Retro games were designed "with RF/scanlines in mind"

File: 1.03 MB, 1647x989, ITS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THE RIGHT IMAGE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Retro games were designed "with RF/scanlines in mind" Anonymous Mon Dec 28 20:59:51 2015 No.2881406 [Reply] [Original]

Where did this rumor originate?

Why do people legitimately think game designers sat down and thought
>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:04:47 2015 No.2881418 This has to be a joke, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:06:50 2015 No.2881424 Here we go again.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:07:12 2015 No.2881425

>>2881418
No?

I hear it again and again, that game designers intended their games to look muddy with scanlines.

Yet the original Master System included RGB natively, and 70s and 80s handhelds that used pixel graphics used LCD screens with no scanlines at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:08:14 2015 No.2881428 >>2881418 >>2881424 >Explain the LCD Gameboy Advance with 16-bit graphics with no scanlines

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:09:44 2015 No.2881432

>>2881425
????
They knew it was being displayed on CRT screens, that is what they knew their images would look like. The OP jpeg is the perfect example. They knew or had a very good idea how it was going to show up for the home consoles. So wtf are you trying to say?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:15:45 2015 No.2881441 >>2881432 >Being this dumb and not understanding that games were not designed with RF and scanlines in mind

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:17:09 2015 No.2881443 because pixels are an illusion and crt blur hides the pixels but i will literally report you if you use a linear filter in an emulator grrrr quit hiding the pixels

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:18:01 2015 No.2881446 >>2881441 RF usually doesn't have visible scanlines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:18:11 2015 No.2881447 >>2881406 It didnt look like in that picture, stop being a dumbass They were designed with scanlines in mind, consoles displayed 240p, not 480i And for video signals, it really depended on the developer and console. Arcades where made for RGB

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:19:02 2015 No.2881448 >>2881447 >composite and RF cables >240p Anon...

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:19:04 2015 No.2881449
File: 21 KB, 324x203, Before After.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>FFVI come out on PC
>The character sprites are a blurry mess
>Someone already made a mod that removes bilinear filtering
>There are people working one updating all the sprites to their SNES version
God bless PC gaming.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:19:57 2015 No.2881451

but seriously i don't buy it. you dont lose any fidelity or fuck up the artist's vision by playing on an lcd. crt's dont enrich the experience in any way that isn't nostalgic and unless your picture is completely shot you can still see the pixels anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:21:17 2015 No.2881457 >>2881448 Are you implying that composite and RF don't carry 240p for retro games?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:22:05 2015 No.2881459 http://www.chrismcovell.com/gotRGB/rgb_compare2.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:23:20 2015 No.2881460 >>2881457 No, the fact it's progressive means it's not meant to have any kind of refresh/scan lines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:24:48 2015 No.2881463 >>2881441 You are a fool. I told you what the designers knew about what they were creating and how it would turn out, that is a fact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:26:45 2015 No.2881467 >>2881460 But if you put a 320x240 image on a 640x480 screen, you're going to have gaps between lines. Unless the TV draws the lines twice as wide.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:29:55 2015 No.2881472 This fucking thread again? Goddamnit OP, how did you get to be such a faggot?

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:31:55 2015 No.2881474

Its not like developers had super sharp screens themselves for their design work. It wasn't an issue until LCD's became common place that people were suddenly having to deal with upscaling taking a relatively long time and pixel perfect emulation ending up looking like shit because pixels were WAY larger than they were in the past.

It's more accurate to say that sprite games were visually designed with pixels in mind, and the size of those pixels were relatively constant, with the whole issue of upscaling being a natural feature of the technology built in to displays anyway.

The whole issue basically became moot once everyone transitioned to polygons anyway. Then it became a matter of textures just becoming obviously worse once you went past a certain resolution. It's only an issue on /vr/ because people want to argue about their A/V knowledge or personal set up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:33:06 2015 No.2881476 >>2881467 >upscaling

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:34:18 2015 No.2881480 >>2881476 We're talking about putting 240p on a standard definition tv. Not upscaling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:36:39 2015 No.2881483 >>2881459 first page http://www.chrismcovell.com/gotRGB/rgb_compare.html second page its just there to show how shitty the genesis composite is

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:37:11 2015 No.2881484 Is /vr/ doomed to be trolled by CRT/LCD/RF/Emulator/whatever threads forever?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:38:43 2015 No.2881486 >>2881484 Only until people stop caring.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:45:37 2015 No.2881496

>>2881425

Dude, how retarded are you? Of course they were designed with that shit in mind when it was what tech they had at the time. They knew what they were working with.

Besides, SCART/RGB is definitive. Why don't you shut the fuck up and go back to /v/?

>>2881441

This isn't even an argument. Fuck off back to /v/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:48:38 2015 No.2881503 >>2881406 >Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it. Yes, this is exactly what happened, you stupid fucking cunt faggot who should die instantly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:49:25 2015 No.2881506 >>2881496 >Of course they were designed with that shit in mind when it was what tech they had at the time. They knew what they were working with. My cousin used an old projector in the 90s. What about the scanlines on projectors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:50:25 2015 No.2881510 >>2881503 >since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it. >Yes, this is exactly what happened, >Sega Master System supports RGB natively

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:51:48 2015 No.2881514

>>2881506
>My cousin used an old projector in the 90s. What about the scanlines on projectors.

No you're right, the developers had literally no way of knowing that the pixels would blur on the major market device used to play them. Boy were they surprised on release day, haha, those were the days huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:52:39 2015 No.2881515 >>2881514 >Game Boy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:53:45 2015 No.2881523 >>2881510 >Sega Master System supports RGB natively So you proved your point, the developers were fucking shocked that the games didn't look the same. I mean, they had no way of knowing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:54:31 2015 No.2881525 >>2881506 projectors are even more blurry than crts and lets not forget laggy there was literally no reason to use one of them during development of a game

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:55:36 2015 No.2881526 >>2881525 No scanlines though

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:55:47 2015 No.2881527 File: 109 KB, 500x746, tumblr_nq41ovWNO91roj02so1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >developers had scanlines in mind! Explain this shit then, Christians.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 21:57:59 2015 No.2881531
File: 451 KB, 1000x750, 1450734918617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2881510
>It's a little known fact that game developers didn't have access to a TV when making games
>Until scanlines became obsolete, they had no way of knowing the pixels weren't clear, no way at all in the known universe
>Even less known fact
>Nobody who ever developed a game ever looked at a TV, ever, ever

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:00:41 2015 No.2881539

>>2881406

It originated on /x/. There was a thread about telepathy in which somebody actually managed to read the minds of a bunch of people. Several hundred of those people turned out to be Japanese men who had once worked as Famicom or Sega Master System game developers. All of those people turned out to hold memories of the games being designed with that in mind.

It's understandable that you didn't know, since without telepathy applied to a large number of people, nobody could have found this out. But obviously this crappy forum where a lot of doughy, powerless men spend their time would have the special expertise for the job. Because we're special and important. We're Us! And we know everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:01:00 2015 No.2881540 File: 266 KB, 905x881, come on now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881526

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:05:57 2015 No.2881552

>>2881539
> All of those people turned out to hold memories of the games being designed with that in mind.

This was the only evidence we had for the longest time, until somebody realized that TV's date back much further than first anticipated, and that it was highly likely that one of these men had used them at least once during their lifetime.

They were put to death for their knowledge, we now know that they may have even owned a TV for development purposes, but Travis had to bring it in from his house and his wife would get annoyed because she wanted to watch Roots.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:07:41 2015 No.2881554

>>2881503
Signal transfer seems like a distant concern as far as design goes. It really only comes in to play in a few 3rd gen and a lot of 4th gen games when pixel colors were meant to blur together. 2nd and 3rd gen were basically all about working within the limitations of the hardware. Who gives a shit if the signal is going to be RF when you're stuck with 4 colors per sprite at 8x16? Limitations on signal would only have come in to play during the 4th generation when you had 256 colors and sprite artists who wanted to get fancy with their colors to the point of alternating a pair of pixel colors to generate the impression of a 3rd, or because they could actually shade sprites now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:08:41 2015 No.2881557 >>2881552 Get that wife a Retron!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:12:14 2015 No.2881563 File: 639 KB, 939x720, when-dad-amp-039-s-a-jew_o_2990489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881554 >Dad, had you ever seen a television before you developed Zelda? >Television?? What's a TV?? >Jumps out window and runs away

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 22:27:46 2015 No.2881597 >>2881449 Or you could not be a moron and pay for a half baked port that everyone knew was shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:37:03 2015 No.2882043 >>2881406 >he thinks Nintendo devs thought the Famicom had a PPU and output RGB It would still have scanlines faggit

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:43:55 2015 No.2882069 >>2881457 RF and composite are always interlaced, always.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:46:59 2015 No.2882072 >>2881496 SCART is eurotrash, and RGB isn't definitive for /every/ retro console. If it's not generated natively by the original hardware, it can't be definitive. FC/NES is a good example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:53:01 2015 No.2882080 >>2882069 You're wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:54:37 2015 No.2882083 >>2881406 They didn't design with scanlines specifically, but they would've been testing on CRT monitors, because that's what people were using back then. Colour LCD/TFT and such tech wasn't economically viable until the 2000s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:57:27 2015 No.2882085 >>2882080 lol. show me a fucking progressive scan composite image (pro-tip, you can't).

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:07:00 2015 No.2882093 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kILeyo1iv0A

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:13:50 2015 No.2882101 >developers didn't develop games using currently existing technology, they time traveled into the future and brought back 40 inch LCDs to design games on oh okay

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:25:06 2015 No.2882119 File: 1.38 MB, 4800x1200, 1414045950914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881406

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:35:34 2015 No.2882134 >>2881460 this would seem to imply that the developers tested their games on a 320x240 screen which is just laughable

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:40:34 2015 No.2882142 >>2882101 they used monitors which displayed pure RGB.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:42:23 2015 No.2882145 >>2882142 source on this please

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:45:02 2015 No.2882148 >>2882142 And they still had to design their games around the fact that most people would only be playing their game through RF or composite. Hence, all those dithering tricks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:51:20 2015 No.2882156 >>2882142 Which still had blurring and scanlines

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:13:12 2015 No.2882181
File: 3.00 MB, 640x480, RollcageStgII.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2881406
PS1 games were designed so that the signal would mask distant wobbling polygons and help remedy the lack of texture filtering, but of course PC mustards would blow it up to 1920x1080 and complain why the ground is made out of jumping beans, HUD looking like the most stretched pixelated shit ever and too noticeable dithering patterns.

