'm allergic to flickering of CRT TV's and played the game on an emulator instead . I think CRTs are very unhealthy for the eyes and straining them.

[Anonymous No.2786703]

>>2786685
If you want a CRT comparison then see the second source in the lag part.

[Anonymous No.2786705]

>>2786703
No one cares about lag dude, we are not playing Wow. Even if you play on an emulator you will never have a problem due to lag. You're just gasping for the straws here.

[Anonymous No.2786708]

>>2786705
Ok? You asked and I delivered. Sorry your opinions on CRTs aren't supported by facts. Or whatever you're upset about.

[Anonymous No.2786709]

My Monitor has 1ms input lag, I think I'm fine. Stay mad.

[Anonymous No.2786712]

>>2786708
I didn't ask anything, you are confusing me with another anon. Those are irrelevant facts, because they don't change anything. Except if you're an Autist. Then I guess it matters. I upscale my games to 4K on a 120Hz screen. Loves it.

[Anonymous No.2786714]

>>2786709
>>2786712
Good trolling, champ

[Anonymous No.2786717]

>>2786703
I already saw that the testing methodology is flawed (no vertical location reported), and I already saw that the difference in latency compared to CRT is well above the theoretical minimum I've supported. The fact that the reported difference between the two modes of the LCD is less than the theoretical minimum between strobed LCD and CRT is completely irrelevant, because we are not talking about LCD vs LCD comparisons. You could set it to anything you liked by adjusting the timing of each mode. Add enough latency to the unstrobed mode and you'd see negative latency difference, but that still wouldn't make your time-travel real.

[Anonymous No.2786721]

>>2786714
LOL, you have delusion. You can't accept reality can you? Wow some people here amaze me, they are so ignorant towards reality and what it has happening all around them, they are blind. It's like I'm on a Titanic and I tell people I rather go in a life boat, and people be like YOU ARE TROLLING. Those people on 4chan are actually like Sjws, they accent accept different opinions, so they react like that to don't break their precious sjw/CRT hug box/bubble.

[Anonymous No.2786724]

>>2786717
Nice factual evidence to support your claims.

[Anonymous No.2786726]

>>2786721
*can't accept different opinions

[Anonymous No.2786729]

>>2786724
Did you know that cheetahs are faster than cars? I raced a cheetah against another cheetah and it won, so that proves it.

The "evidence" needed to prove you're talking about something irrelevant to the argument is basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.2786730]

>>2786721
>4k panel
>120hz
>not trolling

OK!

[Anonymous No.2786732]

>>2786729
Look at all that factual evidence to support your claims.

[Anonymous No.2786734]

It's funny how people on here still think CRTs are superior or have any benefits. It's like people who only use steamships for travels across the Atlantic, Instead of airplanes. I feel a bit sorry for them.

[Anonymous No.2786735]

wtf are "dot crawls"?

[Anonymous No.2786736]

>>2786735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMCoCfYskU

[Anonymous No.2786738]

>>2786735

when playing any console using composite or RF the edges of almost anything you look at will have dot crawl along it. looks kind of like fuzzy caterpillars.

[Anonymous No.2786740]

>>2786730
Wow the delusion is strong with this one. How ignorant can one be? Why are you so sad? Do you live in the basement? Do you live in the stone age? You are a very funny guy for thinking 4K equals trolling. You cannot even fathom in your little mind that people would consider playing retro games on a 4K screen. You should go more out of your basement. 4K is the new thing. There is even a UHDBD player released now.

[Anonymous No.2786743]

I would emphasise the importance of a 120 Hz to everyone. It's the ultimate way of viewing content, including games.

[Anonymous No.2786746]

>>2786740
That was a good start to some copy pasta. Still pretty good.

[Anonymous No.2786747]

>>2786746
Welcome to 2015,basement dweller. Wake up, the future is here.

[Anonymous No.2786753]

>>2786732
Here's the factual evidence:
>Digital 1080p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,7 ms, without BL strobing: 9,3 ms
LCD vs LCD comparison, not LCD vs CRT comparison. But lets assume the testing methodology isn't complete nonsense, which we cannot be sure of because no details are reported, and examine these figures.

