Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/vr/ - Retro Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 467 KB, 1600x600, mario.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496007 No.496007 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Filters get a lot of hate around here, but if you don't have a CRT or the original system handy, they're kind of necessary. What filters do you use /vr/?

>> No.496016

>Necessary

I do not agree. Though that is not to say that I am opposed to others using them.

>> No.496019

None. They look bad.

>> No.496020

>>496007

I don't use any. Why are they necessary?

>> No.496021

Play the game in its original resolution and a microscope, it looks marvelous.

>> No.496025

Necessary?

How?

I have never understood the need for filters. I mean, if you like them, fine, but I don't and everything looks just fine to me.

>> No.496026

People are such big babies about old video games.

>> No.496027

>>496007

I've never used any on 8 and 16 bit emulation. Why are they necessary?

>> No.496031

>>496007
I play around with them a lot. NTSC palette + filter on FCEUX is nice because it recreates the effect of playing on an old CRT with a composite cable fairly accurately, and I grew up with just such a setup. I also use TV mode a lot. Sometimes I use hq4x just for shits and giggles, and sometimes I play with no filter at all.

The only ones I really don't like are scanlines and dot matrix because the effects are kind of overkill and it makes it harder to see what's happening in the game.

I don't much care whether other people use filters or not.

>> No.496041

>>496019
do even enjoy anything?

>> No.496048
File: 286 KB, 1208x946, im blind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496048

The ugliest one I can find. I don't much like pixels, and I believe that reducing detail actually increases subjectively perceived detail.

>> No.496050

I kind of have this problem choosing between using the rca or rf inputs on my nes

>> No.496058

>>496041
Video games.

>> No.496059

>>496041

Clearly he enjoys not using filters.

>> No.496068

>>496050
>RF

Mmmm... static.

>> No.496075

>>496058
apparently not ones that are enhanced for your nostalgic pleasure

>> No.496087

I WISH I could love Scanlines-esque filters, but usually they don't end up looking like a TV at all. Besides, I'm already looking through one screen, I don't want it to look like another.
Most of the time, I usually just plug my computer into a CRT.

>>496048
Apparently your windows color scheme is just as ugly.

>> No.496094

>>496075
Not everyone needs to blur and add pretend scanlines to enjoy nostalgia.

>> No.496114
File: 28 KB, 407x389, aaa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496114

>>496087
You're probably right about that.

>> No.496115

>>496094
>pretend scan lines
>simulated scan lines
>without scan lines

Why do you hate vidya?

>> No.496119

>>496114
You gave my eyeballs cancer.

>> No.496127

>>496114
green, it's candy for the eyes.

no really, it's actually unhealthy for your eyes.

>> No.496137
File: 12 KB, 224x225, idgaf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496137

>>496115
>Doesn't accept other's opinions
I actually enjoy video games and I don't need to shit on them to do it too. But go ahead, please continue to be a faggot and shitpost in threads whenever anyone makes you mad.
Yeah, u mad.

>> No.496138

Those who don't use filters a pleb-tier /v/ermin that don't belong here. I bet they don't even correct the aspect ratio. Hell, I bet they use ZSNES too.

>> No.496145

>>496138
those who must use filters an don't play in original hardware a pleb-tier /v/ermin that don't belong here. I bet they don't even correct the aspect ratio.

>> No.496149

I use the pixelate shader with retroarch to correct scaling issues which result in uneven pixel rows/column size.

Other than that, none. I like my pixels razor sharp.

I understand why people do use some filters and shaders, though, either for nostalgia or, in the case of some games like Sonic, to help take advantage of pseudo-transparency effects. I just prefer not to use them.

>> No.496157

>>496127
Put some sauce on that, thanks.

I like green because it's soothing, not too dark and not too bright. I've never had eye strain ever since going green.

>> No.496159
File: 18 KB, 150x205, EW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496159

>Never used filters
>"Oh hey, a filter thread! Maybe they can spur me to use them more often, and which are best!"
>Non-filter guys: "Eh, I don't like em. To each their own tho."
>Filter guys: "GOD WHY CAN'T YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES RIGHT?"

>> No.496169

A NTSC filter/shader is a must. Those games were designed to be looked on a NTSC TV and the filter helps achieve that look. The other filters are shit.

>> No.496176

>Designed to be displayed on a CRT display

I hear this being repeated, but it raises the question, what was the alternative display which games could have been designed for?

>> No.496187

>>496159
I find it exceedingly hard to believe you have never used filters and still found your way onto this website

>> No.496189

I don't use filters at all, emulators just don't give the same experience as playing on an actual TV, so why bother?

>> No.496192

>>496127
>>496157
I'd like some of that sauce too interested in colours.

>> No.496202

Kinda off-topic, but what's the best Turbographix-16 emulator?

>> No.496205

>>496169
Why do people find this so hard to enjoy the use the filters? are they that set in their ways?

>> No.496209

>>496137
but your opinions are wrong...

>> No.496212
File: 6 KB, 252x181, 1363929526983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496212

>>496159
>enter thread
>see "I DON'T LIKE THIS FILTER SHIT, I ENJOY THINGS THE WAY I WANT TO, UMAD PURISTS"

>> No.496221

>>496202
RetroArch with Mednafen core

Or just Mednafen, but RetroArch's got a buncha other stuff too

>> No.496227

>>496007
>mfw the unfiltered one has more accurate colors

>> No.496237

None of them replicate CRT flicker, which is the most important part of the CRT look. Without flicker you unavoidably get sample-and-hold blur.

>> No.496239

>>496227
>mfw there isn't a monitor in the world with "accurate colours" because every cunt alive just sets it up the way they like it.

Except yours, of course, anon.

>> No.496240

So, we get people trying to avoid how bad CRTs can look by buying professional video monitors to get the best clarity, and then we have people who try to make the crispest display available look worse(or like CRT display).

>> No.496242

>>496227
What were the colors supposed to be

Looks pretty much the same to me

>> No.496251

Your "unfiltered" example uses non-integer ratio nearest neighbor scaling, making it look extremely ugly and not a fair representation of "unfiltered". Please use a Pixelate style filter to give sharp pixels + correct aspect ratio without the severe distortion.

>> No.496262

>>496221
Neato, thanks anon.

>> No.496271

>>496251

I think you and OP are both shitheads. It's a goddamn TV. You didn't have the perfect TV when you were young and you won't now. Shut up and play.

>> No.496297

Usually for the snes I use an HQ filter. Smoothes out the pixels and brings out the all the colors. I stay away from 2xSal, super eagle, and CRT filters bc I think they look ridiculous; I understand why people make such a big deal about them. I wish I could send a screenshot of the before and after with the HQ but unfortunately I'm not on my computer. It's not a drastic change which I like but it definitely improves the looks of most of my games on my monitor.

>> No.496316

>>496271
I didn't use a TV, I used an Amiga monitor with custom RGB cables + sync separator I built. It looked a shitload better than both OP images.

>> No.496505

>>496316
How old are you Mr Howser?

>> No.496518

>>496505
>when you've lost the argument, change the subject to your opponent's age to distract from your failure

>> No.496519

>>496007
Those filters both look fine. Move along.

>> No.496536

>filter thread
>non-integer scaling for unfiltered

every time

>> No.496554
File: 14 KB, 288x175, 1359258248775.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496554

>>496518
That was my first post in this thread asshat

>> No.496584
File: 63 KB, 898x714, FFIII-unfiltered-take2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496584

Unfiltered makes it hard to read the signs in many games.

>> No.496593
File: 741 KB, 898x714, FFIII-ntsc-take2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496593

>>496584
The NTSC filter, on the other hand, makes the sign readable and gives an overall better image; closer to what the developers intended.

>> No.496602

>>496584
I have vision trouble in my left eye and I can read that sign just fine with my right eye closed.

Try harder.

>> No.496613
File: 63 KB, 768x672, my eyes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496613

I don't like unfiltered, but I also can't seem to find the perfect filter. I kind of like this, but it hurts my eyes after a while.

>> No.496623

>>496584
Stop posting the same bait.

>> No.496629
File: 109 KB, 300x533, CT-comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496629

>>496593
People who don't filter often don't correct the aspect ratio to account for non-square pixels.

>> No.496631

>>496593
To be fair, bilinear + scanlines get pretty close too, minus the flickering and dithering of CRT.

>> No.496643

>>496623
>>filter thread
>>posts relevant posts comparing filters
>hurr stop posting bait durr
Stay classy /vr/.

>> No.496660

>>496643
The sign is completely legible unfiltered, which has been pointed out multiple times every time you post that image. Go back to /b/.

>> No.496669

>>496613
aspect ratio seems off

>> No.496679

>>496669
It's not.

>> No.496704

>>496679
>it's not
It is. The correct aspect ration should be 4:3. Your image is 8:7. Unless you are using a monitor with native non-square pixels you need to correct for the difference in aspect ratio.

>> No.496714

>>496660
It's legible, but that doesn't change that the filtered one is superior in my opinion.

>> No.496720

>>496187
Pretty much everyone hates filters, what are you on?

>> No.496728

It's not the filters that get a lot of hate, it's the fans. Most people who don't use filters start out politely saying that filters aren't the preference then someone posts a reply claiming that true gamers use filters and if you don't use a filter then you're not a real fan. After that pretty much everyone who doesn't use filters gets butthurt and stops acting polite calling filters useless, artificial, and unnecessary which then angers everyone who uses filters, causing them to back the original douchenozzle who started the whole thing by calling anyone who doesn't use filters posers and phonies.

That's how the vast majority of hate starts on 4chan. And the internet in general, for that matter.

>> No.496730

>>496704
Standard SNES resolution was 256x224. 768x672 is just 3x that.

>> No.496737

>>496593
The sign is the only thing that looks remotely better, now the shapes are less defined and the roofs like blue vomit.

>> No.496741

>>496629
We already discussed this. The pixels are square, but they need to be stretched to create a 4:3 image in which some games display best. Stop being retarded.

>> No.496742

>>496730
That is true, but the pixels displayed on a NTSC TV (with a 4:3 aspect ratio) at that resolution are non-square. Look at >>496629.

>> No.496748

>>496741
>pixels are square
Not when displayed on a NTSC TV, as intended by the developers. You can't fit 256x224 square pixels into a 4:3 screen. This is simple math.

>> No.496759

Bilinear 4X.

>> No.496768
File: 157 KB, 800x600, FUCKING DONKEY DICK NIGGER BALLS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496768

>>496007

Filter on the right of OP's pic makes the otherwise blocky and jagged pixels much easier on the eyes.

>> No.496780

>>496748
Who cares where you display them. You can use a projector and change the ratio into 2.39:1 from the source image and It'll looked stretched to death. Doesn't change the original pixels are still square. This doesn't mean they weren't supposed to be played at 4:3. Stop being retarded.