The PS1 hardware and its output are misunderstood by most. It's not like the N64 where texture filtering can help with the eye strain at high resolution, or MSAA and anisotropic filtering, or unlimited internal resolution increase via emulation. Because you know, people think emulation is an accurate representation of the real thing.

Pic related is my PS2 doing 2x integer internally, with s-video signal. I love the texture mapping, the crispness of the nearest neighbor textures, the dithering on the smoke, HUD still looks alright, and oh look - no fucking wobbling.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:14:00 2015 No.2882182 >>2881406 >Where did this rumor originate? See picture for details. TL;DR - Reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:24:34 2015 No.2882191 >>2882085 My Super Nintendo was always hooked up via composite video RCA. It was 224p Try the CRT thread if you want pictures

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:28:18 2015 No.2882198 RF and composite can't display more than 24fps

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:31:27 2015 No.2882204

>>2881446
RF does have as much scanlines as does the other signals if it's 240p... you're probably just confused because the OP picture doesn't have any visible scanlines (probably because it's photographed on a low resolution tube which doesn't really have very apparent scanlines)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:32:45 2015 No.2882205 >>2882134 But they did, you dolt. Your regular old TV is a 320x240 screen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:36:00 2015 No.2882207 These people are mentally ill. When Miyamoto was tracing squares on graph paper to design Super Mario, the last thing we was thinking of was scanlines.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:36:06 2015 No.2882208 File: 3 KB, 99x113, 1449991951926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2882198

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:40:41 2015 No.2882214

>>2881406
>>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.
Maybe because the monitors they were using to develop the game were also those same CRT monitors. Monitors without scanlines didn't even exist back then.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:43:49 2015 No.2882218

>>2882191
>>2882085

As far as I know composite cannot carry 480p, i.e. all 480 lines being drawn on the same cycle, which is 'true' "progressive scan". Half resolution negates the need for it, advantage being 60fps gameplay. 240p is 'progressive' only because there are no two fields to try and interlace.

So yes, composite only carries interlaced video. But the signal has to be displaying enough lines for interlacing to occur for this to matter, making 240 lines a weird inbetween.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:46:06 2015 No.2882224 >>2882207 Some developers did, some developers didn't.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:48:28 2015 No.2882226

>>2882218
Technically 240p is just a wierd hack on top of 480i. What does differentiate it, and this is what it gets the other name "Double Strike" from, is that the even and odd fields are aligned such that their individual lines will hit the same spot, compared with regular 480i where the even and odd fields will alternate using even and odd lines (thus the name even and odd fields)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:49:15 2015 No.2882227 >>2882205 What? It's got 480 lines total, an SDTV just lacks the capability to draw all the lines at once...

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:54:05 2015 No.2882231 >>2882227 Ok, we'll just ascribe it to a difference in terminology. There are CRTs that will display 240p with almost no scanlines though. I guess those could be called 320x240 monitors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 04:54:43 2015 No.2882235 >>2882226 Thank you for clarifying that. Bottom line I guess, there are no even/odd fields occurring, so it's not quite progressive but is effectively not interlaced.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 05:03:10 2015 No.2882241 >>2881432 this makes sense for me

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 05:07:25 2015 No.2882250

>>2882227

>Ok, we'll just ascribe it to a difference in terminology.

In what terminology exactly? I'm a little lost.

>I guess those could be called 320x240 monitors.

Uhh, I have a set that does this and it's literally just an effect of the way the shadow mask was built. It minimizes its own scanlines. But it's a 480i, standard definition television.
Unless it legitimately has 320 horizontal and 240 vertical lines it's not a 320x240 monitor. It is the resolution it's built to have, whatever that is. As far as televisions are concerned, 480 lines is a standardized resolution and you will not find an NTSC set with fewer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 05:09:11 2015 No.2882252 >>2882250 Ugh, of course. Intended >>2882231

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 14:08:11 2015 No.2882762 >>2882119 RGB looks the best to me, but I think the devs tried to exploit composite for the waterfall.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 14:19:20 2015 No.2882791 You still get scan lines with RGB and I don't think anyone claims Game Boy games were deigned to be played with scan lines.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 14:35:19 2015 No.2882826

>>2882142
I'm sure they did, but I'm sure they also realised that many of their consumers would not have such monitors at home. As far as I'm aware RGB isn't really common on TV's outside of Europe, and while it may not have been a universal practice I'm sure some studios that would have worked with consumer grade hardware in mind.

I know it's fairly common in the music industry to make sure music sounds good on the speakers consumers are likely to have. I'm sure it's not unheard of. The transparency effects in some of the Megadrives 1st party games certainly appear to have been designed with lower quality video in mind. Though I've never seen any primary source confirm this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 14:36:37 2015 No.2882829 >>2882826 >I'm sure it's not unheard of. I'm sure it's not unheard of in the games industry.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 14:39:19 2015 No.2882834

There are visual effects in some games that mimic transparency. Clearly meant for CRTs. The designers knew the people buying the games would not hook them up to a PC level monitor...EVER. You watch some of the visual effects on a LCD it looks like blinking shit. There is no way that designers intended the graphics to be so blocky looking. It was just a limitation of the hardware. So there ya go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:02:18 2015 No.2882872 >>2881527 SMB's designers drew out all of their graphics on graph paper before putting it into their games. It's made to be blocky.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:05:42 2015 No.2882883 >>2882762 >>2882834 >Source: My ass

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:07:39 2015 No.2882890 File: 17 KB, 640x448, 1450346067887.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881406 So you're claiming this was how it was intended to look, then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:08:18 2015 No.2882893 File: 187 KB, 508x689, Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881406 What's up with the color of that sword?

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:14:16 2015 No.2882903

>dithering is made to work with blur
dithering is also made to work with your eyes/brain. Most dithering will give the impression of in-between colors with or without blur.

>developers didn't think about RF/composite
Some developers were obviously aware of composite, but usually graphics were planned out on graph paper. If it looks good sharp, it looks good blurry.

>scanlines, etc.
First of all, handheld LCD screens have "scanlines" as well if you look up close. It's just the blacked out reigon between each subpixel. If you can give me a good explanation as to how I'd make a game "with scanlines in mind", I'd like to hear it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:15:10 2015 No.2882907
File: 107 KB, 640x400, 2562-alien-carnage-dos-screenshot-game-here-we-go.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2882834
Dithered transparency in mode 13h. This was clear and sharp on original hardware, with no obvious scanlines. The dither was not blurred out.

And the same technique was used in portable LCD based systems, which also had sharp pixels.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:16:23 2015 No.2882910

>>2882903
>dithering is also made to work with your eyes/brain. Most dithering will give the impression of in-between colors with or without blur.

That's entirely dependent on the size of the pixels and is not true for a normal sized display. See >>2882890

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:17:21 2015 No.2882917 >>2882893 No need to waste a sprite on the sword. If you want you it to have its own color you'll end up with a flickery slow mess like the Megaman games.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:18:18 2015 No.2882920 >>2882910 even with a composite filter, that shit in the lower left isn't going to look any better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:20:14 2015 No.2882928 >>2882910 15" displays were common in the time of mode 13h. Most of them were even SVGA compatible. Mode 13h on hardware of the time looked very close to integer nearest neighbor + LCD.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:30:30 2015 No.2882951

>>2882907
but most flickering problems on LCD are related interpolation.

trasnparent characters after being hit like megaman x

waves on chemical plant's pink water from sonic 2.

etc. this kinds of effects looks like shit on LCD for its filters or like shit in youtube since the video runs at 30fps and not 60 which makes that thing even invisible.

even when some people says 60, they look bad because shit interpolation filter over the video.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:31:51 2015 No.2882952

>>2881406
poor 80s kids who grew up with shitty TVs trying to cope for their shitty childhood by convincing themselves that the games they played as kids were *supposed* to look like shit. They probably think high-pitched bad CRT whine and poor-quality speakers were intended elements of gameplay, too.

I was born in 1990 and I'm pretty sure I had never even seen a scanline before I started browsing /vr/. At the very least, certainly never any noticeable ones.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 15:35:16 2015 No.2882964 >>2882952 you're about as likely to remember scanlines as you are to remember any specific details about the 240p era

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 16:15:58 2015 No.2883013 >>2882952 You've never played a retro console on a crt?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 16:23:27 2015 No.2883031 >>2882952 OP doesn't say or show scanlines as the comparison, but a CRT shadow mask and bloom. Most consumer CRTs used a shadow mask.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 17:03:40 2015 No.2883112

>>2882952
Those things on a CRT are all scanlines shithead, that's the way it's displayed. Your claim is the same as saying you've never seen a pixel. I'm looking at scanlines right now because I'm using a CRT, which I literally got for free because I needed a quality display with 120Hz and perfect display contrast and crystal clear with zero ghosting effect whatsoever. Something that you'd pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to this day to get in LCD.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 17:06:30 2015 No.2883116

>>2883112
samefag.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're being had, that this is all one guy just making up nonsense and having a laugh at our expense. Nobody could be as stupid as OP and a couple of the people who've been posting here are supposed to be, and I hear also the exact same thread has been done multiple times before. All one sad, lonely little man saying nonsense things online and giggling to himself at the legitimate responses to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 17:09:21 2015 No.2883118 >>2883116 >>2883116 This thread has been done a lot before. Its a blatant troll thread made by people who got their panties in a bunch over /vr/ actually having games discussion moreso than shitposting. In other words, /v/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 17:11:42 2015 No.2883121 >>2883112 120Hz + BFI lets you have real native 240p scanlines on a 31kHz+ CRT, but they are way too sharp looking. You get more realistic results with shaders.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 17:29:15 2015 No.2883149 >>2883121 >realistic >shaders

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 18:12:15 2015 No.2883219 >>2882952 How old are you? 8? 10? Cause if youre older, then you should remember.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 19:59:55 2015 No.2883437

The last time this thread was posted I linked to an interview/let's play with a guy that worked on Disney games for the Megadrive. Looks like I'll be posting it again.