Best case timing (CVT with non-reduced blanking, which is the fastest standard timing. In practice many people will be using reduced blanking, which will slow it down) is this:
$ cvt 1920 1080 120
# 1920x1080 119.93 Hz (CVT) hsync: 139.12 kHz; pclk: 369.50 MHz
Modeline "1920x1080_120.00" 369.50 1920 2080 2288 2656 1080 1083 1088 1160 -hsync +vsync
Vtotal is 1144, vdisp is 1060, refresh rate is 120Hz, so frame transfer time is (1080/1160)*(1000/120) = 7.76ms

The strobed latency is higher than this. Also note that the unstrobed latency is irrelevant, because you have no idea how aggressive the pixel driver timing is (latency can be traded for image quality by adjusting the overdrive).

However, it seems possible that the pixel driver timing is equally aggressive in each mode, and the real reason the difference between the modes is low is because the strobe timing is too aggressive. This manifests as vertical position sensitive artifacts, which are indeed reported:
>The strobing function further causes some weird ghosting effects. Weird because the ghosting is much more visible in the lower part of the display than it is in the upper half. With a synthetic test with a smoothly scrolling vertical bar the upper half of the bar shows a little ghosting to the right (with the bar scrolling to the left), while the lower half shows ghosting on the other side of the bar as well - comparable to overshoot on modern PC displays.

There is absolutely nothing on this page suggesting that the best case artifact-free strobed LCD latency can be below the frame transfer time, let alone equal to the average CRT latency (which is the frame transfer time divided by two).

[Anonymous No.2786760]

>>2786732
Here's the factual evidence:
>Digital 1080p (Game) - with BL strobing: 6,7 ms, without BL strobing: 9,3 ms
LCD vs LCD comparison, not LCD vs CRT comparison. But lets assume the testing methodology isn't complete nonsense, which we cannot be sure of because no details are reported, and examine these figures.

Best case timing (CVT with non-reduced blanking, which is the fastest standard timing. In practice many people will be using reduced blanking, which will slow it down) is this:
$ cvt 1920 1080 120
# 1920x1080 119.93 Hz (CVT) hsync: 139.12 kHz; pclk: 369.50 MHz
Modeline "1920x1080_120.00" 369.50 1920 2080 2288 2656 1080 1083 1088 1160 -hsync +vsync
Vtotal is 1160, vdisp is 1080, refresh rate is 120Hz, so frame transfer time is (1080/1160)*(1000/120) = 7.76ms

The strobed latency is higher than this. Also note that the unstrobed latency is irrelevant, because you have no idea how aggressive the pixel driver timing is (latency can be traded for image quality by adjusting the overdrive).

However, it seems possible that the pixel driver timing is equally aggressive in each mode, and the real reason the difference between the modes is low is because the strobe timing is too aggressive. This manifests as vertical position sensitive artifacts, which are indeed reported:
>The strobing function further causes some weird ghosting effects. Weird because the ghosting is much more visible in the lower part of the display than it is in the upper half. With a synthetic test with a smoothly scrolling vertical bar the upper half of the bar shows a little ghosting to the right (with the bar scrolling to the left), while the lower half shows ghosting on the other side of the bar as well - comparable to overshoot on modern PC displays.

There is absolutely nothing on this page suggesting that the best case artifact-free strobed LCD latency can be below the frame transfer time, let alone equal to the average CRT latency (which is the frame transfer time divided by two).

[Anonymous No.2786769]

>>2786753
>>2786760
Are we gonna talk about how a lot Lcd/led monitors have 1ms input lag? Isn't that technically faster than any Catholic ray TV?

[Anonymous No.2786772]

>>2786760


>LCD vs LCD comparison, not LCD vs CRT comparison. But lets assume the testing methodology isn't complete nonsense, which we cannot be sure of because no details are reported, and examine these figures.
No detail? LCD TO LCD? You didn’t read anything then
That test used a CRT to get those numbers. It is a comparison to a CRT. However, my post wasn’t about CRT vs LCDs. It was about strobes. Maybe that confused you?

It’s one LCD.