>> No.496784

What's the best filter setup for Kega Fusion? I'm playing Sega CD games, Time Gal, Road Avenger, etc.

>> No.496793
File: 806 KB, 2592x1944, IMG_20130419_193443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496793

>not emulating on the Wii in native 240p over Component or RGB on a PVR
get on my level

>> No.496801

Is there any filter which will add a subtle bulge to the screen to emulate using a non flatscreen tv?

>> No.496806

>>496784
Sega CD video is never going to look pretty. The flaws are glaring even on a CRT TV.

>> No.496807

>>496801
Yes, if you want to be super pricky.

>> No.496809

>>496793
>implying that's RGB

>> No.496814
File: 29 KB, 403x403, 1346804283464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
496814

>>496780
The pixels, when displayed on the TV as intended, are not square. This is a fact. That you still don't realize it just means that you are retarded beyond help.

>> No.496818

In SNES9x, I like using Blargg's NTSC (RGB), smooths and aligns everything like a TV would, but without the horrible heavy scanlines and artifacts.

In Final Burn Alpha or even actual MAME, MAME's rgbmicro filter using RGB effects.

>>496801
CRT-geom filters in RetroArch.
3D projection in Final Burn Alpha.

>> No.496830

>>496793
is the wii output 15khz? how do you hook it to the pvm, i made the mistake of buying one without knowing you need an expensive transcoder, have no soldering skills or electronics knowledge

>> No.496831

>>496814
>The pixels, when displayed on the TV as intended, are not square.

But that's what I said, you were going on about SNES itself rendering non-square pixels which is ridiculous.

>> No.496840

>>496007
>scan lines don't line up with the lines of the picture

what the fuck, man

>> No.496843

>>496831
It's meaningless to discuss the pixel aspect ratio outside of the context of a standard NTSC television. It's just an electrical signal otherwise.

>> No.496848

>>496830
Not that guy, but I assume he has a RGB-to-BNC conversion cable.

>> No.496851

>have emulated for many years without filters because fuck you, I actually like how that looks
>try out filters because /vr/ keeps bitching about it
>MY EYES
I swear to god none of the people who make these things have ever owned a CRT in their lives.

>> No.496854

>>496843
Indeed, stop discussing it.

>> No.496856

>>496830
Of course it outputs 15KHz. My PVM supports component, so I just used BNC to RCA adapters.

>> No.496859

>>496780
In the graphics community, we use the term "square pixels" to mean an image N pixels wide and M pixels tall where N/M is equal to the aspect ratio of the display device.

>> No.496893

>>496780
>Doesn't change the original pixels are still square

Pixels don't have any shape whatsoever while they're still inside ICs and memory. The display the signal gets sent to determines the shape.

>>496830

Why wouldn't it be 15KHz? It's designed using those standards.

>> No.496895

>they're kind of necessary.
HAHAHA, no.

>> No.496906

>>496784

You can't fix those compression artifacts with filters, bro.

>> No.496917

>>496784
Use the CBVS render, it mimicks what the composite encoder does, minus the noise/compression artifacts.

>> No.496926

>>496906
I think MD NTSC does the best job of covering up artifacts, but thats not saying much; It still looks like shit.

>>496917
Thats not bad either.

>> No.496962

>>496316
So you're a hipster LOL SO RETRO poser.
K.
People playing Nintendo at home did not nigger rig high end monitors to do it

>> No.496974

>>496048

Oh jesus that's an RF filter isn't it.

The thing about analog CRTs is that they don't display pixels at all. They display in lines and have no set number of pixels across the length of each one. You can just blend the phosphor regions right across the whole line.

>> No.496975

>>496242
>>496239
Well, the sky looks more purple (left) to me on my CRT with default settings.

>> No.496992

What the fuck is so hard about hooking an NES up to an old tv?
Why are you guys talking about signal separators and transponders with RGB adaptors and shit?

>> No.497003

>>496992
Well, if you want it to look like shit, then you can do that.

>> No.497006

>>496926
It looks like shit on a TV too. SegaCD live action footage is often a twitching glob of green pixels that sort of looks like video if you squint.

>> No.497010

>>496992
>Why are you guys talking about signal separators and transponders with RGB adaptors and shit?

To get better fidelity without having to use a digital display that will ruin the picture and introduce input lag.

>> No.497013

>>497003
How is that looking like shit when that's what it designed to look like. You guys are adding a level of modern nerdiness to gaming that simply didn't exist back then.

>> No.497016

I used to be a huge anti-filter person, because I thought it was fucking stupid.

Then, I modded my wii, and downloaded some emulators. SNESxGX, for example. I noticed it had a filter setting, and almost to see how terrible it was, turned it on and played Earthbound.

It actually improved the visuals a little bit. Well, makes it look more like it was supposed to - less stretched and pixely.

Subtle ones can work wonders. Most look stupid.

>> No.497036

>>497013

It's designed to run on analog CRTs, but it's not designed to be the blurry shit you get from an RF adapter. That's just what most of us were stuck with because the superior equipment we have access to now was too expensive or inaccessible back then.

>> No.497058

>>497013

There are "modern nerdy" RGB pins (SVHS for filthy Americans) on the stock AV header in a SNES. Why do you suppose those are there?

>> No.497083

>>497036
>It's designed for TVs, but not for TVs that actually existed when the game was made. Instead it's designed for hardware that nobody in that time period would have ever realistically used.
This is the most retarded thing I've read all night.

>> No.497087
File: 7 KB, 160x160, 1013477803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
497087

>>497058
For the off chance that Donald Trump wanted to play Donkey Kong, I guess. But what's the point of emulating if you just going to try to replicate an experience that no one ever got?
Most standard, mid-range sets didn't even have AV jacks in the 80s. So what exactly is the goal?

>> No.497091

I don't use filters. Sometimes they make stuff look better, sometime worse. I can understand why people who use them use them, but I don't understand why people like OP need to be so autistic about it.

>> No.497096

>>497083
In Europe RGB was pretty common.

>> No.497107

>>497083

Except those TVs actually existed and a lot of people got to enjoy the better picture on them.

Just not the poor.

Sorry.

>> No.497114 [DELETED] 

>>497096
That's what the guy was implying.

>> No.497128

>>497087
>But what's the point of emulating if you just going to try to replicate an experience that no one ever got?

What the shit are you talking about? I had that experience with a SCART cable 20 years ago.

>> No.497137

>>497107
Most American TVs only supported AV up until the end of the 5th gen.

>> No.497169

>>497087
>>497096
>>497128
THAT'S where the confusion comes in I think.
US and Euro TV just being so different back then

>> No.497292

>>496768
>Filter on the right of OP's pic makes the otherwise blocky and jagged pixels much easier on the eyes.
I couldn't disagree more. The left picture is blocky and jagged, yes, but it's also very clean and well defined.
The right picture looks blurry, and less distinct. It takes me an extra fraction of a second to process, and even the still frame makes my head ache a little.

This is subjective, of course. If the right image looks better for you, then it's the better option.
But for me, I find the left to be much nicer.

>> No.497349

>>497292
I guess we might have to chalk this one up to physical differences in humans.

I mean there's also people who can't see 3D or get headaches from going to the imax. Some people, like you, are just less able bodied and we have to accept that as a fact of nature.

>> No.497409

>>497087
>But what's the point of emulating if you just going to try to replicate an experience that no one ever got?

Your nostalgiafag is showing.

That's like that faggot who tried to make his shitty SNES list insisting to recommend people the SNES home version of SF II over the vastly superior arcade version and claiming that everybody who disagreed with him "didn't understand the point of emulation".

I like GAMES motherfucker. And I like to enjoy them in the best way possible. I like to play the best version of a game and I like to play a game with the best visuals intended and possible. I also like to play old stuff that I haven't ever played before because I missed them or they were before my time, because I like GAMES, not the nostalgic feeling you get from playing stuff from your childhood.

I like games. You are a nostalgiafaggot.

>> No.497434

>>497409
The best way to emulate a game designed for display on a NTSC TV is by using a filter or shader. The graphics in those games were made with those displays in mind, not with modern displays with square pixels that create a pixelated mess.

>> No.497435

>>497409
LMAO, if you like "games" there are plenty of modern games to play. The purpose of Emulation is completely different. Why don't you just go back to playing Call of Duty?

>> No.497446
File: 123 KB, 767x672, BS The Legend of Zelda 003.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
497446

I use dot matrix sometimes.

I thought it looked fantastic with BS Zelda.

>> No.497449

I don't know about you guys, but I had a TV that didn't make pixels look like blurry messes as a child.

>> No.497459

>>497449
Then you didn't play videogames like you were supposed to. Go back to /v/ or /vg/, undreaged faggot.

>> No.497462
File: 176 KB, 619x597, SUPEREAGLE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
497462

I'll throw on some scanlines if I feel like it, but to me as long as it's close enough, it's close enough.

>> No.497482

>>497292
Well defined yes, but not clean. The pixels have uneven sizes because of incorrect scaling. It's a very bad example.

>> No.497536

>>496629

The second one is wrong. Notice that the moon is no longer circular so much as elliptical.

>> No.497538

So does anyone know what filters are being used in the OP's pic? Those actually look good, SMB always struck me as having too bright colors unfiltered.

>> No.497553

>>497446
Damn that does look good.

>> No.497571

>>497536
That's the point of the figure, if you don't correct for the non-square pixels you don't get a round moon.

>> No.497590

>>497435
I like good games, that's why I like old games, because they are good, not because they are old. I have never played CoD so I can't go back to playing it. I do play some new games but none of the press x to win mainstream garbage. But why don't you go fuck yourself. Before you're on your merry way though, would you mind revealing what in your mind constitutes the real "purpose of emulation"?

>> No.497617
File: 235 KB, 1439x1080, RetroArch-0416-175256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
497617

>>496016

Yeah you do actually since nearest neighbor doesn't handle anything but perfect integer scale with square pixels well.

At the very least, you will want to use a pixellate shader to correct for aspect ratio

>> No.497714

>>496048
Some consoles, specially the genesis used the way Analog tv's blured pixels in order to overcome the system limitations. Extra colors and even effects like the waterfalls in Sonic 3 made use of this.

>> No.497725 [DELETED] 

>>496316
>lehipstergamer.jph

>> No.497735

>>497714
Those horizontal blending effects were made by the Genesis composite encoder, not the TV. They also work LCDs, but CRT had a subtle way of getting rid of composite artifacts.

>> No.497762

>>497735
Is that so?

Why dont the emulators emulate that by default? I hate it everytime somebody rags on the genesis saying it looks like shit and they arent using a ntsc filter to blend the pixels in!

>> No.497765 [DELETED] 

>>497725
>>496271
>striving for perfection is bad

Let me guess, you're American.