He says that the games don't look how they were designed to look when played on modern TVs because the artists at the time designed the dithering to blend on CRTs and create smoothe gradients. He also goes on to say that you would need additional technology to create that affect on new TVs (I'm guessing he means emulation CRTs with blurring and scanlines).

https://youtu.be/kILeyo1iv0A?t=600

If the time code doesn't work, he says it at ten minutes into the video.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 20:06:59 2015 No.2883449 >>2883437 Sorry, I got the time wrong. It's 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video, not 10 minutes. He says immediately that you wouldn't be able to see individual pixels clearly back in the day, either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 20:12:34 2015 No.2883459 >>2883219 He's probably some young adult who's first console was the PS2.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 20:21:02 2015 No.2883471 >>2883437 It's always seemed obvious to me the graphics were often made with that in mind, on the Megadrive at least. But it's nice to see a developer confirm it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 20:59:42 2015 No.2883518 >>2883471 Exactly. Sega was doing that shit all the way through to the Saturn. If anything, RGB makes games on that machine look worse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 21:57:50 2015 No.2883609 >>2881406 It originated a long time in the past. Long before you were born.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 22:13:54 2015 No.2883638

Games have always been designed with the most probable use cases in mind.

Why the fuck wouldn't they be?

Games designed for LCDs in handhelds will be designed for those screens. Terrible viewing angles and blocky resolutions led to different color choices and sprite construction.

Games designed for use on CRT-attached consoles will be designed for those screens. Noise introduced by single-wire video was often exploited with dithering to create transparency or display more colors than would normally be possible with the game hardware.

If you didn't take advantage of something like dot blending on a CRT and your competitor did, their games would look better than yours and you'd have put yourself at a disadvantage. And for what? All because you don't know how TVs work?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 03:34:21 2015 No.2884108 File: 39 KB, 516x1224, Super Mario Bros 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2883638 This, and early GBA games were designed to have super washed-out colors to accommodate the really dim lighting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 04:47:42 2015 No.2884180 File: 1.89 MB, 237x300, 1445146909078.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2883638 >>2884108 Boom bitch get out the way. So tired of these stupid ass ignorant troll threads. Thanks for these posts. /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 04:57:08 2015 No.2884191 Anybody that believes the N64's anti-aliasing algorithm was not designed with CRT screens in mind is very very silly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 05:00:30 2015 No.2884196 >>2884191 Is that why I think the N64 version of Banjo Kazooie looks better than the Xbox 360 version?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 05:12:44 2015 No.2884205 File: 126 KB, 602x480, Mario with the QuickNES emulator.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Were the diagonal stripes intended?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 05:20:45 2015 No.2884219 >>2881406 Maybe we should get an actual developer from the 80s and 90s in here to answer this question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 05:22:18 2015 No.2884220 Of course they were designed around it. It's not like fucking video game developers magically had high definition flatscreen lcd screens while making games. They had the same tvs everyone else had at the time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 05:39:03 2015 No.2884243 >>2884219 Try contacting Ryuichi Nishizawa about that

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 06:02:35 2015 No.2884260 >>2884205 Shut up, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 06:06:32 2015 No.2884265 >>2884260 What the fuck /v/? It was a genuine question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 06:20:43 2015 No.2884278 File: 710 KB, 1067x1600, 2-northpoleitself.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2884205 I think so

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 06:37:30 2015 No.2884287 >>2884219 see >>2883437 1:30 into the video.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 07:16:41 2015 No.2884330 >>2882952 >I was born in 1990 >wevegotabadass.jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 08:38:19 2015 No.2884397 >>2882142 No they didn't. They used whatever Sony/NEC they could get their hands on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 08:40:42 2015 No.2884403 >>2882142 >>Implying chink devs back then had enough money to afford "pure" RGB CRTs. EBIN

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 08:45:43 2015 No.2884413 >>2884403 >>2884397 uh im pretty sure computer monitors have been "rgb" since the 80s. they tested the games on regular tvs but they actually developed them on computers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 11:54:58 2015 No.2884719 >>2881597 Honestly why isn't everyone's opinion this? You vote with your wallet. And all money thrown at that port, is regression.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 30 13:58:37 2015 No.2884932 I agree with whole CRT/scanlines thing but not RF. Where I live TVs had SCART since 80s.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:04:36 2015 No.2886172 >>2884413 I developed games on composite in the early 80's Anyone who disagrees and was actually already born at the time feel free to chime in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:09:28 2015 No.2886180 >>2884413 CGA monitors with like 8 colors you mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:10:06 2015 No.2886182 >>2886172 what games did you work on?

Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:14:59 2015 No.2886192
File: 565 KB, 1220x482, WiiPage02 - large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've been outputting a 240p (256 x 224p @ 4:3 @ 59.97fps) signal from my Wii lately to play Link to the Past via the Virtual Console. I do so through component. Looks good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:26:06 2015 No.2886213 >>2886192 SNES Jr. RGB mod is light years better than a Wii through component. Not saying the Wii looks bad though..

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 01:55:42 2015 No.2886251 >>2886213 I'd rather ouput accurate refresh and 15.7 KHz signal from my Radeon HD 4000 to my PVM.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:01:17 2015 No.2886258 >>2886251 >accurate >Radeon HD 4000 lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:07:32 2015 No.2886262 >>2886258 Yeah it only comes within one 10,000th of a Hz, from 48 Hz through 62+

Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:27:50 2015 No.2886284

Game Boys always used an LCD screen.

The Super Game Boy allowed you to play these games on a CRT screen.

These games look absolutely fine when played on a different monitor, without needing any changes.

And when NES games were ported to the GB and GBC, the graphics often had little or no changes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:29:59 2015 No.2886286 >>2886284 The Super Gameboy put a huge bezel around the represented Gameboy screen in order to give the pixels "squareness".

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:30:11 2015 No.2886287 Isn't it possible that this is just a case by case situation? Some game developers know about the issue with composite or RF, while others might have just used CRT monitors and not care.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:38:37 2015 No.2886295 >>2886287 The NES / Famicom can't output RGB broseph. If they were using monitors it was through composite or RF connections.

Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:40:18 2015 No.2886298

>>2886287
I highly doubt they didn't know, at least for Famicom. Unless there is some dev unit that supported RGB (the Titler didn't come out until '89), the retail Famicoms that they would have used to test their games only did RF. The most likely answer is that some took advantage of the display technology (see: that recent MD Aladdin video) and others didn't care as long as they got their work done.

However, they all knew their games would be played on a consumer CRT, how a consumer CRT displayed (no shit), and that most people would use RF or composite (depending on the stock output capabilities of the console, of course). I guarantee you that almost no developers for the NES/Fami knew or cared that one day people would play their games in RGB.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:47:49 2015 No.2886308 >>2886286 Care to explain it to us ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 02:52:53 2015 No.2886317 File: 6 KB, 256x224, Super_Mario_Land_SGB_Palette_Title.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2886308 Like this

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 03:53:51 2015 No.2886352 >>2884265 It's about as genuine as asking "was the non-1080p resolution intended?"

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 03:57:04 2015 No.2886354 >>2886352 Shut up, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 04:20:57 2015 No.2886383 File: 302 KB, 1195x850, 222005501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2886298 >I guarantee you that almost no developers for the NES/Fami knew or cared that one day people would play their games in RGB. Where is your God now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 11:36:52 2015 No.2886728 >>2884205 >using emulator screenshot to make a point Kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 13:00:13 2015 No.2886859 File: 79 KB, 600x422, 12792902062.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Miyamoto at work in the 80s.

Anonymous Thu Dec 31 13:08:05 2015 No.2886865

I saw a video with commentary from one of the original developers of the Lion King game on SNES/Genesis awhile back. He made a comment about how the guy who was playing it happened to be using a TV that made the pixels look sharp (the way you'd see them on an emulator), and went on to say that that wasn't the look they had in mind for it. It was intended to look the way it would with scan lines on a typical early 90's TV. That way, the sprites would blur so they looked less jagged, to closer emulate the cartoon it was based off of. Here's the video, if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kILeyo1iv0A

That was just one dev team's take on it of course, I'm sure there were plenty on both sides, but it was interesting to hear someone who was an actual member of the industry speak out on something that's debated about so heatedly by people who weren't even alive at the time on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 16:31:06 2015 No.2887193 >>2886728 I'm not trying to make a point you retard. I was just wondering if the effect was intentional or an after-effect

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 17:43:56 2015 No.2887341 File: 116 KB, 640x640, 182861390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If you want the "authentic" experience just play it on a CRT like the Lord intended.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 18:02:13 2015 No.2887361 File: 138 KB, 768x1024, contra_scanlines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 18:03:51 2015 No.2887363 File: 199 KB, 768x1024, contra_lcd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2887361

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 18:16:08 2015 No.2887373 File: 26 KB, 312x312, vomit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2887363

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 21:31:35 2015 No.2887623 >>2887361 Tah-tay?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 31 21:45:48 2015 No.2887637 >>2886383 That's an afterthought. The money was in home consoles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 00:08:36 2016 No.2887838 >>2881597 the port is fine except for the graphics. if you paint a new sports car in clown colors does that automatically make it shit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 00:27:16 2016 No.2887864 File: 42 KB, 720x439, 1349217226441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2887637 >the money was in home consoles

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 00:34:22 2016 No.2887875 >>2886317 I have no idea what I'm looking for

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 00:36:02 2016 No.2887879 >>2887361 What a blurry mess. I can't even tell what this is supposed to be. Is it a huge pile of shit? Because that's what it looks like. >>2887363 Oh, it's a face. I see now. This looks good. It's fukkin' art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 01:01:21 2016 No.2887905 >>2882119 This image makes a good argument. I'm still going to use LCDs, mind you, but it does look best on the right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 01:42:39 2016 No.2887942 >>2887905 Are those emulator shoots or a real screen? If real screen it's not an aperture grill. With a 'Tron or the right Mitsubishi you'd see clean horizontal lines with no differentiation via vertical lines.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 01:43:21 2016 No.2887943 >>2887942 I don't know, I didn't post it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 01:49:45 2016 No.2887949 File: 70 KB, 384x130, Link RGB Compare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2887942 >>2887943

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 04:12:38 2016 No.2888091 >>2887879 >Is it a huge pile of shit? Because that's what it looks like. Go to sleep James.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 04:21:50 2016 No.2888102 >>2884403 Yeah, the world capital of console and arcade game development wasn't able to afford equipment. Sounds legit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 04:35:03 2016 No.2888118 >in the whole game development, the devs never plugged the console with the game to a tv to see how it looked like, and even if they did, they would not make changes based on it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 04:57:37 2016 No.2888151 >>2887361 From what Contra is this?