>bla bla bla no idea how shit works and all opinion with no support to back anything up
What a surprise

>There is absolutely nothing on this page suggesting that the best case artifact-free strobed LCD latency can be below the frame transfer time, let alone equal to the average CRT latency (which is the frame transfer time divided by two).
You seem really confused.

And the monitors in the blurrbuster test are getting around 3-4ms average lag with the strobe on.

>>2786769
Here's your reply.

[Anonymous No.2786774]

>>2786769
Yes. A lot of oleds lcds and plasmas are faster in terms of total response time.

[Anonymous No.2786775]

>this thread
>these people

[Anonymous No.2786776]

>>2786736
>>2786738

Oh yeah, I've got those. I hooked up my PS2 again recently and it was the first thing I noticed. Never knew there was a name for it. I thought OP was talking about the wavy lines you get creeping up the screen. That annoys me way more. I can handle some fuzzy dots though.

[Anonymous No.2786782]

>>2786769
That's still slower than a CRT, and it would require a high quality scanning backlight to avoid the latency penalty of strobing.

>>2786772
>And the monitors in the blurrbuster test are getting around 3-4ms average lag with the strobe on.
Your claim is that "a strobed LCD, with the strobe configured to avoid artifacts, can have average latency (average of measured latency at all possible vertical positions of the screen) below the frame transfer time". This is an extraordinary claim because it is literally impossible without time travel. Note that even CRTs cannot do better than half the frame transfer time. Also note that latency is often reported as difference from CRT average latency, and CRT average latency is not zero because frame transfer time is not zero.

You have failed to provide any evidence of any LCD capable of this. Your blurbusters links did not show such a thing. Nothing will show such a thing, because it requires literal magic.

[Anonymous No.2786790]

>be me
>based God
I only play retro games on emulator on UHDTV even 6th 7th gen, because actual hardware on CRT looks bad imho. I render 3D games in 4K or 1080p depending on the gen (ps2, gc, and wii 1080p because need more gpu) all other @4K. I use widescreen hacks were possible. I don't use retextures, I like the original. For 2D games I upscale pixel perfect nearest neighbour or use bilinear interpolation. I'm not sure which one I prefer.

[Anonymous No.2786793]

>>2786782
>latency is often reported as difference from CRT average latency
Which is the case with the shmups forum LCD, making its numbers worse than they seem.

[Anonymous No.2786797]

>>2786782
Okay. I acknowledge that. But it doesn't affect me in anyway or shows me how CRTs are supreme since 1ms input lag on my Lcd is more than I'll ever need.

[Anonymous No.2786798]

>>2786782
>Your claim is that "a strobed LCD, with the strobe configured to avoid artifacts, can have average latency (average of measured latency at all possible vertical positions of the screen) below the frame transfer time". This is an extraordinary claim because it is literally impossible without time travel. Note that even CRTs cannot do better than half the frame transfer time. Also note that latency is often reported as difference from CRT average latency, and CRT average latency is not zero because frame transfer time is not zero.
I don’t claim anything. Haven’t yet. I post facts and I backed them up. You on the other hand, not so much.

>You have failed to provide any evidence of any LCD capable of this. Your blurbusters links did not show such a thing. Nothing will show such a thing, because it requires literal magic.
The evidence is bad because you say so? Man what an argument. Maybe if you posted a single test to support your shit?

[Anonymous No.2786813]

You guys really outdid yourselves with this one.

[Anonymous No.2786818]

>>2786813

It's like people who hate CRT need validation from /vr/.

Deal with it, some people enjoy playing SD games on SD screens.
I agree those who say "If you play on HD you're not playing as developers intended" are annoying and sperglords, I think people should enjoy the games whatever they want, but LCD loyalists and anti-CRT are just as annoying as CRT loyalists.

I'm in various boards and forums about retro games, places like digital press for example which is one of the earliest retro-focused communities on the internet, and CRT has always been part of retro-focused discussion.

If you don't like it, then stop browsing retro-focused boards because you'll get triggered easily.

[Anonymous No.2786821]

>>2786798
>I don’t claim anything.
Yes you do. You post facts but none of those facts support your claim.