>> No.497773 [DELETED] 

>>497765
>lecockridingyuropoorhispter.gid

>> No.497793

>>497762
Because the NTSC filters were made for NES/SNES emulators, and they don't even replicate diagonal undithering (which NES/SNES did have) as far as I know, only artifacts and general blurriness.

Emulator's default should always be RGB, and because it's the purest output those effects don't happen. There should be an option to enable the horizontal blending in every Genesis emulator as far as I know. It's marked under CVBS in Fusion.

>> No.497807

>>497773
Ah, bull's eye.

It never fails but what else can you expect from a country where the presidential candidates have to be alert to not appear too intellectual (in most cases there's not much danger though) in fear of losing votes.

Elitism is frowned upon and equality is enforced at the level of mediocrity... and you people wonder why everybody in world makes fun of you for being dumb.

>> No.497848 [DELETED] 

>>497807
>that much buthurt

What's the matter yuropoor did and American steal your "girlfriend"?

>> No.497852

>>496007
Why the fuck would you put on filters then fuck up the colors? The sky is color of the left not the right.
Also, CRT TV, not CRT. CRT monitors are sharp as fuck and require the filters. More accurately though it's an issue with the NTSC signal that does most of the artifacts and a clean RGB signal will be fairly decent with very light wiggle from interlacing and lines from pixel spacing if you're close enough. CRT TVs don't have a high resolution, but they're pretty fucking clear when they're running properly and they get a good clean signal in.

>> No.497858

>>497852
240p games didn't have interlace, so they should be clear as fuck.

>> No.497870

>>497858
I was more referring to any artifacts on a CRT TV at all, which of course was still really clear even with it. But there ya go, one less artifact.
Watching downscaled HD channels on an SDTV still gives a fairly good picture.

>> No.497903

>>497852
Fucking fuck fuck? Fuck!
The right screen on OP's pic is closer to true blue. Source: my nes and crt TEEEE VEEEE

>> No.497965

>>497903
>The right screen on OP's pic is closer to true blue. Source: my nes and crt TEEEE VEEEE
Yeah, except the sky isn't supposed to be true blue. It's supposed to be more of a sickly purple.

>> No.497970

I prefer playing on the original hardware but I don't use filters when I emulate.

I like the look of nice, clean pixels.

>> No.498195

>>497970
No you don't

>> No.498203

>>498195
What?

>> No.498212

What if back in the day when I played SMB, I thought that the picture quality with a real NES and a CRT was shit? Emulated looks better.

>> No.498347
File: 1.00 MB, 1200x1080, RetroArch-0420-052538.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498347

Harlequin's Game Boy screen shader is coming along nicely

https://github.com/HarlequinVG/shaders/tree/master/gameboy_shader

>> No.498349
File: 115 KB, 596x446, Ootake_2013-04-15_19-13-48.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498349

Depends on the game really. Some game look better with different filters so I just play around to see which ones look the best, or if the game even looks good with filters.

>> No.498380
File: 145 KB, 464x290, emulation-filters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498380

You hipster know it deep in your hearts.

>> No.498385

>>498347
You never hold a gameboy that close to your face
Why even bother with that?

>> No.498390
File: 1.03 MB, 1794x672, comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498390

>> No.498393

>>498390
That filter is awful

>> No.498394

>>498390
Got some bad scaling going on there, fucking disgusting.

>> No.498395
File: 958 KB, 1036x950, Snes9X v1.53 for Windows_2013-04-19_22-57-09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498395

>>498390
I was just playing it yesterday.

>> No.498398
File: 1009 KB, 1200x1080, RetroArch-0420-054852.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498398

>>498385

To make it look like a real Game Boy. You can play in a windowed screen if you don't want it so big.

Here's a Game Boy Pocket palette I made

>> No.498406

>>498395
>Magical Pop'n

My brethren of African lineage.

>> No.498412

>>498398
It doesn't look like a real gameboy
If you wanted to make it look like a real gameboy you would have a tiny 5 inch window, why would you do that to yourself when you can make it look better?

>> No.498415

>>498390
>pink/seagreen/cyan
>multiplied
Not really no.
If you're gonna half ass it like that, I'd just prefer the scan lines. Can't quite tell but the lines kind of look off in places.

>> No.498417
File: 961 KB, 2122x1591, IMG_20130420_045242.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498417

>>498412

Looks close enough to me

If you don't think it looks similar, you haven't seen a real Game Boy

>> No.498419
File: 231 KB, 1600x1200, gameboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498419

>>498398
Fuck you. That's a pretty good filter for gameboy.
Could use some bilinear or bicubic though.

>> No.498424

>>498417
I dunno his doesn't have a giant glaring sun in the middle of the screen though.

>> No.498432

>>498424

It's hard to take a picture of a Game Boy without some glare from the flash.

>> No.498435

Bilinear filtering
25% scanlines
Screen bulge if the emu supports it

Everything else is retarded.

>> No.498437

>>498395
>>498390

What game is that?

>> No.498438

>>498435

>bilinear filtering

No.

There are better methods of scaling that look better

>> No.498440

>>498437
Magical Pop'n.

>> No.498442

>>498438
Name one.

>> No.498446

>>498442

Pixellate
Quilez
Lanczos
Bicubic
...etc

>> No.498453

I prefer Blargg's NTSC with composite distortion and high color bleed with 50% scanlines because it looks like I remember it from being a kiddywink.

I think it's a bit silly to use other filters, but whatever people want is fine..

>> No.498458
File: 13 KB, 318x248, mah-nigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498458

>>498453
>Blargg's NTSC
That's how God commands us to emulate games.

>> No.498468

I use the blur one that comes with higan, and I'm a bit iffy about that one really.

>> No.498487

>>496007
Because I like Pixelart and it's crispiness in general, I'd rather choose to go pure as I can to have clear and crisp pixels. If you ever had a 1985 spriting-editor you would appreciate the same. I had a few on booth the c64 and Amiga (vastly superior) and I had more fun with them then actually playing most games. Stuff like that is fun.

Dominant pixelart games (Flashback-tier) just look beautiful without any filters on a new Monitor. But also games like Actraiser 2 or Ranger X look extreamly good aswell. For those who can compare, play through most Treasure games on CRT and on TFT, I hope you understand why I prefere playing on TFT then.

It's a misconception to think you should only play old games on a CRT because they are made for it. Sprites are basically planned out on paper when they are made, and the spriting itself does look very similar on CRT as it does on TFT so I doubt developers had it in mind.

I can only count on a handful of older games which look better on CRT. Like Wings or the Amigaversion of Syndicate.

But its always fun to play with filters, but some don't look pretty, like 2xsai. I guess this is a mere opinion based matter though.

>> No.498494

>>498453
Why the fuck would you WANT it to look like shit?

>> No.498496

>>496007
>necessary
pftfpft what

>> No.498498

Why should I use NTSC filters when I grew up with PAL?

>> No.498501

>>498487
you are dumb

>> No.498503

>>498498
Because no one gives a fuck about euro trash.

>> No.498507

>>498503

Sure is jealous of our superior colors.

>> No.498510

>>498446
Nope. Bicubic is probably the one that looks the most right out of those and it's still is too clear. Pixelate pixellates. Lanczos is way too clear and might as well just be a Nx raw with ringing.
Bilinear is the only one that blurs it appropriately. So no.

>> No.498513

>>498498

Because most games weren't designed against PAL. Aside from the color and the resolution, signal artifacts are going to be mostly the same anyway.

>> No.498514

>>498507
I really envy your inferior frame rate and games that don't run at the proper speed.

>> No.498515
File: 32 KB, 589x479, check it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498515

this is how my games look and this is how i like them

>> No.498519

>>498487
> I'd rather choose to go pure
>do the opposite of what they looked like
Pixel art back then wasn't meant to be look like that, at all. Pixel art now is retarded because you can do high enough that pixel art is simply rasterized sprites. There's little point in bothering with using it other than to be a hipster.
>If you ever had a 1985 spriting-editor you would appreciate the same.
No.
They look objectively better with filters because they look correct. The only time raw is okay is if you're outputting it to a CRT SDTV.

>> No.498520

>>498501
i can troll too, see?

>> No.498524

>>497349
>I mean there's also people who can't see 3D or get headaches from going to the imax. Some people, like you, are just less able bodied and we have to accept that as a fact of nature.
I can't tell if you're trying to insult me or if I'm just reading your reply through an autism filter.

>> No.498525
File: 1.06 MB, 1280x960, nestopia 2013-04-20 07-35-58-83.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498525

>>498515
That's hideous.

>> No.498526

>>498525
and making it look like that isnt hideous?

>> No.498529

>>498525

yeah, that takes me back to how ... SHITTY crt tv was.

it's like driving around in your car. unfiltered is like the clean version, filters are like looking through a fogged up windshield.

>> No.498530

>>498515
>589x479

IS THIS A RECURRING JOKE? IT'S NOT FUNNY AND I AM NOT AMUSED.

>> No.498535

>>498529

NES looks like that connected an LCD too.
It was composite or RF only.

>> No.498538

>>498526
Not at all. It looks far better. It's smoothed out appropriately, the details blend properly. The mountains don't look like someone has pixel jizz on some brown turd splotches, it looks like lighting on rock, the muscle tone looks right, it looks higher bitdepth from blurring the colors, any gradients will look proper compared to just mish mashing pixels for no reason, the shading on the ground looks proper.
Plus your aspect ratio is shit as the TVs they were made for were ~4:3

>> No.498539

>>498529
No it doesn't.
That's the NTSC signal output.
CRT TVs even from the 50s are fairly fucking sharp with the right input. The NES didn't give it that right output.

>> No.498546

>>498519
Hmm, I think you don't get a thing about my post.

First off, If you ever used PD you would totally understand how the concept of coloring and painting comes in terms of conceptualisation of the pixelart. It's almost the same with animation, too.

Though I have to say, a lot of people actually tinker around with different coloursceming and very smart useage of pixels. You have to understand that many artists also concept their art in different ways so get what they want, and its not about the "I need to conceptualize it like that so it looks good on a CRT." which totally wasn't the case for 15 years of the golden age of pixelart.

Hell, even Monochrome pixelart can look like it can have many colours, while in fact only two colours have been used.

>> No.498547

>>498538
but yours has artefacts everywhere and is blurry as shit

>> No.498552

I generally play my games in 1766x768

>> No.498554

>>498547
That's how the NES put out, the resolution wasn't perfect, though any SDTV doesn't have high resolution, but it's far cleaner with the right inputs.
http://youtu.be/BMjJpf6iGUU?t=1m35s&hd=1

>> No.498556

>>498554
I know it's how the NES put out but that doesn't stop it looking horrible

>> No.498560
File: 126 KB, 1200x801, 2407730-close-up-of-a-horrified-senior-woman-with-her-mouth-open.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
498560

>>498435
>Bilinear filtering

Why would you do that? That's terrible.