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 05:07:03 2016 No.2888159

>always listen to the CRTfags
>decide to get a TV
>plug in my old PS1
>looks almost just pixelated as an emulator
>plug in my NES
>still looks like an emulator where you can count every pixel

Am I missing something here? To get something like the OP picture I would have to deliberately try to mess up my cables or something.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 05:09:48 2016 No.2888162 >>2888159 idk I use RGB, not a CRT.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 05:10:01 2016 No.2888163
File: 328 B, 36x52, FF3-NES-WhiteMage.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2881406
It's a new year OP. Let's let this dead horse decompose.

You are questioning if the limitations of the medium had any influence on artists of the day. The answer is that it did on some and not on others. Which is true of any medium in arts history. Ever.

The mere fact that you recognize the existence of 'this rumor' is proof enough that there is different opinion on the subject. Here's a hint: artists weren't blind to their medium. Whether some designed based on what they thought would look good on graph paper, or others with the humility to also check if it looked good on a TV, welp, that's the artist's discretion, and the rest is up to how the audience receives it.

Same thing with scanline vs no scanline
Same thing with square vs non-square pixels
Same thing with how I set the tint and saturation on my fucking CRT

The only thing that matters is that you enjoy the art, not to tell other people that they aren't enjoying the art in the right way. Art transcends the artist's intentions anyway. Period. And if the artist can't define how their art relates to the audience, how in Sonic's name do you think you have any right to tell others their wrong on the subject?

If some millennial faggot can see the difference in 2016, I doubt it slipped by the people in 1985 who made it their fucking business to make kick-ass games because not only did some pour their souls into their work, their livelihoods also depended on it.

Fuck you OP. Let's stop posting in these shit threads together as a community /vr/. You guys are older and smarter than that. The janitor sure as hell isn't here to help.

Instead let's have threads exploring how people used their mediums, whether they used it in creative or other wise notable ways, and made us see something a little different in the little glowing rectangles that consumer our lives. Forget these bait threads and -est threads. ew. Elevate the dialog.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 09:18:59 2016 No.2888376 File: 235 KB, 800x600, sf2_scanlines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 09:20:07 2016 No.2888379 File: 58 KB, 800x600, sf2_lcd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2888376

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 10:14:30 2016 No.2888454 >>2888376 >>2888379 if you have a comparable screenshot, you should post the shitty 360 version that uses that god awful filter

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 11:07:25 2016 No.2888504 File: 6 KB, 821x464, non-integer example.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2888379 Integer ratio you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 11:09:49 2016 No.2888508 >>2887373 agreed. this attitude like having a bunch of blocky looking trash is better seems like a troll argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 12:09:00 2016 No.2888607 >>2888151 Super Contra arcade if I recall correctly

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 12:23:58 2016 No.2888636 >>2888504 >if you scale >implying there is scale at all Lel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 12:59:09 2016 No.2888685 >>2888163 Have a (You), because no one replies to well thought out or insightful posts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 13:29:58 2016 No.2888727

>>2883437
>designed the dithering to blend on CRTs and create smoothe gradients. He also goes on to say that you would need additional technology to create that affect on new TVs
>blend on CRTs
>additional technology to create that affect on new TVs

How do you explain >>2882119 then? He's wrong, composite is the source of the blending, not the monitor. Tell that guy to stop being retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 13:35:50 2016 No.2888731 >>2888636 WTF are you talking about? SF2 wasn't 800x600 native resolution.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 15:05:14 2016 No.2888861 >>2881449 Why not just play the GBA version with the colour correctoin/ sound replacement mods? it's gr8 for a phone

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 15:19:27 2016 No.2888895

>>2888163
>When a lot of 8-bit games were coming out, LCD technology already existed
>There were inklings in the early to mid 90s that LCD screens were going to take over and CRTs were headed out
>By late 90s and early 2000s, LCDs were pretty prominent and expanding

>You think Game Designers planned to make their games with scanlines when they were aware other display technology existed and was becoming more commonplace

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 15:25:12 2016 No.2888905 HD CRT monitors did NOT have scanlines. I had one in the early 2000s. It exceeded 1080, actually. The guy who worked for ID Software and programmed Doom and Quake had one of the earliest ones. He was certainly not programming with scanlines in mind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 16:44:20 2016 No.2889032 >>2888731 And both are in the same ress, so what's your point? You can go ahead and take your own unfiltered print screen of sf2 if you want, it will not bring it any improvement.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 16:49:23 2016 No.2889047

>>2881406
>>2881425
Then how come Mario Maker released by Nintendo has graphics like the left instead of the right? If the image on the left is what the games were intended to look like then Nintendo would have designed Mario Maker to look like that.

You CRT purists are retards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 16:59:12 2016 No.2889061 File: 189 KB, 1920x1080, super_mario_maker_mustache.0[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2889047

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:16:14 2016 No.2889087

>>2881449
>god bless PC gaming
This is the problem with PC gaming. People is so willing to fix the games themselves, developers just don't give a shit about quality games on PC. Why even care to make it good if the community is going to do our job for free!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:21:43 2016 No.2889092 >>2888905 They're just too small to see

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:26:37 2016 No.2889107 >>2889087 >>2881449 >>2888861 the best version of final fantasy vi is the european psx version because uncensored, superior script to snes and no slowdowns like ntsc version. combined with mednafen integer scaling its fucking perfect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:27:52 2016 No.2889110 >>2889107 PLUS GORGEOUS 8MIN FMVS >How could I forget the most important thing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:39:01 2016 No.2889135 >>2889092 Shh.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 17:48:21 2016 No.2889148 >>2888895 They didn't fucking use LCDS to make NES games, holy shit.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 18:07:35 2016 No.2889178
File: 376 KB, 800x600, sfii_correct.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2889032
>And both are in the same ress, so what's your point?
The point is you scaled it wrong. If you are using a non-integer ratio (which you must in the case of SF2, because of the rectangular pixels), you must pre-scale with integer ratio nearest neighbor to avoid the uneven pixel size artifacts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 18:09:13 2016 No.2889182
File: 46 KB, 800x600, sfii_wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2889178
Compare to plain non-integer nearest neighbor. The dithering is completely messed up, the red stripes on the poles in the background are uneven, everybody's faces look deformed, etc. This is the problem illustrated in >>2888504

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 18:11:08 2016 No.2889186 File: 162 KB, 896x672, sfii_integer_vertical_correct.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2889182 Despite the rectangular pixels, you can have at least one axis be integer ratio if you choose the right size. You get more sharpness this way.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 18:12:28 2016 No.2889190
File: 49 KB, 896x672, sfii_integer_vertical_wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2889186
But you still need to prescale with integer nearest neighbor, and apply a resampling filter in the horizontal axis, otherwise you get the same kind of distortion as in >>2889182

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 18:45:20 2016 No.2889260
File: 101 KB, 1280x800, The-Chaos-Engine-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>In one of my first conversations with Dan Malone, he lamented that stills of older games are now largely captured from emulators and therefore have hard-edged pixels. He reminded me that CRT screens gave the imagery a unique personality, and that the Bitmaps selected their colour palettes carefully, using the nuances of the display to make their visuals sing.

Dan Malone was one of the best graphic artist during the 16 bit era. He worked on most of Bitmap Brothers' games like Speedball 2, Gods, Chaos Engine, etc.

>>2882207
>When Miyamoto was tracing squares on graph paper to design Super Mario, the last thing we was thinking of was scanlines.

He didn't intend for him to be all blocky either, but that's what technology allowed him to do in the early 80s.

Also the whole reason for planning out graphics on graph paper is because in early games they were hard coded into the game as binary data. No Photoshop to fuck around with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 19:14:34 2016 No.2889292 File: 1.39 MB, 1328x360, 1451622260739.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881406

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 19:53:25 2016 No.2889357 File: 9 KB, 110x158, RetroArch-0102-014627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2889292 actually people playing on emulator see this. stay pressed bitch emulated looks best tbqfh

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 20:56:50 2016 No.2889471 >>2889061 That's an optional screen mode for weirdos like you. When you play the game normally it looks sharp, not blurry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:08:41 2016 No.2889492 >>2889292 still think far right looks best, i don't know why the fuck this is even debatable

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:10:11 2016 No.2889497 I don't give a shit either way, I just want to see more screenshots. Preferably PS1 games since they relied on dithering.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:23:56 2016 No.2889521 >>2889357 But that looks digusting

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:27:42 2016 No.2889535
File: 1.28 MB, 2000x3000, Nintendo1993Calendar-04-vgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2889292
>Nintendo is an indie developer

The very people who make the game show it looking more like the "indie" example than any other. You are living in a fantasy world if you think it was supposed to be a blurry mess of shit like the example you show.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:27:44 2016 No.2889536 >>2881506 >>2881514 >projectors I know I'm a bit late, and my collection is an ocean away from me at the moment, but I seem to remember Nintendo game manuals (NES/SNES) warning against playing on projectors due to possible projector damage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:29:29 2016 No.2889539 >>2889536 Interdasting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:49:19 2016 No.2889571 >>2889536 You're thinking of projection TVs, not projectors. Projection TVs were susceptible to burn in, so things that would be constantly onscreen in a game (HUDs, scores, etc) could burn into the screen if the game was played for too long.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 21:51:38 2016 No.2889575 >>2889571 Ah, thanks for the correction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 1 22:23:25 2016 No.2889631 >>2889521 only if you are a indie dev. my condolences.