>>2786798
Show me any strobed (not scanning backlight) LCD which can show a complete artifact-free (no tearing or blurring) image before that image has finished transferring. I can't even comprehend what kind of warped thinking results in believing this is possible. You're talking like a schizophrenic friend I once had. Time is a linear sequence. Causes come before effects. Claiming your LCD exists is like claiming you can arrive at work before you start your commute. The frame cannot be displayed before it is transferred.

Typical LCD reviews report latency as difference from CRT latency. This actually makes things easier because it cancels out any vertical position error. If your magical LCD exists, it must have a measured CRT-relative latency of less than half the frame transfer time (approx 8ms for 60Hz, 4ms for 120Hz). You don't even need the 0ms CRT-relative latency you claim is possible.

[Anonymous No.2786828]

>>2786818
I don't think it's people wanting validation from vr? who would want that? It's more like vr has spectral autism about CRT and is living it isolation autistically unable to see the technologically advanced world around it. People gear up for VR and 4K gaming with refresh rates above 90fps. Memewhile people on this board discuss the advantages of CRTs in modern age. I think it's sad, isn't it? It's like Vietnam veteran thread.

[Anonymous No.2786837]

>>2786821
I provided evidence. You haven't.

[Anonymous No.2786840]

>>2786828
The advantages of CRTs are really only relevant to /vr/ games. I don't care about the 4ms strobing penalty at 120Hz, but most /vr/ games are stuck at 60Hz (if you're using the original hardware), and 8ms is worth caring about.

I don't actually use a CRT, I use 120Hz + emulator + software BFI, which has actually has better latency than 60Hz CRT (theoretically better than the original hardware if everything is set up right).

>>2786837
You have not. None of the LCDs you posted meet the latency measurements needed to prove your claim.

[Anonymous No.2786842]

>>2786828
>It's more like vr has spectral autism about CRT

Read my post again, CRT has always been something that retro-focused communities discussed.
/vr/ is not the first retro-focused community on the internet, I hope you're aware of that.

If you don't like it, then ignore it, or stop browsing retro-focused boards, it's simple as that.

[Anonymous No.2786845]

>>2786828

So it's not that you wan't validation from /vr/, but that you want to change /vr/? That still means you want validation from /vr/.

Leave if you don't like it here.

As >>2786840 said, all the stuff you mentioned like 4K, 90fps, etc are irrelevant to retro games.

>durr why people here talk about old thing!

becuse it's the RETRO game board, retard.

[Anonymous No.2786846]

>>2786840
Mate! Me too! We are the same. I also use 120Hz + Emulator and I would never trade it for anything!!!

[Anonymous No.2786847]

>>2786837
Your claim is "strobed LCDs are powered by magic". You can prove it by showing an artifact-free strobed LCD with <8ms latency at 60Hz or <4ms latency at 120Hz (latency measured relative to a CRT).

My claim is "Strobed LCDs are not powered by magic". This is the default assumption. Asking for "proof" is the same as asking for proof that telepathy isn't real. It seems the only proof you would accept it testing literally every human for telepathy and not finding it. But in the end, only one of us is crazy, and it sure isn't me.

[Anonymous No.2786848]

>>2786840
>>2786847
>YOUR EVIDENCE IS SHIT
>Provides none
Cool!

[Anonymous No.2786850]

>>2786848
Prove magic isn't real! Oh wait, you can't, so that means magic is real.

[Anonymous No.2786857]

>>2786842
>>2786845
>please leave if you don't like
Butthurt tumblrinas on VR. Wow!

>>2786845
Why should I leave? I love retro games. I just distate CRTs and their delusional shills. I'm not holding my voice back because you are sensitive and conservative to this topic. But I agree that people should play however they want to play. If you like CRT play on it, but don't think you're special. Same goes for my side of the game.
On another note 120Hz clearly is beneficial for every content in anyway. Goodbye ugly flicker, no matter of 20fps, 30 fps, 60fps, CRT you Lcd progressive . You can't deny that?

[Anonymous No.2786861]

>>2786857
Plasma master race here. Fuck crt bitches

[Anonymous No.2786865]

>>2786857
Wow, guess I had a drink too much. Let sentence is supposed to mean: No matter 20,30,60 etc, CRT or LCD they all have flicker, CRT of course has the most and ugliest. This is gone with 120Hz Lcd.