>> No.498569

Furthermore, let me qoute myself here.

>>498546
>Hell, even Monochrome pixelart can look like it can have many colours, while in fact only two colours have been used.

It means that people totally had the concept of shading already in mind, from the technical standpoint, it does not look many/all artists cared about making their art look good for CRTs but they saw it differently from a technical standpoint.

If you think I'm talking shit, just play Agony and similar god-tier art and zoom in, you might get what I mean then. Or just watch some Demos or whatever. Booth modern and old Television screens and Computer Monitors display art like that in booth good or bad ways. And that depends merely on Nostalgia Googles and Hipsterness.

Other than that I don't know whats the problem. I used a classic RGB CRT screen and i'm fine with booth.

>> No.499350

>>498390
It's like I'm playing games through a window screen again.

>> No.499385

>>498525
Looking at that strains my eyes so hard. It feels like when I sat three inches away from the TV when I was a kid.

>> No.499413

>>498498
They both use a ~4MHz subcarrier of which the phase/amplitude encode hue/saturation. They will generate similar artifacts (although PAL composite color will be slightly higher-resolution).

>>498510
>Bilinear
>blurs it appropriately
On a real TV you can clearly distinguish individual scanlines with no bleed from adjacent ones. Blurring vertically is missing the point.

>>498569
>it does not look many/all artists cared about making their art look good for CRTs but they saw it differently from a technical standpoint.
What WERE they making it look good for?

>> No.499421
File: 1.51 MB, 1376x1080, screenshot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499421

The problem with most "scanline" filters is that they're often times just horizontal black lines, when in reality, no TV or monitor ever had an aperture grille that looked that way.

Filters that actually emulate vertical scanlines and RGB splotches (like the microRGB preset in MAME/FBA) are far superior to the typical "scanline" filter. Pic related.

Also, fuck bilinear filtering and NTSC emulation. Fuck geometry emulation too, while we're at it.

>> No.499429

>>499421
1. What the fuck kind of shadow mask is that supposed to me
2. You're not actually emulating any scanlines

>> No.499446

>>499429
1. MAME rgbtiny. I believe it's trying to replicate some model of high res arcade monitor.

2. Yeah, but it still looks way better than a scanline filter, if you ask me.

>> No.499454

>>499421
Any TV in my youth that I looked up reaaaal close at had the color things be vertical.

>> No.499461

>>498347
That's the best fucking filter I've ever seen.

>> No.499462
File: 12 KB, 640x480, essence of trolling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499462

>> No.499471
File: 115 KB, 314x314, 1237732256677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499471

>>499462
>filename

>> No.499473

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtlcAoCusuc

I can't even tell the difference. This is why I like filters.

>> No.499494

>>499446
>1. MAME rgbtiny. I believe it's trying to replicate some model of high res arcade monitor.
Now that I think about it, that COULD be the lenticular lens of an RPTV like in the Sega Megalos.

>> No.499498
File: 1012 KB, 1280x960, RetroArch-0418-205438.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499498

These people posting with composite filters rather than RGB are making NTSC filtering look much worse than it actually is.

Pic related is rgb ntsc filtering combined with a modified crt-geom-interlaced-halation shader.

>> No.499510

>>499498
That would look if it wasn't blurry as fuck

>> No.499514

>>499498
What's the point of an NTSC filter if there's no NTSC encoding?

>> No.499516

>>499498
>rgb ntsc

No option for true rgb? I mean rgb ntsc itself doesn't mean much since ntsc is yuv, as I get it. These guys think rgb means sharp visuals. Someone should tell them.

>> No.499519

>>499516
NTSC, technically speaking, is YIQ. Not quite YUV. And never carried as "pure" I/Q, only immediately modulated with the color subcarrier and added to the luma signal.

"RGB NTSC" means nothing. Maybe 525-line 60hz, but that's sort of implied.

>> No.499532

>>498390
>>498395

Sorry for my ignorance, but what game is that?

>> No.499539

>>499532
Magical Pop'n.

>> No.499549

Why doesn't anyone make PAL filters?

>> No.499552

>>499514
I'm not sure what you mean.

>>499516
From what I understand, the intention of the filter is to replicate the color space and video encoding that you would get when running the game through component/scart to a crt.

I don't claim to really know much about the topic though.

>> No.499559

>>499549
Because NTSC is a much more widely used standard and no one cares about yurop

>> No.499563

>>499559
NTSC is used in 3 countries, PAL is in more than 70.

>> No.499564

>>499549
Because even you limey fucks finally realized 60hz > all

>> No.499565

>>499552
>I'm not sure what you mean.
When people talk about "NTSC filters", they're talking about a filter which replicates the NTSC compatible-color encoding and decoding process. This is what happens on a composite video connection (and over the air, when NTSC was still around, for that matter).

>>499552
>From what I understand, the intention of the filter is to replicate the color space and video encoding that you would get when running the game through component/scart to a crt.
It's replicating composite, not component/RGB. Replicating component/RGB would just mean adding a very slight horizontal blur (if you wanted to simulate limited bandwidth). When I say very slight, I mean on the order of 1/50th of a pixel.

>> No.499567
File: 411 KB, 1366x768, meng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499567

Using higan here

Why my scanlines like this
Fuck

>> No.499573

>>499549
They would be functionally the same as an NTSC filter.

1. Slightly higher horizontal color resolution
2. Half the vertical color resolution
3. No phase errors (not that anyone emulates phase errors anyway)

>> No.499575

>>499567
>higan

Found your problem.

>> No.499585

>>499563
Those 3 countries produce more video games than the other 70 combined.

Also, the various PAL systems almost always had RGB inputs available.

>> No.499589

>>499473
Why does this asshole not say what filter he's using
fucking hell

>> No.499590

>>499575
The fuck should I use then
ZSNES?

>> No.499606

>>496768
What filter
What emulator

>> No.499620
File: 26 KB, 1280x960, RetroArch-0420-101523.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499620

>>499565
I didn't make the filter, but I know that it's doing much more than just adding a slight horizontal blur.

Here's without the filter.

>> No.499623

Minimal scanlines, TV-mode, I don't really like those smoothing things but sometimes when combined with the other two it works.

>> No.499637

What's a good NTSC filter for higan?

I seriously don't know what /vr/ uses these days, it seems like one day everyone uses higan and the next it's RetroArch

>> No.499642

>>499567
Your problem is that you don't have the game set to integer scale, and that's creating artifacts in the shader.

Go to Settings > Video > Center

>> No.499646
File: 89 KB, 1280x960, RetroArch-0420-101455.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499646

>>499620
And here's with

>> No.499648

What I do is this:
>Have Nintendo Wii
>Install Homebrew Channel
>Link it up to cheap TV I bought from Goodwill
>Use emulators on Homebrew channel to play MOTHER 3 as if it was a SNES game

>> No.499667
File: 86 KB, 849x557, e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499667

>>499642
Is this how it's supposed to scale?

>> No.499679

>>499648
This shit
Wii is great emulation machine
That's all it's good for

>> No.499681

>>499667
wow, that filter looks like shit

earthbound is much better played without a filter, or on an actual old tv

>> No.499683
File: 267 KB, 1280x960, encoder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499683

>>499646
I may be picky, but didn't SNES use to encode stuff like this? I mean the Genesis did a full horizontal blend, while NES SNES made this half diagonal kind of blending, am I right? Why isn't this implemented yet?

>> No.499684
File: 163 KB, 1366x674, e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499684

>>499637
Also heres the ones I have

I kept trying a bunch

>> No.499687

>>499646
>>499620
It's blurring the colors more than the brightness, as an NTSC filter would. It's also adding slight dot-crawl (look at the thin blue vertical lines, and check out the stripey pattern). It looks like an NTSC filter but with increased bandwidth.

>> No.499689

>>499679
>That's all it's good for
But what about the Super Mario Galaxy games?

>> No.499694

>>499567
Possibly a conflict between your desktop resolution and the resolution you have selected in the emulator settings. Check they are the same and see if it solves the problem

>> No.499697

>>499683
Nothing in the video encoding would smear adjacent lines together, unless you were in a PAL territory.

You might be thinking of the different dot-crawl patterns generated by different video encoders. It might show up as different kinds of artifacts along high-frequency regions.

>> No.499703

What NTSC filters does /vr/ recommend?
That work with bsnes/higan

>> No.499704

>>499694
and play fullscreen

>> No.499718
File: 787 KB, 640x960, 32x.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499718

>>499683
Don't have a SNES, but here's actual Genesis video output. Sorry for the vertical blurring, I forgot to disable the mplayer upscaler.

>> No.499743

>>499667
Yes, integer scaling means only scaling the video by a full integer rather than taking up the entirety of the render window. It's the difference between scaling the video 4x and scaling it 4.23017524x. Scaling the video by anything other than full integers creates scaling artifacts, which are then made worse when applying something like a scanline filter.

You need to make the render window larger if you want it to scale higher.

>> No.499752

>>499718
Yeah I know what a Genesis does, basically pic related (pretend you're seeing composite artifacts).

It doesn't look very good on a SNES because it wasn't meant to encode like this, but like >>499683, although >>499697 says it can't happen so I'm not so sure.

>> No.499757

>>499703
Damn no answers

>> No.499760 [DELETED] 

>>497765

Let me guess. You're autistic.

>> No.499774
File: 1.48 MB, 1194x896, sonic composite shaded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499774

>>499687
As far as I know it's also doing a gamma correction.

For me, the CRT shader just isn't enough. Combining it with the RGB NTSC filter produces something that's much more pleasing to me visually. I am also perfectly okay with s-video or composite ntsc filters, my point was that to someone that doesn't know anything at all about video signals, composite filters tend to make filtering look bad.

>> No.499778

>>499498
Damn what filter is that?

No one is saying what filters they're using and here I am fiddling with a shit one trying to make it look good

>> No.499783
File: 278 KB, 1728x672, Mario-Comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499783

without wacky pixel scaling on the left. sony rgb palette and NTSC filter (moderate settings all around) on the right.

>> No.499784
File: 66 KB, 1280x960, genesis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499784

>>499752
Whoops, forgot pic.

>> No.499785

>>499778
But anon, I said what filters and shaders I was using right in the post...

>> No.499804

>>499783
>scanlines don't line up with picture lines
what the fuck are you doing

>> No.499808

>>499703
Does higan even use filters? Or do you mean shaders

>> No.499817

A lot of the hate for filters comes from people who don't understand that the games on the native console didn't look like they know them from their emulators. The correct use of filters isn't meant to enhance the grafics, it's there to get closer to the original. Of course it's debatable if they're sucessful. I'd never play a SNES emulator without an NTSC filter.