Anonymous Fri Jan 1 23:51:08 2016 No.2889762

>>2889571
Burn in is an issue with CRT and LCD projectors. How you reach the conclusion that because an image is being projected from the back it's susceptible to burn in but immune if it's projected from the front is quite frankly disturbing to my faith in mankind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 01:16:06 2016 No.2889869 >>2889762 Image persistence and total burn in are two different things anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 01:17:18 2016 No.2889873 >>2889869 Nobody suggested it wasn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 01:49:15 2016 No.2889912 >>2881432 He's trying to say he has brain damage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 01:53:53 2016 No.2889920 >>2889190 >>2889186 >>2889182 >>2889178 wow... they all look the same

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:07:51 2016 No.2889942 >>2889920 See an optician, it's not normal to have such bad vision.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:17:06 2016 No.2889957 >>2882181 What game is this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:17:37 2016 No.2889959 >>2889942 i do agree with him. they all very quite looks the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:18:38 2016 No.2889964 >>2882181 thats why i play ps1 games with bilinear blur.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:20:58 2016 No.2889970 File: 43 KB, 397x303, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:28:56 2016 No.2889983 >>2889957 Mods should just start banning anyone who asks the name of a game when it's in the filename.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:32:58 2016 No.2889992 >>2889869 You're sounding even crazier. Maybe time to take a break?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:55:45 2016 No.2890028 >>2889920 get glasses

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:56:21 2016 No.2890032 >>2889983 If I knew that, I wouldn't be asking. Then again, what do I expect from the umpteenth thread on this board arguing about who's nostalgia filter looks better

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 2 02:58:20 2016 No.2890037 File: 72 KB, 259x248, RetroArch-0102-033209.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Never let any woman tell you that CRT shaders look ugly on LCDs.

Anonymous Sun Jan 3 01:55:22 2016 No.2892072
File: 15 KB, 256x212, 39648492_p4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2881503
Could you give an example or something, what exactly they did to their art while keeping bad signal in mind?
And don't say dithering, because the same artists were using it for PC and arcade games that didn't suffer from shit signal and it worked just as well.

Anonymous Sun Jan 3 07:43:42 2016 No.2892696
File: 124 KB, 640x545, Amiga-Akanoids_zpsfvkznksj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The scanlines thing is less of a factor than how outright blurry and grainy the picture was on an old 80's TV with just coax/RF. Even so, the games looked nice. Later on I plugged an NTSC Amiga 500 with its A520 (RF modulator box) into the TV and it was totally unusable in Workbench in 80-column mode. Just too damn blurry to make out the characters. I guess that's why they had a 60-column option, and that was good enough so long as you didn't spend hours staring at text. But otherwise it was very usable for games, and even doing pixel art in Deluxe Paint. Getting a real monitor later on improved things a lot though (although their 15 KHz 1084 series is still relatively grainy compared to VGA PC monitors).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 3 07:47:48 2016 No.2892704 >>2892072 NEC PCs had composite output doe.

Anonymous Sun Jan 3 08:19:49 2016 No.2892763
File: 61 KB, 1105x1099, post-23476-0-17013000-1340511663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2892696
Actually I just remembered there was another option in the 80's. This type antenna jack box was pretty common, as it wasn't guaranteed your TV would even have a coax port! Can't remember using this though, except maybe with a TRS-80 that my neighbors had.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 15:34:54 2016 No.2895472 >>2892704 PC88 had RGB output since PC-8801mkII SR, the first model that can actually play games.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 17:40:50 2016 No.2895693 >>2892763 It's called an RF switch. The NES even came boxed with one. I used it all through my childhood; of course, I didn't know any better back then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 17:42:00 2016 No.2895694 File: 590 KB, 1024x960, 3retro5u.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2890037 just liek i remenbur

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 18:31:39 2016 No.2895761 So wait, was I not supposed to use the antenna cable thing to connect my SNES to my TV? Because from what I'm aware that was the only way to do it until N64 came out with composite. What does the antenna cable thing do differently?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 19:21:30 2016 No.2895818 >>2888895 who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 19:25:17 2016 No.2895829 >>2895693 Pretty sure I got one with my PS2 ffs

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 21:28:09 2016 No.2896050 >>2881406 They DID.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 21:35:13 2016 No.2896069 >>2881406 >you draw the graphics on a computer with scanlines >what you see while making it is what you get while its running on the console Nothing has changed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 21:47:01 2016 No.2896083 Just fucking tell me what emulator settings match what the devs intended the closest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 4 22:03:17 2016 No.2896107 >>2896083 For Japanese devs: sharp-bilinear For PC games (including PC-88/PC-98), or portable systems: sharp-bilinear For American devs: it's a mystery

Anonymous Mon Jan 4 22:49:12 2016 No.2896186
File: 8 KB, 400x400, piq_18444_400x400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fuck this goddamn thread. Why couldn't it have died today?

>>2896083
Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'. It's just them spewing their opinions and trying to dress them up as fact. I initially thought these were troll threads, but no troll could possibly sustain any level of amusement for this long on a no-where board like /vr/. Even if there was an actual fucking dev in this thread that developed retro games during the era in question and told us how THEY developed for particular games, they would still not represent the broad design methodologies of all developers. You would have to survey them all, and you are bound to find differing opinions on how to do art. Fuck, I can't even form a consensus half the time with my lab mates on fucking science, a field underpinned by indisputable objective reality.

It's like saying that all oil painters 'intend' their art to look like Van Gogh's, because hey, you really like how he did things.

This topic is so stupid. Who the fuck thinks people do things one way and one way only? Childish simpletons who can't wrap their heads around that the world isn't black and white, that's who. This whole cancerous thread is proof positive that there are different opinions even amongst couch-devs who will never put their own opinions to the test, let alone people who actually made it their fucking job to produce cutting edge graphics or be swallowed by the dog-eat-dog world of computer game development.

Anonymous Tue Jan 5 14:42:12 2016 No.2897341

>>2896186
>It's like saying that all oil painters 'intend' their art to look like Van Gogh's, because hey, you really like how he did things.
No it's more like saying that oil painters intended their paintings to look the way they did when they painted with oil instead of looking like a shiny photograph of their painting. Which can be passable, but still not the painting as intended which we know because it's the painting they made with the materials they made it with.
Many of us know what the devs intended because we are massively brain damaged. When transparency effects work as intended and were that way for 100% of the people who played the fucking thing back in the day, we can pretty surely say what was fucking intended.

Anonymous Tue Jan 5 14:44:15 2016 No.2897347

>>2896186
>Fuck, I can't even form a consensus half the time with my lab mates on fucking science, a field underpinned by indisputable objective reality.
That's probably because they're busy arguing with you being a fucking retard. Maybe find a field of study more suitable to your special abilities, like for example documenting all the different flavors of lead paint you ate as a child.

Anonymous Tue Jan 5 14:47:55 2016 No.2897358

>>2896186
>Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'. It's just them spewing their opinions

You should scald your own hands under hot tap water for thinking that game developers didn't think of the majority of televisions when developing games. You should burn them under your sink until they turn dark red and fall off. Also you have down syndrome.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 5 14:53:55 2016 No.2897374 >>2897358 He's wrong, but you're mentally ill.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 5 15:22:59 2016 No.2897448 >>2897374 (Good) (one)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 5 15:34:18 2016 No.2897474 >>2896186 >Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'. Well we know what some intended because they've said it themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 5 16:45:15 2016 No.2897602 >>2896186 Do you just lack any common sense at all, dick sucker?

Anonymous Tue Jan 5 20:28:12 2016 No.2898051

Well, there are instances where developers use the blurriness of imperfect signals to their advantage. For instance, sonic having the dithered waterfall to give the appearance of transparency.

But for the most part, this is bullshit. The devs working on these games used RGB monitors to get proper image

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 02:51:58 2016 No.2898789 >>2888162 Those aren't different things.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 03:03:46 2016 No.2898794

>>2889087
>People is so willing to fix the games themselves, developers just don't give a shit about quality games on PC
Yes but they're so willing to fix the games themselves because the developers just don't give a shit about quality of games on the PC anymore. Why not fix the game if you paid for it and it can be improved?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 03:06:36 2016 No.2898798 File: 364 KB, 514x493, 1397192177876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2888163 Good post

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 03:07:24 2016 No.2898802 File: 50 KB, 499x306, LIMRk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897602 >>2897474 >>2897374 >>2897358 >>2897347 > Can't form coherent counterpoint > oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 03:14:22 2016 No.2898806

>>2897358
This is just assumptions you're making.

Because a dev made a console game doesn't necessarly mean he took into consideration the specifics of the display system, especially when there are many display systems and 2 are not alike.

It's a base by case basics. For instance, in some games, a round circle will only appear round if apply the small stretching of a CRT screen. In some others, it will appear round if you don't.

Case by case basis. It is wrong to claim that "video games in general were built with the specifics of CRT tvs in mind".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 03:16:39 2016 No.2898808 File: 66 KB, 448x700, 1430175519549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898806 some people in this thread get it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 08:09:42 2016 No.2899091 >>2889471 It's not even a screen mode, It's from a lousy powerup that you can only get from one of those 8-bit Mario amiibos. It makes mario slightly bigger and makes enemies look strange.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 10:58:39 2016 No.2899301 File: 491 KB, 1280x1600, 1398364333435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881531 Eat shit and die

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 11:05:29 2016 No.2899310

>>2899091
Yet people like OP still insists it's "indie" developers that make their retro style games look pixelated. It's not just "indie" developers. It's every developer. The tiny handful of people in this thread are among the last on earth who care about or like the way games look displayed on CRTs.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 12:07:08 2016 No.2899373

>>2899310
>The tiny handful of people in this thread are among the last on earth who care about or like the way games look displayed on CRTs.
I love the way games look displayed on a CRT. Except when I mean "CRT" I mean awesome high-end PC monitor CRTs, not blurry shit-tier TVs. Good CRTs can show sharp pixels, and you get perfect low latency and low persistence for free.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 12:10:15 2016 No.2899379

>>2898806
>Because a dev made a console game doesn't necessarly mean he took into consideration the specifics of the display system,

Didn't say that. And you're right, it is an assumption. If you could explain to me how a person would be a graphic artist, create the sprites, play it on their studio television, and not be aware of what it looks like, that would be great.

But you're putting too much thought into this, the question is retarded because the pixels would be the same since there's only so much you can do with bits, but to say that a pixel artist didn't know what it would look like on a TV is a lie.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 12:31:46 2016 No.2899406

>>2899379
>If you could explain to me how a person would be a graphic artist, create the sprites, play it on their studio television, and not be aware of what it looks like, that would be great.
>but to say that a pixel artist didn't know what it would look like on a TV is a lie.