[Anonymous No.2786868]

>>2786857
>Goodbye ugly flicker
The whole point of 120Hz for most /vr/ games is so you can deliberately add flicker with BFI. Flicker is the only way to get high motion quality from 60fps content. CRTs have this flicker naturally.

[Anonymous No.2786872]

>>2786857

>I agree that people should play however they want to play.

doesn't seem like it, you seem to get heavily triggered, you're accusing me of a CRT shill when I never defended or "shilled" for CRTs, I only said CRT discussions have always been part of retro-focused communities.

if you get offended, or surprised by this fact, then it just proves how new you are to retro games.

I'm sorry but if it offends you so much I think the best option you have is to leave. It's not that I get offended, it's that I think you should stop getting offended, and by the looks of it the only option is for you to either ignore CRT discussions, or leave, because CRT discussions are not going anywhere.

I already said CRT loyalists (those who claim CRT is the ONLY way to play) are as annoying as little bitches like you, so don't accuse me of "CRT shill".

[Anonymous No.2786873]

>>2786821
>cancels out any vertical position error
It doesn't, you still need to consider vertical measurement position. Measuring high will falsely favor the CRT, measuring low will falsely favor the LCD. Only fair measurement is taken at the exact center of the screen.

[Anonymous No.2786874]

>>2786868
Sorry to disappoint you I play >flicker free. Backlight strobbing is unnatural/straining for the eyes. My display is true 120fps. Of course the frames are repeated in this case. 120 strobing is no real 120fps is just 60fps. If I wanted to do strobing on my 120fps TV I could do 300Hz, but as I said I prefer >flicker free

[Anonymous No.2786876]

>>2786872
I won't leave lmao you fucking oversensitive sjw. get over it

[Anonymous No.2786878]

>>2786874
>Of course the frames are repeated in this case.
Motion quality is exactly the same as 60Hz unstrobed LCD (too ugly for me), latency is slightly better so it's not completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.2786879]

>>2786872
If you haven't noticed this thread is an anti CRT discussion. Maybe you should leave to the dedicated CRT threads?

[Anonymous No.2786880]

>>2786876

Get over what?

I'm not the one having any problem. I do play on LCD, but I know full-well that CRT is part of retro-focused communities and it doesn't bother me, it's how it's always has been. People having different interests on different aspects of this hobby.

It's okay if you don't care for CRT; but getting this much butthurt about it? I don't know, you have a problem.

Again, get used to it, because this has always been like this, welcome to retro gaming discussion boards.

[Anonymous No.2786882]

>>2786879

I would post the same if this was an "anti-LCD" thread, you guys are just a bunch of desperate assholes looking for attention, probably most of you don't even care that much about displays and just want to stir up shit

[Anonymous No.2786884]

>>2786880
I don't need to get over anything because I'm not butthurt enough like you to go around tell people to leave because I dislike their opinions. Lmao get a life

[Anonymous No.2786886]

>>2786882
>based UK Britney Spears
>You gotta turn this shit up
>All eyes on US
>All eyes on US

[Anonymous No.2786887]

>>2786884

But you are the one bitching about CRTs. I'm not bitching about either CRT or LCD, I think it's fine, play games however you want.

I'm just pointing out how new you are to retro gaming discussions, since you think only /vr/ talks about CRTs, just shows how new you are, probably /vr/ is the first retro community for you.

Again, welcome, and get used to it.

[Anonymous No.2786893]

>>2786887
The difference between me and you is that I bîtch about CRT and not about people. You dislike my opinion so you bîtch about people instead of accepting different opinions. Hmm I wonder who is butthurt. Come to think of it, inda UdSSR of you.

[Anonymous No.2786895]

>>2786887
>confusing distaste for CRTs with being new
Nice.

[Anonymous No.2786897]

>>2786893

But you are bitching about people.

>>2786857
>I just distate CRTs and their delusional shills

you get offended about people's opinions on CRTs. You sound butthurt to be honest.

I'm not butthurt but I think it's funny how you think /vr/ is the only place in the world where CRT gets discussed.
CRT has always been part of retro-focused communities, it's just something that gets discussed whether you like it or not.
/vr/ is not even that old, when was /vr/ created, 2013? digital press has been around since the late 90s.