>> No.499836

>>499808
Higan is shit when it comes to filters
use Retroarch if you care about filters

>> No.499838

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kramnath/edgefoci/supplementary/multi_comparison.html

Do you even filter?

>> No.499862

>>499836
What? higan has plenty of support

>> No.499872

>>499838
Wow, are EPX and Ours available as a standalone program/source somewhere? HQ was before they shut it down.

Definetely the best filters I've ever seen, but I don't think they're up for character filtering.

>> No.499878

>>499774
Compare to just CRT shader.

Also that was using a composite filter

>> No.499880
File: 1.38 MB, 1194x896, sonic shaded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499880

>>499878
Forgot image.

>> No.499881
File: 1.49 MB, 1194x896, sonic rgb shaded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499881

>>499880
With NTSC RGB

>> No.499883

>>499838
What does it look like playing an actual game with it?

>> No.499886

>>496584
What emulator are you even using?

>> No.499894

>>499883
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kramnath/edgefoci/supplementary/video_ours_4x_h264.mp4

>> No.499906

>>499838
Wow, literally everything on there aside from nearest looks like complete utter disgusting garbage! Amazing!

>> No.499949
File: 179 KB, 352x512, SUPER EAGLE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
499949

>>499838
>microsoft research

>> No.500017

>>499894
They've done it
They've made Super Mario Bros into an iOS game

>> No.500023

Fuck seriously what should i use with higan?

>> No.500030

>>500023
Don't, use retroarch

>> No.500049

>>499838
How can I run Vector Magic with my emulators

I really want to see how fucked up it is

>> No.500051

>>500030
Fuck
can I move my higan saves over to it

Oh wait nevermind, byuu is autistic, so of course not

>> No.500082

>>500051
You can just fine. RetroArch is basically just a wrapper for multiple different emulator cores, which are entire emulators compiled into a single DLL. Included in the currently available cores is the latest version of bsnes, which as you know is the main part of higan.

>> No.500084
File: 1.37 MB, 1920x1080, MameUI64 2013-03-22 23-38-01-18.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500084

Compare all you want
1/5

>> No.500091
File: 1.73 MB, 1920x1080, retroarch 2013-03-22 23-18-54-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500091

2/5

>> No.500105
File: 1.81 MB, 1920x1080, retroarch 2013-03-22 23-19-36-95.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500105

3/5

>> No.500112
File: 41 KB, 1920x1080, retroarch 2013-03-22 23-20-36-05.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500112

4/5

>> No.500115

>>496007
Tried a lot, depends on the game and system (DOS, Console).

hq4x with 25% scanlines is pretty nice but it is not enough blur to get the dithering effect. I have to use TV mode or Blargs NTSC to get the dithering effect but I don't really like them because I lose a lot of sharpness.

http://retro-sanctuary.com/comparisons%20-%20differing.html

>> No.500119
File: 820 KB, 1920x1080, retroarch 2013-03-22 23-21-27-91.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500119

5/5

>> No.500126
File: 52 KB, 1920x1080, DOSBOX 2013-03-22 23-59-03-30.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500126

>> No.500130
File: 1.50 MB, 1920x1080, DOSBOX 2013-03-22 23-59-15-17.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500130

>> No.500131

this shit gives me fucking eye cancer when i use it for too long

I have never found a good NTSC shader that isn't a pile of fuck and I dare you to give me the source to one that is good

>> No.500141

>>500130
what
like what is the fucking point of this
These games were made for computer displays

>> No.500146
File: 467 KB, 1366x768, FUCK THIS SHIT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500146

>>500131
THIS PIC RELATED FUCKING HORRIBLE

>> No.500151

>>500141
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SZkjF1RDI

>> No.500163
File: 1.31 MB, 250x141, 1362562037231.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500163

>>496212
>Purists

If you were a purist you would be playing on the console with a CRT television not on an emulator with a LCD computer monitor and shitty scan line filters.

>> No.500167
File: 246 KB, 1366x768, neate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500167

>>500082
Well fuck I have no idea what to do here
I'd just end up using the same shitty shaders I'm using with higan. My issue is I don't know any good shaders that won't give me a teratoma

>> No.500169

>>500084
I'd say I'd like this one the best if there was a little fuzz to take away the jaggies

>> No.500179

I'll never understand the scan line stuff. I was using a TV from the 70s and never had that once. What kind of 36th world nation did you guys grow up in? The only time I ever saw scan lines was in pictures or video of TVs.

>> No.500183

>>500167
http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/Emulation_General_Wiki
>>>/vg/32666863

>> No.500189
File: 1.33 MB, 3280x2460, 1364411722924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500189

>>500179
It's not all TV which had them.
See Trinitron.

>> No.500194

>>500167
>John
>Uses 4 different torrent clients
>can't figure out Retroarch
>Uses higan
>dat taskbar layout

There are so many things I do not like about you right now.

>> No.500201

>>500179
Your tv probably had them, more likely that you just never took the time to actually look closely and notice them.

>> No.500234

>>500194
>>>/v/

>> No.500243 [DELETED] 
File: 1.36 MB, 1600x1200, shadowmask.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500243

>>500201
Trinitron ≠ Shadowmask

>> No.500256

>>500234
I can't wait for the "/vr/ is so much better than /v/" circlejerk you're about to start

>> No.500275

>>500194
Why use Retroarch over higan?

>> No.500279

>>500151
except mode 13h graphics never looked like that on any CRT, and some brit with bad hair isn't going to change that

>> No.500283

>>500275
It's less retarded.

>> No.500290

>>500283
There's nothing wrong with Higan. RetroArch just affords much more flexibility with core and shader usage.

>> No.500291
File: 277 KB, 1810x490, COMPARISON.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500291

Just hooked up my old snes, and ps3 to an old crt tv. Loaded A Link to the Past to compare. Both of them were connected via a composite cable.

In the picture it is not as evident as if you were seeing it with your own eyes, but snes9x unfiltered (actually the options selected were shader: stock, filtering: point filtering) looks pretty close to the actual snes. The only thing is that the ps3 uses a low refresh rate (at least with my hookup) and that causes a lot of flickering. The flickering is less noticeable by selecting linear interpolation, but that blurs thing a little, but is the one I preffer because of flickering issues.

>> No.500315

>>500291
Wait, so are you saying you hooked up your PS3 to your CRT television and then ran SNES9x on it and turned on filters, and tried to compare that to having your actually SNES plugged into the same tv?

>> No.500317

>>497128
So much fucking THIS. It's literally only Americlaps that were using the smeary, red-bleeding fucking mess that is NTSC over composite.

Europe and Japan were quite happily using a nice, crisp RGB signal back in the day. Filterfags really need to stop trying to force us to relive THEIR godawful deprived childhood.

>> No.500319

Is there a way someone could make a direct side by side comparison photo of a genuine CRT television playing a game, and an emulator using filters to as closely resemble the TV as possible? That would put an end to this stupid dispute once and for all.

>> No.500327

>>500283
The UI is as shitty as some of these Dreamcast emulators out there.

>> No.500335

>>500315
yes, it was pretty close

>> No.500338

>>500319


Well don't I suck dicks?

>> No.500351

>>500291
The problem is that your PS3 is outputting a 480i signal, not a 240p signal. That's why the picture appears to bob up and down about 1/2 line and starts to flicker if you paint in scanlines every other line.

>> No.500356

>>500291
>composite
Congratulations, you're accurately representing how poor or stupid people played their vidya.

>> No.500365

>>500356
what did you use to play snes back then?

>> No.500369

>>500356
You mean poor or stupid Americans

>> No.500370

>>500356
Again, almost no televisions in America had anything but composite inputs (a lot only had RF) until the late 90s. There's a reason the systems all came with RF or composite connections, not S-video or RGB (outside of France).

>> No.500373

>>500335
I'm afraid you don't understand what filters are for. If you're already playing a game through a CRT, filtering that image is only going to make the picture worse. Filters are for allowing people that are playing games on an LCD to make the game look like it was being displayed through a CRT. Basically, your comparison doesn't really make any sense at all.

>> No.500381

>>500183
It links to search results in a blog, oh boy

Error Code 1
Emulator so obscure and hipster that Googling it shows nothing
Great

>> No.500396
File: 293 KB, 1366x768, fuckyou.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500396

>>500381

>> No.500398

>>500373
take a close look at the picture and you'll find some differences

>> No.500408

>>500365
RGB over SCART, because my parents loved me.

Inb4 HURR50Hz like region and frequency modding wasn't just a case of a trip to the shady guy at the local market.

>> No.500423

This thread is like one huge slippery slope with a bunch of guys farting on the person beneath them.

I'm murrican, and back in my day all I ever used was RCA cables on my clunky Zenith. Can somebody tell what is better without being opinionated? What I'm trying to say is that all of this stuff looks just fine. As long as it isn't that ugly Super Eagle/2xSai stuff on an emulator, it looks just fine.

>> No.500427

>>500396
>multiple rows of tabs
>>utorrent, deluge, qbittorrent, deluge, and tixati installed

What the fuck man

>> No.500429

>>500408
In the 90's I was a kid and I used what came with the system. Also, NTSC is the standard in my country. Not American btw.

>> No.500437

>>500408
Well, considering:
1. The console shipped with composite cables, even in Europe
2. There were close to 3x as many SNES consoles sold in USA as in Europe
You're in a very small minority of SNES users.

>> No.500441

>>500396
>those tabs

Man, you're really making it difficult for me to want to continue helping you.

http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/RetroArch

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4091524/filters.7z

>> No.500442

>>500408
Oh yes I'm sure all of the nearly 10 million people in Europe who bought a SNES got it frequency modded

>> No.500454

>>500381
>isn't computer literate
>backpedals and calls everyone "hipsters"

>> No.500471

>2013
>filters

>> No.500504

>>500370
Most of you grew up playing blurry shit and some people want to recreate the experience. That's fine. I understand nostalgia.

Let's all just stop pretending it's more 'authentic' to play with a gaudy NTSC CVBS filter just because you people owned shit TVs.

>>500442
The ones that had a clue certainly did. Have you any idea how simple it is to do? It was a 30 minute thing and at least as common then as getting your PS1 chipped would be in the near future.

>> No.500525

>>500441
B-but how else am I going to see all my beautiful tabs without scrolling

>> No.500540

>>496007

Such a biased picture. Explain to me why not having shitty horizontal flashing seizure lines all over your screen washes out the colors, as depicted on the left?
Seriously, whoever took that picture is a biased retard.

>> No.500556

>>500454
>computer illiterate
>for not understanding what an error means in a program I haven't used before

I didn't realize Code 1 was the same in every program.

>> No.500569

>>500504
You know I'm pretty sure the number of people here that support the use of composite filters is pretty low. The only time it's really necessary for anything is with the Genesis/Mega Drive, seen at the link here >>500115

For the most part I don't think anyone really wants to use composite filtering. What people are arguing in favor for though is CRT filtering, which is an entirely different topic altogether.