Nobody's said that. It's just what "CRT is how the devs intended it" people put in other people's mouth when we show them that not every game was necesarly made according to what it'd look like on a CRT.

Of course they knew what it looked like, but that doesn't mean they were creating the graphics according to that, that is to say, creating them a certain way on their computer screen with in mind how it would look like on TV.
Some did, some didn't.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 12:44:50 2016 No.2899420

>>2899301
It really varies game to game. Some games were nearly unplayable because of the text size or other details on a crt. While others look really off without that blur. Zelda 2 is a very notable example of a game that should be played on a crt. While something like sonic looks miles better on an LCD.

>>	louclarae !gUxA0qf6Nc Wed Jan 6 12:46:09 2016 No.2899424 Well it makes sense in the modern day and age to make games more aesthetically pleasing. I mean it's 2015 and we have the technology, so even retro games could get that graphical boost they may desperately need.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 12:47:46 2016 No.2899429 >>2899420 >sonic looks miles better on an LCD Being a fast scrolling 60fps game, Sonic is highly sensitive to sample-and-hold blur.

>>	Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 12:51:07 2016 No.2899432 >>2899429 Modern screens don't have sample and hold blur. This isn't 2002 anymore you dolt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:09:51 2016 No.2899478 >>2899301 I'm not sure what this post is trying to prove. Adding a bit of blur to those images is not necessarily analogous to the way they would appear on a real television. There are a lot of other factors that have to be taken into account.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:12:24 2016 No.2899480 >>2899478 I don't even know which ones he thinks we're supposed to say look better.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:12:34 2016 No.2899481

>>2899432
The majority of them do, and most of the ones that don't avoid it using interpolation, which is unacceptable for games because of the very high latency. Strobing is available in modern gaming LCDs, but it's very rare in TVs because 60Hz strobing is annoyingly flickery and only gamers would consider it an improvement.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:14:43 2016 No.2899484 >>2899432 LCD response times are woefully slow compared to other display tech types, though. This still produces motion blur.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:35:46 2016 No.2899532 >>2899484 >woefully slow That's quite an exaggeration. The refresh rates on modern screens are far beyond human perception at this point so any difference that is there isn't noticeable unless you're the Flash.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 13:51:03 2016 No.2899553

>>2899532
>The refresh rates on modern screens are far beyond human perception
You need a refresh rate well into the thousands of hertz to be beyond human perception. You probably mean response time, which is now adequate on the very best TN gaming LCDs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 14:32:09 2016 No.2899624 >>2899532 Response time and refresh rate are not the same thing. And it's really not an exaggeration. Display technologies like CRT and plasma are inherently instantaneous. LCDs have taken years to get anywhere close.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 14:44:41 2016 No.2899649 >>2899406 You convinced me. I totally agree actually.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 14:50:06 2016 No.2899658 >>2881428 they couldn't fit a cathode ray tube in a handheld console retard. also pixel art on handhelds is done in a different style that takes the different kind of screen into account. use your brain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 14:55:42 2016 No.2899663 >>2889535 the marketing department didn't make the game fucker

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:01:19 2016 No.2899673 >>2899480 the one that doesn't give you eye cancer? (right side btw)

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:08:14 2016 No.2899693
File: 1.34 MB, 2000x3000, Nintendo1993Calendar-06-vgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2899663
No, but the same company that made the game ordered the design of the calendar. They very obviously went for a pixel art style to show their games. And not just in one or two examples. In every single example.

Every time Nintendo shows their old games in "high resolution" they always make them look pixelated.

When Nintendo releases Mario Maker, it looks pixelated. There are no scanline filters to simulate CRT blur or a way to hook it up to a CRT. The game has clear, crisp pixels because that is what Nintendo has ALWAYS been shooting for. Since they started making games.

The fact that the look blurry on a CRT is simply technology limitations of the day. If you want to know what Nintendo themselves thought the graphics should look like, just look at the posters and calendars they produced and sold.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:08:46 2016 No.2899696 god don't tell me this brain damaged individual is still on the front page of /vr/...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:09:16 2016 No.2899698 >>2899673 That's why I asked, because the right side looks blurry and shitty to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:22:07 2016 No.2899718 >>2881406 The scanline one looks like shit. There is no reason to think that they were intended to look like that, other than "m-muh feelz"

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:34:39 2016 No.2899739

>>2899718
There is no reason think they were intended to look like the first one other than "m-muh feelz". All of this is subjective.

If you like the first one better, you are like some anime faggot retard getting wowed by something that doesn't look anything realistic but is clean, and you think it's cool.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 15:57:38 2016 No.2899798
File: 754 KB, 2000x1500, Nintendo1993Calendar-00-cover-vgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2899739
>There is no reason think they were intended to look like the first one other than "m-muh feelz"

Actually there is, if you pay attention to what Nintendo themselves put out as promo material.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:23:42 2016 No.2899867
File: 40 KB, 500x375, 1992-Nintendo-Power-Calendar-RARE-PLUS-1990-1991-Calendars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2899798
It has already been explained to you the marketing department put pixels in sometimes for effect I think they add something to the posters.

You really expect us to believe that Nintendo and its creators didn't know what their characters would look like on 99.9+% of home televisions? That is the ONLY thing they cared about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:27:29 2016 No.2899873 >>2899867 >marketing department Of Nintendo. Who made the games. This is their ideal representation of them. Deny it all you want, you're factually flat out wrong.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:37:16 2016 No.2899895

>>2899873
The marketing department doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the development team. At all, really.
The sprite work, if printed, obviously would not have the same effects present when being displayed on a CRT in-game. If the assets were simply given to the marketing department for them to put together promotional material, of COURSE they would come out differently on paper, and in fact be edited to suit the new medium. That is completely irrelevant to what the developers were seeing during development, or wanted to see in the game itself.

>>	Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 16:41:39 2016 No.2899906 >>2899484 This just isn't true. Many lcds oleds and plasmas surpass or are very close to crt response times. >>2899481 This isn't true either. Any name brand won't have this issue. Are you people actually this delusional or are you trolling?

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:47:47 2016 No.2899924

>>2899873
"ideal representation of it"? wtf, why would they have pixels in the first place if it's their "ideal representation" of it? How can it be their "ideal representation" when in another place their ideal representation is completely different? It's not their ideal representation, it's the fucking artwork that is suitable at the time. The pixels are a nice touch because they emphasize that it's a video, not a cartoon. Sorry if you can't appreciate that.

I think you seriously need to take a step back and have a think about what you're saying because this is getting ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:47:50 2016 No.2899925 >>2899873 The marketing department of any organization is always woefully out of touch with the creators. Especially for video games in the 90s.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:50:29 2016 No.2899928 >>2899924 videogame* Surely you can understand the artsy element of drawing with pixels for a videogame poster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 16:52:32 2016 No.2899932 >>2899906 Allow me to clarify that >>2899624 is also my post. That being said I'm willing to believe this in regards to plasma (obviously) and OLED but LCD/LED, absolutely not. Do you have a source on this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 17:21:52 2016 No.2899996 >>2899906 Show me a TV with 60Hz strobing.

Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 17:30:38 2016 No.2900016

>>2899932
Lookup nearly any LCD led supporting the displayport 1.2 spec. Your gtg is going to be anywhere from 1 to 4ms. While no LCD will ever beat a crt, modern oleds and plasmas often edge them out when scaling and shaders are turned off.
>>2899996
Any led above 120hz. This has been a thing since like 2012. So it is fairly modern but most good panels have a zoned strobing greater than 120hz now. Plasmas far eclipse that of course. And it isn't a necessary measurement for an oled. I still have my pvm hooked up for some stuff but plasmas and oleds are way better and cheaper than they used to be. You should really look into it.

>>	Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 17:32:37 2016 No.2900027 >>2900016 Note, only monitors support displayport 1.2 properly. But for a TV there's no reason to get an LCD now. It's oled or plasma all the way.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:09:00 2016 No.2900094

>>2900016
>no LCD will ever beat a crt

Okay but in your last post, you claimed

>Many lcds [...] surpass or are very close to crt response times.

Which is what I was disputing; note that I expressly stated OLED and plasma were a non-issue in my last post, and that my original statement was that LCD response times (no other) are woefully slow compared to other types. Namely, all the ones you just mentioned.

I don't understand what you're arguing anymore. The original discussion was about the presence of motion blur on LCD panels; OLED and plasma response times were never in question.

>>	Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 18:17:41 2016 No.2900115 >>2900094 Sorry I was being confusing. Lcds come close to crts but don't beat them. And generally people call all flatscreens lcds. Even if its plasma or oled.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:22:46 2016 No.2900126

>>2900016
>Any led above 120hz.
Hardly any of them do, because 60Hz flicker is obvious and annoying, and the benefit of higher motion quality is harder to market, especially as it doesn't help with common 24fps/30fps content.

>And it isn't a necessary measurement for an oled.
Strobing is always necessary for 60fps games.

Sage in all fields Wed Jan 6 18:36:13 2016 No.2900159

>>2900126
Oleds don't strobe and create natural light. So it just isn't a measurable phenomena on an oled. And many 120hzs strobe two 60hz areas rather than being a true 120hz. And plasmas strobe many thousands of times a second , so it isn't a relevant measurement for those.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:36:18 2016 No.2900161 >>2889047 Mario maker is an ugly game. Jesus christ, I can't get over the fucking drop shadows on everything.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:44:20 2016 No.2900179

This is as hilarious as watching my Smash-playing friends claim they can feel the latency hit on an LCD playing Smash.

I can guarantee you you guys are putting more thought into this then most devs ever did. This is Vinyl vs. CDs 2.0: The Missing the Point edition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:49:11 2016 No.2900184 >>2900179 depends on the lcd. some have really noticeable lag.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 18:50:53 2016 No.2900186

>>2900159
>Oleds don't strobe and create natural light.
So they have either shit-tier sample-and-hold blur, or shit-tier interpolation.