Again, welcome, and get used to it.

[Anonymous No.2786904]

>>2786897
You started bitching at me so I naturally bitched back because you went off topic. You make it sound like it's bad to distaste CRTs like it's an alien thing for retro discussions. That's so cliché to think if you like retro you must accept CRTs. I do it my way. I never said that vr is the only place where people care about CRTs, you just assumed that. Either way it is a minority. I don't really care what other people think of how to play retro games. I just play them the way I think it's correct and propagate my opinion. I'm not butthurt, I just enjoy our autistic conversation, which you get drawn into deeper and deeper.

[Anonymous No.2786913]

>>2786904
>I never said that vr is the only place where people care about CRTs

Oh but you did

>>2786828
>It's more like vr has spectral autism about CRT and is living it isolation autistically unable to see the technologically advanced world around it.
>vr has spectral autism about CRT and is living it isolation

that's how I noticed /vr/ is your first retro-focused community.

>I don't really care what other people think of how to play retro games

It really doesn't seem that way, given that you're so adamant for your battle against the "CRT shill" boogeymen.

Again, welcome, and get used to it.

[Anonymous No.2786918]

>>2786828
It sounds like you're wanting validation from /vr/

[Anonymous No.2786923]

>>2786828

>spectral autism

spooky

[Anonymous No.2786935]

>>2786913
No I never said that vr is the only place you just interpreted that. we are on VR now so of course I will address VR when talking about this. You free will interpretation is just drawn out of an ass.

secondly what has my trolling on poor vr CRT DILFs to do with that? AND what would be wrong if I spread my hate for CRTs but let anyone play the way he wants. You are kinda thinking two dimensional here, not three dimensional. you can distate CRTs but still let people play it on whichever device they want, this is not UdSSR.

Thirdly how often do you want to repeat that sentence? Do you think you or anybody is gaining something from this? Are you trying t
desperately to validate your statement by repeating it thrice? I love how invested you get, talking to me. Ate you a DILF?

[Anonymous No.2786939]

>>2786935
>No I never said that vr is the only place you just interpreted that. we are on VR now so of course I will address VR when talking about this. You free will interpretation is just drawn out of an ass.


lol, nice backpedal.
Anyway it wasn't just the fact that you literally said "vr lives in isolation" about CRT, but also the fact that you're so triggered by CRT discussion on a retro board. It's evident /vr/ is your first time you hang out with people with retro games as a hobby.

Also, no, I didn't ate any DILF, whatever that is.

[Anonymous No.2786946]

>>2786939
I meant are not ate. Are you a DILF?

[Anonymous No.2786952]

>>2786935
>secondly what has my trolling

>openly admits he's trolling

nice.

you know what to do, boys.

[Anonymous No.2786953]

>>2786952
>white tears

[Anonymous No.2786991]

>>2786696
Gameboy Player...

[Anonymous No.2787006]

>>2786991
Emulating gameboy with Wii.

[Anonymous No.2787015]

>>2787006
Get to use the carts from my childhood with the GC though. Emulating probably would look better though, honestly.

[Anonymous No.2787024]

>>2786935
Edgar?

[Anonymous No.2787059]

>>2787006
I emulate Wii with Dolphin to emulate Virtual Console to emulate Pokemon Snap on Nintendo 64

[Anonymous No.2787168]

>>2787059
I like the way you think...

[Anonymous No.2787204]

>>2785905

for the last time, that image is so fucking cherry picked and scanlines WERE taken into account. Why would they put the scanlines on the boxart when it's just easier not to? It's the fucking boxart you idiots.

NES outputting RGB looks much better than that image.

[Anonymous No.2787342]

[Anonymous No.2787772]

>>2787204
Are you blind? Those are scan lines, those are motion blurred. If you can find a high res CRT shot of Mario that looks better, I'd like to see it.

[Anonymous No.2787776]

>>2787772

Not him but anyway that picture is irrelevant and stale bait.

That guy was already proven wrong and told by >>2785917, just like on the previous anti-CRT thread started by him.