>> No.500584

>>500525
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noverflow/

>> No.500594

If you don't like filters then why the fuck do you use anti-aliasing in fonts? Seriously, that's what I like about filters, because it hides the ugly sharpness. In NES games, art is simple enough that I don't mind. But not every game is like that.

>> No.500601

>>500279
But he is right.
He even proven his point.

>> No.500629

>>500146

You mean you DON'T like horizontal black lines plastered all over your favorite games?

Clearly something must be wrong with you!

>> No.500720

>>500594

This is why my position is that I like "filters", but I don't like random horizontal "nostalgia lines" all over my screen.

Most of us are emulating games, in the year 2013, on a flatscreen / HDTV. Wanting scanlines would be like saying "Remember when there weren't MP3s, and we had to rewind tapes manually? Man, that was so much better. I consider it 'necessary' in order for me to enjoy music. Clearly anyone who doesn't like waiting for the song to rewind is just a kid and doesn't understand."

>> No.500752

>>500720
I've never seen these lines on an actual TV-screen, is it an NTSC-thing? I'm from euroland.

>> No.500754

>>496962
>People playing Nintendo at home did not nigger rig high end monitors to do it
There's nothing particularly 'high end' about an RGB-capable monitor, and given how many non-Amerifats went from an Atari ST or Amiga to the 16-bit consoles it was hardly uncommon to have one sitting around. They were fucking everywhere.

>> No.500756

>>500720
All you managed to do with this post is show how little you know about display technology and how poorly you make analogies.

>> No.500781

>>500752
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mask
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_grille

Educate yourself.

>> No.500789

>>500781
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanline

>> No.500815

>>498398
>>498417
Filter has no contrast and saturnation
GB has.

>> No.500838

>>500815
It does have a contrast adjustment, you just have to open the files in a text editor to change it. There's a lot of different options for it actually.

The Game Boy does not have a saturation dial.

>> No.500862

>>500838
Then why does the filter not ship default with good saturnation and contrast? You have eyes you know.

>> No.500914

>>496007
>but if you don't have a CRT or the original system handy, they're kind of necessary
Except they're not necessary at all. Or even look good. I really can't imagine anyone except newfags who never played old games back in the day when seeing pixel art was common using them.

>> No.500923

>>500781
I can't be bothered with those walls of text but yeah I've never seen that on an actual CRT screen, I find it curious.

>> No.500932

>>496584
>>496593
This bullshit again... I will repeat again what I have said before: Unless you have some sort of serious vision impairment that makes you incapable of reading pixellated fonts (does such a thing even exist?), filters do NOT in any way affect the readability of either the signs or the text. All it does is smudge the entire image, effectively taking away detail (including the ability to very well see the individual pixels)

>> No.500949
File: 579 KB, 1040x936, RetroArch-0420-131240.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500949

>>500862
The posts you specifically linked to are not the original shader nor the original shader settings. Those are a custom version someone was working on to replicate the Game Boy Pocket.

This is a screenshot of the current version of the original shader.

>> No.500992
File: 15 KB, 239x282, Illsiopn_looking natural.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
500992

>>500949
>Dark green and green practically the same color

>> No.501008

>>500992
Do you even know what a gameboy screen looks like with the contrast maxed out?

Go grab that gameboy you probably don't have and turn the contrast up and compare it.

>> No.501012

>>500923
"Real" TV signals don't produce visible scan-lines on television sets, because they're properly interlaced. There's a vertical sync pulse every 262.5 (312.5 in Euroland) lines - so, every other field is traced vertically starting in the MIDDLE of a horizontal line's time. This has the effect of shifting the picture down by half a line every other field. The alternating fields "fill in the gaps" in each other, and the televisions are built so that this effect completely fills the screen without being blurry. Video games typically output a whole 263 (313 for Euro) horizontal lines every field, with vertical sync pulses exactly at the beginning of a horizontal line every time. No half-line jitter, but visible gaps are left in the screen and there is effectively half the vertical resolution in still shots.

>> No.501015

>>500949
Does it also blur everything horribly like those old LCDs were famous for?

>> No.501034
File: 826 KB, 1120x1008, RetroArch-0420-024558.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501034

>>501015
YOU FUCKING BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

But you can turn it off if you don't like it.

>> No.501063

>>501008
>Do you even know what a gameboy screen looks like with the contrast maxed out?

Black, because you can't see shit.

Gotta' put it in the middle somewhere.

>> No.501073

>>501012
(This is the difference between "480i" and "240p", and why it's sometimes difficult to handle or replicate old console graphics.)

>> No.501086

>>500130
VGA DOS games were always line doubled. You never had scanlines. Confirmed for never having played them on the real hardware.

>> No.501092

>>501034
Does this work on AMD cards yet? I remember people mentioning that it still fucks up for some reason. Something to do with how they compiled it or something.

>> No.501104
File: 2.66 MB, 3072x2304, P1060582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501104

>implying old monitor weren't the best

>> No.501110

>>501092
Yeah, the latest version in the master branch works on both cards, and supposedly with non-gameboy games too.

>> No.501112

>>500319
It's completely impossible. Standard LCDs do not flicker like a CRT (so they have sample-and-hold blur), and have insufficient resolution to accurately simulate CRT shadow mask or aperture grille.

>> No.501123
File: 845 KB, 2048x1536, IMG_20130102_204223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501123

>>501086
With a bit of hacking, it's possible for some older VGA cards to output a 15KHz signal. You've gotta know EXACTLY how the specific CRTC works, though.

>> No.501124

>>501110
IIRC, don't you need a custom version of Gambatte without color profiles or something? Does that screw up Gameboy Colour games?

>> No.501129
File: 1.02 MB, 2048x1536, IMG_20130311_181715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501129

>>501104
>slot mask
>monitor

>> No.501130

>>501112
It's not impossible, you just need a 4k display to do it properly.

>> No.501138
File: 1.27 MB, 1920x2508, comparaison filter 31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501138

>>500319

>> No.501141
File: 2.06 MB, 1920x2892, comparaison filter 32.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501141

>> No.501143

>>501130
More specifically, you need:
1. Fast enough response time and a scanning backlight to simulate CRT raster
2. A panel that's high-contrast enough to have clean, bright scanlines with dark areas inbetween
3. High enough resolution to resolve the scan line pattern and the physical mask without causing artifacts

>> No.501147

>>501124
It doesn't screw up anything, you need a version of the gambatte core that doesn't auto-colorize Game Boy games as if they were played on a Game Boy Color.

>> No.501148
File: 1.24 MB, 1920x2485, comparaison filter 21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501148

>> No.501151
File: 1.92 MB, 1920x3021, comparaison filter 22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501151

>> No.501153

>>501147
Alright then. Thank you.

>> No.501158

>>498547
They both have artifacts everywhere. The first because of non-integer ratio nearest neighbor scaling, the second because of some disgusting low-end CRT simulation filter.

>> No.501163

>>501141
Might want to try putting the camera at a straight angle.

>> No.501170
File: 2.95 MB, 3072x2304, P1060584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501170

>>501129

>> No.501171

>>501148
>>501151
The two in the first image are both find. The third and fourth screencaps are terrible.

>> No.501172

>>501008
I still remember.

>> No.501173
File: 606 KB, 1920x2533, comparaison filter 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501173

>> No.501176

>>496007

The one on the right has the right colors.

>> No.501179
File: 1.55 MB, 1920x3005, comparaison filter 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501179

>> No.501180

>>501173

Why would anybody want to blur his game?

>> No.501183

>>500594
Fonts are vector art, old games are usually pixel art. I have no problem with filtering vector art.

>> No.501186
File: 1.35 MB, 1920x2412, comparaison filter 41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501186

>> No.501190

>>497965

No it's blue. Confirmed for not having SMB on NES.

>> No.501191
File: 2.08 MB, 1920x2797, comparaison filter 42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501191

>> No.501195

>>501180
It work pretty well with Earthbound.

>> No.501202

Guys guys,
Don't forget, we all had different TV, with differents settings.

>> No.501221

>>501191
Man, whoever made these, fucking thank you.

Eat shit "durr why would I want black lines" fags.

>> No.501224

>>501202
I've run it on three different TVs: a 1978 Sears 13" (rebranded Panasonic), a 1993 RCA 27", and a 1995 GE 19" and it looked different on each one

The problem with figuring out the correct NES palette is that it uses NTSC and not RGB values.

>> No.501225

>>501143
And 4. Zero input latency

AFAIK such LCDs do not exist.

>> No.501226

>>501221
I don't know how anyone could really deny that visible scanlines happened on old video games.

>> No.501230

>>501226
see >>501202

>> No.501243

Also, don't forget we aren't supposed to be that near of the tv.

>> No.501276

>>501202
>>501243
These CRT filters are primarily aimed at replicating the output of high end CRT screens. Low end screens all have varying display problems, and replicating those many different problems would be kind of dumb.

>> No.501285

>>501225
Some have under 4ms of latency, which is effectively unnoticeable (unless you're trying to play light-gun games). It's still not the nanoseconds of latency you'd get with a tube, but it's alright.

I'm hopeful for OLED screens. They have the potential to perfectly emulate a CRT, quickly enough that even lightguns would work.

>> No.501290

>>501230
I just can't imagine having a TV so blurry that it just totally kills the vertical resolution to that point.

>> No.501384

>>501285
OLEDs would burn out in a few hours if you ran them bright enough to simulate a CRT raster.

>> No.501402

Think of not using a filter as your childhood coming into more focus.

>> No.501416
File: 128 KB, 625x564, laughing_neckbeardb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501416

>>501402
>Think of not using a filter as your childhood coming into more focus.

>> No.501513
File: 601 KB, 800x600, disposable hero 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501513

>> No.501526
File: 460 KB, 1680x1050, winuae 2013-02-10 14-44-58-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501526

>> No.501641

>>501402
Think of not using a filter as your adulthood going way off track and proof that you're a retard.

>> No.501663

You guys have to remember that retro consoles were designed to be played while sitting on the couch10 feet away from the TV. You weren't actually supposed to be close enough to notice small details like scanlines (especially towards the end of the SNES's lifespan, as better CRTs began hitting the market). As a result, you can simulate what it was actually expected to look like with just a slight blur filter (bilinear will do until I find something that looks decent).

Of course, it's not perfect; I don't know about the NES, but the Genesis and SNES also used their own unique blending schemes that require another filter on most emulators.

>> No.501712
File: 103 KB, 511x365, free_cacos_by_jackasaurusrex-d31ssbk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501712

I think that most games up until the last gen were made with the fuzzy imperfections of a CRT screen in mind. For that reason, I like to use NTSC filters if they're available. For N64 games I like retextures, and for PSX games I like the Natural Vision pixel shader, with or without anti-aliasing depending on the game. Sometimes for 2D PSX games I like 5xbr, also.