>And many 120hzs strobe two 60hz areas rather than being a true 120hz.
That's a primitive scanning backlight, which has slightly better latency than strobing the whole screen at once. But you still very rarely see it, because even many people on /vr/ don't understand why 60Hz strobing is necessary. "Flicker free" was a huge selling point of LCDs when they were new.

>plasmas strobe many thousands of times a second
Which means they have the exact same problem as OLEDs.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:12:01 2016 No.2900228
File: 157 KB, 750x1061, super-mario-bros.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2899895
>The marketing department doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the development team

Correct. They represent the company, which told them how to show their games.

>>2899925
The marketing department works for Nintendo. If Nintendo at large didn't want their games to be represented with pixel art, that's not what the department would have produced.

>>2900161
>Mario maker is an ugly game

You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like. If they thought Mario should be best seen on a CRT with the blur that comes with them, Mario Maker would have a scanline filter. Or at VERY LEAST an option for one.

But it doesn't. Because to Nintendo, clear crisp pixels has always been the ideal. From NES days right through until now.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:20:55 2016 No.2900247

>>2900228

>You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like.

You say that like I should care what a washed-up out-of-touch Japanese game studio wants and intends. Nintendo today knows less about the visual design of 8-bit games than the hordes of indie designers aping the NES graphics.

Don't get too bummed out when they start making pachinko cabinets like Konami.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:22:48 2016 No.2900250
File: 123 KB, 800x800, tWnEO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2900228
You convinced me. I totally agree actually.

Clearly Nintendo meant for their games to be played on TVs that can show diagonal pixels and vectorized color lines per the box art of their most notable game ever, SMB, which you have so graciously posted for the rest of these idiots to see. Checkmate CRT faggots.

Too bad the technology to play these games as Nintendo intended won't exist for another 256 years, however let us together marvel at the forward thinking of the big N.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:30:01 2016 No.2900263 >>2889292 All of these pics look like shit because they're from emulators with shitty filtering.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:32:00 2016 No.2900269 >>2900247 >Discussion about Nintendo's games >Nintendo doesn't count Never change, 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:35:36 2016 No.2900275 Ever since I discovered RGB on CRT I never came back to LCD Also fighting games on LCD hurt my eyes because of the display motion blur

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:41:29 2016 No.2900281 >>2900269 The fact that Nintendo made a conscious design decision doesn't automatically mean it was a good design decision. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 19:49:43 2016 No.2900293 File: 658 KB, 2592x1456, 1451788321475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2900281 I think I'm forming a brain lesion by reading the comments in this thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:15:06 2016 No.2900346 >>2900281 ... Are... Are you real?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:18:45 2016 No.2900352 >>2900228 You're stretching logic a little hard there to justify your pixel purist beliefs, Firebrandx

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:19:26 2016 No.2900353 >>2900346 >>2900293 So, what, Nintendo can't make bad design decisions? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:21:23 2016 No.2900356 >>2900353 That's so far from what anybody is saying that you're not even wrong. You're having an entirely separate conversation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:22:58 2016 No.2900359 >>2900247 LOL!!!! Nothing else is needed. You're grasping at the most ridiculous staws at this point.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:26:25 2016 No.2900361

>>2900228
>You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like.

No, it's lazy faux-retro bullshit. Blocky pixels like that always looked stupid. If anything, they would have wanted higher resolution graphics, not huge ugly ass square blocks. Only deranged pixel fetishists actually think that way, normal people don't think blockyness (aka aliasing) is a good picture quality..

This is the stupidest rationalization from nearest neighbor square pixel fetishists I've seen yet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:28:12 2016 No.2900364 >>2900356 All I'm saying is that Nintendo using clean sprites in Mario Maker is not proof that clean sprites look better. How is that confusing?

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:32:21 2016 No.2900371

>>2900186
OLED's don't strobe. They have zero blur, it's an instantaneous organic response. The subpixels are micro-organisms that are being zapped. It responds as fast as electrical current can, leading to sub .5ms total response times. And no it isn't a primitive scanning backlight. Is your knowledge really that dated on LCD's? And Plasmas have no perceptible flickering. Can you please stop posting misinformation?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 20:42:42 2016 No.2900393 >>2900364 It's entirely tangential to the conversation? The conversation isn't about what looks better; it's about the look Nintendo intended.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 21:43:17 2016 No.2900473

>>2900371
>OLED's don't strobe. They have zero blur
And you are revealed as having no idea what you're talking about.

>sub .5ms total response times
Response time is a completely separate issue.

>Plasmas have no perceptible flickering
That's the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 21:55:30 2016 No.2900496 >>2900228 Just so you know, posting that boxart proves nothing. It was created by a marketing/artwork team working for Nintendo of America and nobody from the actual development team was involved in any way whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 22:00:59 2016 No.2900506 >>2900496 It actually runs counter to what he's claiming with the misaligned pixels and all, which is kinda funny. You can't say that those aren't 'intended' if you claim the sharp pixels are using the same box art. No picking and choosing.

Anonymous Wed Jan 6 22:05:50 2016 No.2900513

>>2900506
>misaligned pixels
Those are intended too. "Misaligned" pixels actually give you better motion quality, because movement isn't quantized. But unlike sharp pixels, which can be displayed very easily, subpixel alignment would require some serious effort in rom-hacking and custom emulator programming, so AFAIK nobody has done it yet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 22:20:24 2016 No.2900539 >>2900506 This is a very clever impersonation of a stupid person.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 23:26:24 2016 No.2900637 File: 38 KB, 440x318, 3454581387_a677f0b64f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2900371 >The subpixels are micro-organisms that are being zapped I'm guessing you asked the little man who turns the light on in your fridge about that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 6 23:35:48 2016 No.2900648 >>2900637 That's why OLED displays burn out so quickly - the micro-organisms die of old age.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 02:22:12 2016 No.2900810 >>2900637 This is actually how they work. That's why they're called organic led tvs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 02:41:56 2016 No.2900826 You could end the arguments by asking developers whether they took CRT blur into account. https://twitter.com/bobsstuffgames https://twitter.com/stepickford https://twitter.com/daviddarlingcbe https://twitter.com/ZXSpectrumDev

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 02:48:14 2016 No.2900832
File: 43 KB, 225x225, oledflakes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2900810
>>2900648
>>2900371
No offense, but you guys are retarded if you believe that OLEDs are implemented with living cells. The semiconductor compounds used to make the LED are organic (pretty much read "contains carbon"), but not alive. Coal for instance is composed of organic compounds, but is clearly not alive.

Just think about it 2 seconds... if OLEDs where made from living tissue, they'd have to have some sort of metabolism, ie they'd hafta eat. I don't think you see too many people opening up the top of their TV and shaking flakes into it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 05:22:36 2016 No.2900952

>>2881406
That's like saying game developers don't optimise their games for certain operation systems and hardware.

To elaborate:

"Why do people legitimately think game designers sat down and thought

> Well, since our game is going to run on Intel Pentium II with Windows 95 on it, we will design the game around this, as well as the CRT monitors that they will use for the graphics"

Are you that fucking stupid?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 10:18:23 2016 No.2901159 >>2900832 the flakes and flake dispenser are built in to the tv dumbass

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 10:33:53 2016 No.2901170 File: 104 KB, 500x389, haha topkek 1369259280076.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2901159 >>2900832 >>2900810 >>2900648 >>2900371 top kek

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 10:44:46 2016 No.2901179

why are you guys arguing like a bunch of nintendo and sega fans about which console is better, literally if you think it looks better blurry, play it like that, if you think it looks better with scan lines, then play with scan lines.

I play with composite on a home trinitron. Why? Because fuck I like crts because I like to play light gun games.
Fuck yous all

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 10:45:41 2016 No.2901181

>>2900247
>Nintendo today knows less about the visual design of 8-bit games than the hordes of indie designers aping the NES graphics.

He's talking about how they were marketed in the NES/SNES days you retard. That's the point. Pixel art isn't a new "indie" trend. It's always been a huge part of video games.

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 10:49:12 2016 No.2901186
File: 1.13 MB, 2000x3000, Nintendo1993Calendar-13-vgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2900361
>No, it's lazy faux-retro bullshit

It's not faux retro though, that's the whole point. Even back in the 80's and 90's they were going for pixel art. This isn't a trend of millennial kids, it's been a trend for all of video gaming history.

It's not my problem if you don't like it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 11:11:04 2016 No.2901212

>>2900832
It's a bioluminescent bacteria that uses photosynthesis. That's why oleds have a relatively short shelf life. And why early oled screens had a short life on the blue subpixels. It's basically individual organic cathodes in a stack. Which is why input lag/response time is so low. It sounds crazy but it's taken them decades to get to a usable and cost effective point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 11:13:59 2016 No.2901218 >>2901212 This is also why subpixels can often bleed leading to distorted color in large areas or white/black splotches. The bacteria can multiply and cause this is some cases.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 11:20:44 2016 No.2901225 >>2900250 Why u make fun me :(

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 11:29:12 2016 No.2901228 >>2901212 >>2901218 This was so stupid I actually almost believed it. Now I feel a bit wicked retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 11:56:43 2016 No.2901252 >>2901228 This is how it works you Dingus. Look it up. It's either that or bioluminescent compounds which don't give off as much light.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 13:00:34 2016 No.2901321 I am really disturbed about using biological entities in electronics. Fuck biotech trying to pretend it's like electronics, it's a liviing entity like we are. Trust me biotech will be the end of humanity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 13:09:00 2016 No.2901335 >>2901321 Need to get out more anon, stop watching so many movies

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 13:21:50 2016 No.2901358 >>2901321 I hope you don't take any pharmaceuticals, ever. Or eat anything living. How's that mineral water and clay diet working out for you?

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 13:29:23 2016 No.2901372

>>2881406
>Retro games were designed "with RF/scanlines in mind"

The games were tested/played on tv's with RF/Scanlines, so they were designed with that in mind, dumb dumb.

in the same way games are designed with being on a 1080p screen now

Thats not to say it makes a massive difference

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 14:22:50 2016 No.2901482

>>2901372
Exactly. Part of art is considering how the finished product will be viewed, regardless of how it was originally designed. Your computer screen might typically be displayed in RGB, but if you are going to print in CMYK, then you should consider that when picking colors. If someone designing Famicom graphics didn't consider how they'd be displayed in RF (and didn't check on a real Famicom), then they were bad at their job.