[Anonymous No.2787785]

these threads are cancer

[Anonymous No.2787804]

>>2787776
Except >>2785917 proves nothing at all. The screenshots on the back are just what the game looked like on the current technology. The picture on the front is very clearly what the game would look like in an idealized form.

[Anonymous No.2787895]

Is there a way to feed a video signal into a PC and then preform some sort of scaling or at least display the picture through your OS?

I was thinking I could use my PC as a medium to enhance the image for older systems (And possibly some newer ones, my TV scales last gen very poorly as well), but I'm not sure if that would create significant lag.

[Anonymous No.2787972]

>>2787804

Yeah but that "idealized" form is not possible even today. You can't see mario jumping out of a lava pit with a rotated sprite and added movement lines, also it wouldn't look like that on an LCD either, that picture is retarded because it's comparing a picture taken with a shitty camera to a TV screen and compares it to a scan of cardboard box. It's so retarded on many, many levels it doesn't even count as bait.

Stop trying, anti-CRT-kun

[Anonymous No.2787998]

>svideo pin bent
>try to move it back very very softly
>snap
>stuck with composite on snes until a new cord arrives

[Anonymous No.2788005]

>>2785965
not you again... start your own pixel purism fetish thread

[Anonymous No.2788015]

>>2787972
>You can't see mario jumping out of a lava pit with a rotated sprite and added movement lines, also it wouldn't look like that on an LCD either,

True, but you can have an LCD make the game look far more like the box art than a CRT ever could. That's my point.

[Anonymous No.2788029]

>>2788015

That's what you think, but I don't think LCDs look like cardboard-printed pictures.

More like pic related.

[Anonymous No.2788049]

Anyone in this thread who thinks developers were somehow oblivious to the fact their videogames were being played on CRTs and thus wouldn't take into account their limitations and/or benefits when creating assets is delusional to the point of needing psychiatric treatment.

[Anonymous No.2788067]

>>2788029
Wow that looks like a terrible screen. My LCD has no noticeable blurring at all so I don't see anything like that when I use it.

Of course that's a deflection. Pic related is what Mario actually looks like on a modern screen. Point being that is a much, much closer to the box art they used than a CRT will ever be able to do.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use a CRT if you like it. But I definitely think the games look far worse on them, compared to a modern screen.

The look of the game on the box is an idealized version of what it should or could look like. I think that's obvious and not intended as bait in any way. Although it's not perfect, now that we aren't hamstrung by CRT technology the games can finally look a lot closer to that than they could when they were released.

[Anonymous No.2788070]

>>2788067
Also note, that image is directly from Nintendo. Notice how they didn't take a photo of a CRT or add a filter of scan lines? That's because that's what the game SHOULD look like in it's best form.

Nostalgia aside, CRTs are terrible displays. The only decent thing they have is low latency and modern screens have solved that.

[Anonymous No.2788079]

one of the few games i really regretted playing on a lcd was ocarina of time
that games LOD on models was not meant to be seen so clearly npcs were just a garbled mess 3 steps away from me

[Anonymous No.2788080]

>>2788067

The comparison picture you used was also a bad example. My CRT looks much better than that.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use an LCD if you like it. But I definitely think the games look far worse on them, compared to the kind of screen the game was developed to work with.

Do you have any actual picture of your LCD playing Mario? so far you've posted a scan of a cardboard box, and a JPG wallpaper from Nintendo's site as examples, those aren't LCDs.

[Anonymous No.2788093]

>>2788080
>But I definitely think the games look far worse on them, compared to the kind of screen the game was developed to work with.

Then we simply fundamentally disagree. I think the image you posted looks hideous compared to the screenshot.

And no I don't. I really only post here when I'm at work so the pictures are just what I pulled from the internet as examples. I'm not invested in any of this enough to pull out my camera and take photos for the forum. But I have a fairly decent LED which has no noticeable blur at all. When I play mario or other classic games on it that screenshot is what it looks like.

If you like the look of your CRT that's fine and dandy, I'm just glad I can choose and am not stuck with it. And I think Nintendo by and large feels the same way.

[Anonymous No.2788098]

>>2788093
>And I think Nintendo by and large feels the same way.

Nintendo is not a single person.

Anyway, if anything, I think people at Nintendo prefer neither LCD/LED nor CRT.