>> No.501779

>>501641
Do you also use a filter when you watch 80s movies to simulate the realism of watching it on a VHS connected to a shitty CRT TV with composite cables?

>> No.501785

>>501384
OLEDs are brighter than CRT monitors. They can up the brightness well enough. Also it would have to be a massively exponential MBTF to do it in a few hours when they're rated 50-80KH. If you have them on 8 hours a day that's still 17-27 years of use. Realistically it'd most likely get replaced by then, especially if it's not a 4K. Even if it cut the life in a third, you'd still get 5-9 years of constant 8 hour viewing not hours unless it caused some organic breakdown from over-driving it or something.
Problem is stats on OLED show them running between over 1000 cd/m2. Old CRT TVs tend to do about 400-450 cd/m2. Meaning even if you cut out half the image with scanlines on 1000 cd/m2 you'd still come up with 500 cd/m2 brightness and be as bright as the CRT.
LCDs can be even brighter, the problem is they have shit blacks. But you can be damn sure the OLEDs will be able to handle that brightness to be able to compete on the floor.

>> No.501837
File: 1.55 MB, 4404x1111, 1364789171117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501837

>> No.501905

>>501785
OLED needs to run 240 times brighter than normal if it's lighting up one line at a time to simulate a CRT raster. You could probably get away with 10 lines at a time for only 24 times brighter, but that's still going to burn out extremely quickly.

>> No.501926
File: 285 KB, 1040x954, filter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
501926

So why does this happen?

>> No.502002

>>501926
Why does what happen?

Also, correct your aspect ratio.

>> No.502028
File: 137 KB, 784x710, filter2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502028

>>502002
Here's a better example, the crystal ball is supposed to be blue

>> No.502153

>>501905
>one line at a time
LCDs and OLEDs already update their frames line by line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHgmCxGEzY
Even if you could do a whole frame at a time it wouldn't fucking matter. No one really sees single lines updating on their CRT and the only real artifacts it creates is subtle ghost shimmering/wave effect and sync blocking on camera.
Especially for old games which pretty much locked to refresh rate.
The only reason they really don't bother with full frame updates is because it's less difficult wiring and configuring.
The reason why it doesn't flicker in exactly the same way is because it holds the state instead of fading every pixel and line the nano second it's activated like a CRT which is akin to plucking a note on a guitar whereas an LCD is more like holding a key on an keyboard with sustain.

>> No.502242

>>502153
It needs to be one line (or small block of lines) lit up at a time, not one line updated at a time. The flicker is essential for sharp looking motion, but if the whole screen flickers at once you add latency. This doesn't matter with emulation because you can emulate at double speed to compensate. For real consoles you don't have that option.

>> No.502256

>>500932
>filters do NOT in any way affect the readability of either the signs or the text
This is false. All modern font formats have some form of anti-aliasing because it increases readability.

>> No.502265

>>502256
Modern fonts are vector based, or a hybrid between vector and pixel art if you enable hinting (which I don't). SNES fonts are pure pixel art.

>> No.502281

>>502028
Looks like a game boy color game

>> No.502302

>>502242
>The flicker is essential for sharp looking motion,
That's not what causes the flicker, read that shit again retard.
The flicker is caused by the sample/hold.
CRTs have phosphor which when struck have a maximum brightness then depending on the phosphor type fade to black/near black.
LCDs update and then hold that update until the next update rolls around.
If you updated the entire screen or the entire frame with the phosphor, you'd still get 'flickering' as the whole screen would burst then fade to black every frame. Though that's harder to do with a CRT, would require the likes of FED/SED.
Not to mention, the problem technically isn't the sample and hold either, it's the sample and hold mixed with a slowly updating medium. If you had something that changed extremely quickly on the nanosecond level perhaps, you wouldn't even notice the sample and hold at all, which would reduce flickering and be just as fucking sharp.
The flickering newer LCD monitors are trying to do with backlight scanning or double/blank techniques is because the LCDs are slow to update and it's easier to drive it on and off for the technology. It still doesn't make it as clear in motion as some CRTs because the LCD shifting is still slower.

>> No.502312

>>501173
>>501179
These two images also show the necessity of correcting the aspect ratio.

>> No.502315

>>499385
TV only looked like that if your goddamn nose was touching the glass. That shit in >>498525 is over compensating.

>> No.502317
File: 4 KB, 2444x248, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502317

>>502256

>> No.502319

>>498525
You are a blind motherfucker.

>> No.502330

>>502315
Sitting farther from a TV does not increase it's resolution. It decreases it.

>> No.502342

>>502319
>capture more accurate reproduction of TV than pure pixels
>hur dur you're blind you're shits too similar, it should be absolutely unsimilar.
Next time respond with something to add to the discussion other than trolling.

>> No.502359

>>502265
That's irrelevant, in both cases the problem is displaying a pixelated mess. In both cases the solution is to apply some kind of filter.

The typeface is vector based. The font (which is a typeface at a certain size) has to be rasterized to be displayed in a screen. The font gets either hinted or antialiased before being displayed.

>> No.502364

>>502330
Lol what. Have you ever sat in the same room as a CRT TV? SO many of you faggots don't seem to remember what they actually looked like. Sitting farther back made whites look white but sitting two fucking inches from the screen turned the image into a rainbow nightmare.

>> No.502373

>>498419
>those white vertical lines
Somebody needs to fix that shit.

>> No.502380

>>502342
But the only thing that's a more accurate reproduction of is a TV that's about to explode. No functioning screen looked that shitty.

>> No.502410

>>502364
That's increasing called decreasing resolution dumbass.
And no, the two CRT TVs I currently have sitting on my sides I have not sat in the room of.

>> No.502415

>>502302
>calling people a retard
>completely failing to understand sample and hold

Sample and hold = traditional LCD style = no flicker
No flicker and low framerate (yes, 60fps is low for the purposes of this discussion) = sample and hold blur, even if you had instantaneous pixel switching!

Because we can't improve the framerates of these games, the flicker is absolutely essential. It's not compensating for any defect of the pixel switching. Sample and hold displays at low framerates inherently have blurry motion.

If we're running native 120fps content on a 120Hz sample and hold LCD the blur is greatly reduced (but not eliminated) even with no flicker. Obviously this is only possible for PC games.

CRTs = flicker + line by line updating = no sample and hold blur + no added latency

Theoretical perfect 60Hz LCD = no flicker + line by line updating = sample and hold blur + technically no added latency but because most of the light hits your eyes after the switch time it subjectively looks like added latency

120Hz LCD running double speed emulated (paused half the time for correct speed) 60fps content with hardware black frame insertion (eg. strobing LED backlight) = flicker + whole frame updating = no sample and hold blur + added latency + reduced latency to cancel it out = basically the same as a CRT.

>> No.502430

>>502373
What the fuck do you mean fix it? That's not really an issue anymore with high DPI displays especially if they happen to also have triad pixel arrays.

>> No.502610

>>502415
>Sample and hold = traditional LCD style = no flicker
>>502153
> sample and hold blur, even if you had instantaneous pixel switching!
High speed cameras disagree with you, since they operate on 'sampling and hold' light and you change shutter speed on a constant light source to compensate and come out with a very sharp image. Same idea here. As your update happens slowly it blurs, the faster it is the sharper it is. I'll also remind you that CRTs are not in fact instantaneous at all and apply this very principle as well since their activation speed is quicker especially on the activation side (that's why flickering helps with phosphor so much because it's decay time is far longer than it's activation time, if you have a phosphor with a longer decay time it creates trailing images just like an LCD will, except only in areas where the transition is bright to dark is as noticeable.)

>If we're running native 120fps content on a 120Hz sample and hold LCD the blur is greatly reduced
It does, but not greatly if your switching time is not improved, 120hz on an LCD still causes ghosting because even though it's trying to update 120hz the switching time isn't really up to par. Though switching it faster towards the proper color helps.
And no, refresh rate is independent of the framerate, though old consoles were vsync'd, emulation doesn't care, but you can vsync in which case you still benefit from the 120hz as it's timed to attempt to cycle in half the time.

>> No.502696
File: 741 KB, 696x674, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502696

>>502610
Basically, the overwhelming issue of clarity of picture on modern displays comes down to one thing and one thing only, response time.
Which just isn't there.
Any other shit your doing with flickering is just a trick to deal with slower response time and doesn't really improve clarity.

>> No.502737
File: 4 KB, 233x179, gg463407.TempRate16(en-us,MSDN.10).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502737

>>502610
>>502696
Total bullshit. Sample and hold blur happens in the human eyes and brain. It's absolutely nothing to do with pixel switching time. You cannot fix it by improving switching time, only by increasing the framerate (impossible for console/arcade games) or by adding flicker.

Read this paper:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463407.aspx

And then go look at a 60Hz LCD and a 60Hz CRT side by side, both displaying 60fps content, both scrolling an integer number of pixels per frame.

If you still think it's something to do with pixel switching time you're blind or retarded.

>> No.502739
File: 18 KB, 400x133, CRT Ghosting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502739

>>502696
Likewise, if you have long response time on your phosphor, it creates ghosting blur as well and some CRTs do in fact do this. Not all CRTs are equal.

>> No.502770

>>502696
Posting still images in a discussion of sample and hold blur only demonstrates your ignorance.

>> No.502790 [DELETED] 

ITT: Buttmad hipsters condemn those who do not worship outdated technology

I bet half you faggots bought a record player and a bunch vinyls of albums that were made after the vinyl became obsolete too, because "the sound quality is sooooo much better and more authentic"

>> No.502798

>>502790
Dude, you are REALLY on the wrong board.

>>>/anywhere else/

>> No.502809

>>501186
Absolutely disgusting. Bilinear filtering is fucking terrible.

>>501191
Ahhh, much better. Now that's nice to look at,

>> No.502819

>>502798

>>>/mu/
>>>/fedoras/
>>>/playing dress-up as a lumberjack/

>> No.502828

>>502790
Your analogy is incorrect.
It's closer to having an oil furnace that works and burns and gets up to temperature and using an electric heater powered by solar power that takes about two days to heat up. Sure solar is the new hotness compared to fossil fuels, but it's not inherently better, at least not yet.
Also why the fuck are you here? Modern games shit all over retro games given your logic. New hotness = always better.

>> No.502841

>>501779
Movies are made for cinema, not TV.

Saaa-wing and a FUCKING MISS, MOTHERFUCKER.

Nice try but no cigar, eat shit and go home.

>> No.502853

>>501837
Is the far right a real CRT or a filter?