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 15:31:24 2016 No.2901658
File: 449 KB, 1920x1200, mario-bros-fondos-de-pantalla-del-aniversario-super-460228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2901482
Of course they knew what the limitations of the displays were, but that doesn't mean they weren't still designing around them as opposed to for them.

Nintendo specifically (which is who OP picked as his example) has always worked with pixel art. The NES was designed to display 256 X 240 pixels. And to Nintendo who both made the system and the games, their goal was always for the player to see them as clearly as crisply as possible. Even though screens that were good enough to really do the games justice wouldn't be commonplace for a couple of decades, the clean pixel art style is always what they were going for.

It's proof positive when you look at the box art for Super Mario Bros >>2900228 which clearly shows a "pixel art" idealized view of the game.

It's more proof positive in the picture posted here. Any time Nintendo released high resolution images of any of their games it always shows crisp pixels. Because that to them, is how the games should be displayed.

You can play it on an ancient CRT if you want. And you can even think to yourself that it looks better. But OP's image is unquestionably and objectively wrong. Unless he's calling Nintendo themselves an indie developer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 17:20:06 2016 No.2901864 New theory: What if they weren't designed with anything in mind?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 17:23:48 2016 No.2901872 ITT: People respond without reading the thread and keep making the same arguments to no one Delete this, please

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 17:41:26 2016 No.2901903 [DELETED]

>>2901658
Stop it man, just stop with this utter horseshit.

I don't know how you can write decently and still be full of that rubbish. Usually a person with that stupid thinking cannot piece a post together properly.

What you are saying is complete nonsense. It doesn't work, the logic doesn't follow. Nintendo designed their games to be put on the screen as they came up with 99.99% of the time. Who could argue otherwise? "on an ancient CRT" my ass.

This whole "theory" that you have is a fricking joke and you're going to have to let it go.

I also take it that you never use any sort of blending or smoothing as CRT tends to do automatically, you rather play with square pixels in your games and corners on things that are clearly meant to be smooth, such a joke.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 18:02:55 2016 No.2901927 File: 124 KB, 256x247, Omega_Boost_Coverart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the only non racing game from Polyphony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-g-83_emKE

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 18:03:42 2016 No.2901932
File: 767 KB, 1280x720, mario-maker-day-5-04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2901903
>It doesn't work, the logic doesn't follow.

Every bit of the logic follows, and you know it. Look at the evidence in front of your face and it's undeniable. Screen technology has always been improving and the Japanese are especially fond of technological advancement.

They were designing NES games to be displayed images based on 256x240 pixels, but they and many others were always seeking better and better technology to make it look as good as it could.

And what does Nintendo themselves think is the best way to display those original designs for Mario? It's easy, just look at Super Mario Maker. They don't add a scanline filter to simulate the distortion of an 80's era CRT screen. They don't even give you the OPTION. Why? Because this is what Mario is supposed to look like. This is what Mario was ALWAYS supposed to look like.

Stamp your feet and yell all you want, but you're flat out wrong. And if you think about it honestly and logically for even a few minutes you will understand how wrong you are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 18:28:53 2016 No.2901985 File: 23 KB, 600x600, ishygddt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >1985 >implying you can even see scan lines without the assistance of a camera shiggy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 18:42:02 2016 No.2902015 File: 167 KB, 400x150, sherm521.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2901903 >deleted Wrecked.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 18:49:13 2016 No.2902029 I deleted my post because I was reading the other posts and I don't want to enable your nonsense. I already replied to this thread anyway so there's a flaw in me to feel the need to stomp on someone so stupid.

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 19:09:49 2016 No.2902080
File: 1.11 MB, 1366x768, mario.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2901932
>They don't add a scanline filter to simulate the distortion of an 80's era CRT screen. They don't even give you the OPTION. Why? Because this is what Mario is supposed to look like. This is what Mario was ALWAYS supposed to look like.

But they do give you the option to turn on a filter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_cV6J5pw44

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 19:10:53 2016 No.2902081 File: 67 KB, 514x549, 1182825850646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2902029 lol ;)

Anonymous Thu Jan 7 19:15:28 2016 No.2902089

>>2902080
I learned something new, thanks! I say kudos to them for actually giving that option (even if it is pretty hidden) for guys like you. It doesn't change that they clearly prefer the high definition pixel art look, but throwing niche guys like you a bone is one of the things that makes Nintendo so great.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 19:19:40 2016 No.2902098 >>2902089 >guys like you I only joined this thread to show that, but thanks for dumping me into a group I don't have any thoughts about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 7 19:23:32 2016 No.2902108 >>2902098 I didn't mean lump you in, just assumed. At any rate I'm happy it's there for them or anyone who wants it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 8 02:02:03 2016 No.2902583

>>2901212
>>2900832
OMG you fucking tards.
>>2901252
>This is how it works
It is fucking not.

Sony for their jumbotron screens - those huge ones in stadiums - thought they were using too much energy and decided to breed koi in different colours. The theory was that fish scales are so reflective the screen wouldn't need it's own powersource or even backlighting. The breeding program produced the colours well enough to make RGB triads, but as a side effect the fish got smaller the brighter they got. This is a pretty well known biological law - the brighter something is the smaller is has to be. That's why little aquarium fish are so bright.

So anyway, Sony had these really bright fish, but they were too small for the intended use. In order to capitalise on the tech they made the screen smaller too. The O in OLED stands for organic because the fish are alive, and the LED is just because the fish act like an LED and produce colours. They make the fish swim in different directions with tiny electric fields, or by "electrorheotaxis". This changes the colours.

That's where the fish flakes come in. It's fucking fish food, what did you think it was for?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 8 03:51:44 2016 No.2902659 This thread is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 8 04:35:12 2016 No.2902709 File: 105 KB, 462x313, scanlines3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm glad that those who are against RGB connexions and aperture grilles are being so thoroughly BTFO. Looking forward to some scaynloins tonight.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 8 17:18:21 2016 No.2903573 >>2902583 Do you have an actual fucking source on that? The whole story sounds fishy as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 8 18:00:27 2016 No.2903640 >>2900826 >>2900826 >>2900826

Anonymous Fri Jan 8 18:29:06 2016 No.2903707
File: 1.49 MB, 300x300, 1451895349472.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2903573
Just wikipedia that shit bro. It better explains why Sony took this route, although >>2902583 did a pretty good summary of the technique. It boils down to ecomonics: growing fish scales is much cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) to produce than consumer grade semiconductors. Although the quality and durability of OLED displays are worse than more establish technologies, they are competitive for the bang/buck. The brighter/smaller relationship is simply a restatement of the conservation of energy, which is a very clever use of the basic physics involved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 8 23:32:56 2016 No.2904245 >>2903573 It's really the on option if you want to catch a TV "this big"

Anonymous Sat Jan 9 09:55:24 2016 No.2904968
File: 93 KB, 640x425, blue_morpho_butterfly_blue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2903707
This is freaky shit the more I dig into it. But still, it seems weird. Even with the fish that small they must be loosing a lot from the water distorting the light waves. Is that why these screens still have motion blur?

It makes me wonder if there's a future in butterflies. They don't live as long, but fuck they're fast.

>>2904245
It wasn't my sole porpoise to get the biggest TV in the pond, I just want to see my games in the highest def. Scale isn't too important I just want it to look brill-iant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 9 10:50:21 2016 No.2905028 >>2902709 lol I think the blurfags are afraid to even post at this point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 9 16:12:14 2016 No.2905613 >>2900179 One time in college I played Punch Out on my friend's Wii VC on his LCD. I could not beat Great Tiger, who I've been able to beat flawlessly since I was 8. The lag was real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 00:01:09 2016 No.2906458 >>2900179 >i don't play games and don't believe it when people who do say LCDs have lag And why are you here?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 00:25:56 2016 No.2906486 >>2906458 Apparently I don't play games? I should tell my huge steam collection and pile of games I'm currently playing....

Anonymous Sun Jan 10 06:16:04 2016 No.2906879

>>2906486
>I don't play games
Correct. This is /vr/. Any futuristic fantasy games you imagine you play don't exist here.
>I should tell my huge steam collection
I don't see why you want to collect steam. You're full of enough hot air as it is. If you want to talk to games try something like hey you pikacu. A game that's /vr/ and will actually listen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 10:04:46 2016 No.2907062 Self anti-aliasing

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 10:08:40 2016 No.2907070 >>2906879 >board specific role-play, play ground tier wit attempts your post made me ashamed for you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 11:40:30 2016 No.2907178 File: 383 KB, 1576x1044, 1399260593726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2881406 >Developers don't take into consideration the type of display that 90% of their consumers will be viewing their product on KEK

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 11:41:01 2016 No.2907181 >>2907178 nice cherrypick

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 11:41:35 2016 No.2907183 File: 736 KB, 625x852, ff6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2907178

Anonymous Sun Jan 10 12:41:29 2016 No.2907247

>>2905613
How long ago was that and on how good a TV? Was it hooked up directly to the screen with no uscaler? Or a PC running a ROM? There are many variables.

If lag on modern screens was really that bad no one who plays high execution games like fighters would be able to use them. CRTs would be the standard for the FGC, but they're not at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 12:49:27 2016 No.2907257 Nintendo uses nearest neighbour with a 4:3 aspect linear scaling. Checkmate atheists.

Anonymous Sun Jan 10 12:53:07 2016 No.2907261

>>2907178
The only reason this works at all is because there are no hard lines anywhere except the text which is ugly. Also the color being different is doing half the job.

In this example >>2907183 the filtered image at the bottom looks like complete dogshit and is a blurry mess.

Anonymous Sun Jan 10 12:55:51 2016 No.2907264

>>2907183
Zoom this down to it's original resolution and you'll see how the top image looks way better.

Old games were designed for their native resolutions. They look crisp and perfect like that. That's why they look better ON ACTUAL CRTs, they display these games in their native resolutions.

Scaling will look terrible no matter what filter you use, a shit CRT filter won't do it. So use whatever the fuck you think it looks OK, a real CRT with a crip image (an RGB mod for example) will always look better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 10 13:02:53 2016 No.2907278 >>2907264 I would take the top image of that over it being displayed on a CRT any day of the week.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/vr/ - Retro Games