[Anonymous No.2788121]

>>2788098
That is a very nice looking RP screen.

[Anonymous No.2788415]

>>2788070
some game manuals have screenshots taken from CRTs though (visible scanlines and all, usually RGB even), you're really picking your data to form your case.
ok, you might be able to make a case for super mario, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.2788692]

>>2787895
Playing retro on an SD CRT with no scaling is always best. But as for what you're talking about, the most practical method involves using an inexpensive PCI capture card (get one with s-video and stereo input) and one of two programs:

master race (unbeatable performance unless you're really fucking something up, needs a compatible card since it works at a very low level):
https://kb.speeddemosarchive.com/DScaler

pleb mode (easier interface, supports more devices):
https://kb.speeddemosarchive.com/Amarectv

[Anonymous No.2788757]

>>2788098
>dont leik crt
>posts pic of crt

[Anonymous No.2788819]

I enjoy HD rendered graphics for 3d games starting from n64/dc/ps1 era.
For 2d sprite stuff I enjoy integer scaling without any 2xsal filter shit. Sometime, or even ocasionally, I experiment with bilinear filtering and also with ntsc and scanline filters but I can't for the love of god decide what's the best.

[Anonymous No.2788839]

>>2788757
do you know what a cathode ray tube is?

[Anonymous No.2788843]

>>2788839
https://www.google.com/search?q=crt+rear+projection

[Anonymous No.2788846]

>>2788839
carthody ray jepsen?

[Anonymous No.2789045]

>>2788839
Of course I do kid. Have you ever touched, let alone owned, one?

[Anonymous No.2789339]

>>2788839
That's not a CRT, poindexter. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.2789361]

>>2788415
That's a screenshot in a manual. Of course it's going to show what the game looks like on the technology available at the time it was released. The point about the box art is that it's an idealized illustration of what the game was supposed to look like.

When Nintendo shows their old games now they don't display them on CRTs, or add filters and scanlines. They show them like this >>2788067 with clear, crisp pixels.

Not that anyone who wants the nostalgia of playing on a CRT shouldn't use one if they want. But the narrative that CRT is the "proper" way to display old games, and that the moire patterns and scanlines are a deliberate part of the design is simply incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2789401]

YALL ARE PICKING STRAWS!
IN MARIO MAKER THERE ARE NO SCAN LINES IN THE CLASSIC LEVELS

(ITS OPTIONAL - ITS NOT INTENDED TO LOOK THAT WAY)

[Anonymous No.2789546]

>>2789361

Imagine if Nintendo displayed their games on CRTs, people who bitch about them not "getting with the times" would have even more ammunition to shoot against them.

[Anonymous No.2789910]

>>2789339
1. you replied to the wrong person
2. yeah it is

[Anonymous No.2790059]

>>2789401
Congratulations! You've won the stupidest post of the day award. And the day has just begun here. That's how stupid your post is. Someone could post a lobotomized turd and it wouldn't be as stupid as the shit that dribbled from your fingers to your keyboard.

[Anonymous No.2790730]

>>2790059
Ooh someone is really butthurt because Mario has no scalines :)
>>> >>2788067

[Anonymous No.2793586]

>>2789910
>2. yeah it is
But that's not a CRT rear projection screen...

[Anonymous No.2793653]

As someone from RGB land who seldom rarely used composite simply because it wasn't a thing, what the fuck is "dot crawl"?

[Anonymous No.2793816]

>>2793586
2. yeah it is

[Anonymous No.2794147]

>>2793586
Source faggot? Were you even born yet when that picture was taken?

[Anonymous No.2794217]

>>2793653

You could try reading the thread you limey europoor fuck.

[Anonymous No.2794521]

>>2785905
HOLY SHIT! the box art Mario has brown eyes, boots, and hands, a two different reds for his hair and shirt and shadows pixeled onto his sprite that I just noticed now on top of the rotated sprite and speed lines that I new about.

[Anonymous No.2797354]

>>2785875
>Have SNES
>Play Stunt Race FX
>Get about 18fps from early 3D graphics
>Nearly have a seizure from choppy blurry clunky graphics
How did young me handle it?