>> No.502868

>>502790
CD/flac is objection superior to vinyl in every way relevant to human hearing (yes, I know an idealized vinyl made from special audiophile grade plastic can theoretically reproduce frequencies your dog might appreciate the first few times you play it). Also transistor amps are objectively better than tubes.

It's not so clear cut with CRTs. CRTs have poor sharpness and geometry, but they have great contrast, great color accuracy, and better motion quality than any other display technology.

Ironically, most CRT fans here are obsessed with simulating all the CRT weaknesses while completely ignoring their strengths.

>> No.502869

>>501837
It's a CRT, but I don't feel like that comparison is very fair. I think the CRT filtered image in the middle has been scaled down after being filtered making it look worse.

>> No.502875

I played Super Mario World a few weeks ago without filters and it didn't seem to annoy me; however, I understand that filters may be easier on the eyes for some organisms.

>> No.502884

>>501905
But you're only turning them on 1/240th of the time.

>> No.502906

>>502884
I really doubt the current:damage curve is linear.

>> No.502908

>>502770
The issue with motion blur is response time, period.
And no, the issue with eyes in that article aren't that they're tracking shit, your eyes track shit the same way with 16ms faster intervals. Your eyes see it as a fairly solid image either way.
The objects in CRT are 'held in position' the same way but fade in brightness.
Light outside is 'sample and hold' until the object moves. Period. It is constantly bombarded by sunlight, it doesn't change until the object reflecting light moves, it doesn't shoot impulses at 60hz, it does create unsharp blur. The difference is, when an object moves in real life, the change happens with the very next particle in the stream, and the entire stream is fast, very fast, because it's direct photons bouncing not an interactive medium. It's the fastest most sample and holdest phenomenon you can get. If you have a problem with sample and hold fucking up your view, going outside must make you blind.

>> No.502918

>>502696
The issue is that, even if you hold for exactly 1/60th of a second and then switch instantaneously to a new picture, you're still emitting a static picture for 1/60th of a second. CRTs don't do this. They emit any given part of the static picture for maybe 1/600th of a second at a time. If your eyes are sweeping continuously across a screen, tracking a "moving" object, CRT looks far better.

Order an Oculus and try tracking something while moving your head, if you want a blindingly obvious demonstration.

>> No.502923

>>502868
Plasma=Best of both worlds. Get a good upscaler/emulate and you're good to go.

>> No.502939
File: 624 KB, 1280x960, retroarch 2013-04-02 04-34-48-77.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
502939

I'm late to the thread, but I saw some discussion up top about the NES colors, and which of the shots in OP was more correct. The answer: neither and both are correct. The NES output an encoded NTSC signal, and as such the resulting colors depended on the NTSC decoder on the display. Likewise, emulators all have their own "decoders" as well, which is why they all look different and why some such as Nestopia allow you to edit the color palette.

I personally like puNES's Sony decoder palette. I imported it to Nestopia for use on that emulator.

>> No.502940

>>502908
You need to read this:
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/raster-scan-displays-more-than-meets-the-eye/

Simple fact: If you are giving the human eye anything besides continuous motion (not possible in any type of raster or grid display), the longer you illuminate, the worse it gets.

CRTs illuminate a given portion of the screen very briefly, and then move on. The artifacts that you get are a slight tilt, because the bottom of an object is scanned out slightly "late". LCDs illuminate a whole frame for at least 1/60th of a second - the artifacts you get are a blur across the frame-to-frame movement of the object.

>> No.502945

>>502908
Read the Microsoft paper. Frames are supposed to be point samples in time. If you smear that out over a longer time you have something wholly unnatural. Human visual cannot resolve sample and hold motion correctly.

>Light outside is 'sample and hold' until the object moves.
Fucking lol. Good thing nothing moves in video games, right?

Real life motion has effectively infinite framerate. I already explained how increasing framerate is the other possible solution. Doesn't help with my console games.

You're spouting complete bullshit and you'd immediately realize it if you actually bothered to do the visual comparison with the real hardware.

>> No.502946

>>502923
Plasma still has sample-and-hold problems. It pumps out the same image multiple times in rapid succession, with different pixels illuminated for different numbers of refresh cycles, to give a smooth greyscale.

>> No.502948

>>502918
>The issue is that, even if you hold for exactly 1/60th of a second and then switch instantaneously to a new picture, you're still emitting a static picture for 1/60th of a second.
That's not a problem.
>CRTs don't do this.
No they don't. Yet still not a problem.
>They emit any given part of the static picture for maybe 1/600th of a second at a time.
That is what they do.
> If your eyes are sweeping continuously across a screen, tracking a "moving" object, CRT looks far better.
Most peoples eyes do not 'sweep' continuously with the beam they focus on objects on the screen. And if they're following an object they still only follow an object on the screen as fast as the object is moving, which is limited by the refresh rate.
The problem with LCDs is simply the blur from response time overlaps. Well, it has other issues but we're concentrating on sharpness here, and that's it.
>Order an Oculus and try tracking something while moving your head, if you want a blindingly obvious demonstration.
Why are you assuming it demonstrates an LCD screen being an LCD screen any differently?

>> No.502949

>>502945
>You're spouting complete bullshit and you'd immediately realize it if you actually bothered to do the visual comparison with the real hardware.

>programming homebrew 16-bit games
>testing on an emulator on an LCD
>get a flashcart, try on real hardware with a real TV
>super-fucking-buttery-smooth-oh-my-god
>need a towel

>> No.502953

>>502868
The argument for Vinyl recordings over CD is less about the hardware and more about the fact that record companies master Vinyl and CD recordings differently, generally overemphasizing lows and raising volume.

On the subject of CRT's, I don't think anyone denies that they have disadvantages. The point is that the graphics of the games at the time were designed around the displays and all their quirks, and replicating them is important.

>> No.502965

>>502948
>That's not a problem.
Yes, it is. Your eyes don't like to fixate for 1/60th of a second and then move on. They smoothly track motion across a continuous path.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_pursuit

>Most peoples eyes do not 'sweep' continuously with the beam they focus on objects on the screen. And if they're following an object they still only follow an object on the screen as fast as the object is moving, which is limited by the refresh rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_pursuit


>Why are you assuming it demonstrates an LCD screen being an LCD screen any differently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex

When you turn your head, your eyes track smoothly against the motion. A picture jumping and then stopping 60 times a second makes it look like the world has a seizure.

>> No.502967

>>502923
Plasma is fucking terrible, it's the worst of all worlds.
It takes phosphors and uses the shittiest types. It has temporary image persistence, it has problem with color banding (though I'm uncertain why this limitation exists or if it's just a manufacturing deficiency that's standardized) and the black levels are shit and has issues. The response time on them is shit as well.

>> No.502970

>>502948
False. If you follow a moving object on an LCD, you are looking at the wrong place almost all (in the mathematical sense) of the time. This is perceived as blur. It doesn't show up in still photographs because it's generated inside your head.

The *only* ways to fix this are:
1. increase the framerate
2. flicker
3. rip your eyes out and replace them with magical cyborg eyes that are designed for LCDs

Deny it all you like, you can't change biology.

>> No.502979

>>502946
Not anymore. Focus field drive baby.

>> No.502989

>>502967
Wut? Plasmas have a much better response time than ANY lcd. It isn't 2003 anymore they don't have image persistence issues. And wut? Black levels are shit? Do you know what you're talking about?

>> No.502992

>>502979
Oh, sorry then. I hadn't been keeping up with plasma. CRTs are more flexible in small nice screens, and LCDs are cheaper for big ugly ones. Plasma sort of got pushed out of the market, along with RPTV technologies.

>> No.502998

>>502945
>Fucking lol. Good thing nothing moves in video games, right?
You're missing the point dipshit.
It's sample and hold even with movement and the movement is sharp.

>Real life motion has effectively infinite framerate.
It's effectively limited to how fast your eyes can response to an even faster speed of photons which still aren't technically continuous. It's not infinite.
Increasing framerate does not help with an LCD. You can have as many FPS as you fucking want, do you know what you get? You get nearly the same fucking mush if your fucking pixels switch at the same fucking speed, you're bottlenecked, you'd be keeping them in more rapid movement, but it's going to change dirt slow.

>> No.503007

>>502992
Granted they still do a form of sample and hold but it is MUCH easier on the eyes with a modern good plasma. It basically rearranges the subfields dynamically to where there is motion so it is only "holding" static areas. It looks REALLY good. Not as good as a CRT but it's good.

>> No.503016

>>502989
Given that I own a plasma manufactured in 2011 and have looked around at these problems and found they persist in all of them and even in stores they all have them.
I have to question. Do YOU?

>> No.503025

>>502998
>It's sample and hold even with movement
It's completely irrelevant whether it's sample and hold or not because the effective framerate is ridiculously high. Talking about photon rate is also pointless dodging as it's way way above anything relevant to human biology in normal lighting conditions.

>Increasing framerate does not help with an LCD.
Lies. My 120Hz LCD has greatly reduced sample and hold blur when displaying 120fps content. This is so obvious even non-gamers can easily see it. If it was 240Hz + 240fps with pixel switching fast enough to display that it would look as good as a CRT IMO.

There is *also* some pixel switching delay blur, but that's a completely separate thing, and this LCD switches fast so it's not a big deal.

>> No.503030

>>503016
I have a VT50. Which has near perfect black levels. It's literally as close to black as a tv could possibly get. The colors are very accurate once calibrated as well.

>> No.503038

>>503007
It's not 70s LCD bad, but it's still blurry.
If you had it, you probably wouldn't bitch, most people don't. I do because I see it. It doesn't bother my eyes as bad as really really bad LCDs, there are some abysmal ones out there.
But it's still there. I'm not going to say it's not cuz it's slightly better than some awful LCDs but not as good as other LCDs.
I've had friends who've said worse blurring on some LCDs they didn't notice. It's still there, whether they recognize it or not.

>> No.503046

>>498390
left looks better

>> No.503052

>>502939
god that looks like shit

>> No.503089

>>502256
>because it increases readability
But it does not.

>> No.503091

>>503016
I seriously don't know what black or color issues you're talking about. The VT50 literally measures at 0cd/m2 on professional equipment for it's deepest black levels. It's colors are so very slightly inaccurate it's nothing to even bother complaining about. Even a videophile will say that the VERY minor banding is nothing on an FFD plasma. The things you say are just issues with cheap pos.

>> No.503125

>>503091
Black level as measured on ANSI standard checkerboard pattern or it doesn't count.

>> No.503142

>>503091
>Even a videophile will say that the VERY minor banding is nothing on an FFD plasma.
Banding is inexcusable period. It's not an alright thing. It's a problem with image quality.

>> No.503146

>>503142
I mostly play NES and Genesis games, so banding wouldn't affect me.

>> No.503161

>>503125
Yes on an ansi pattern it measures at 0.00. Even with the spyder4 it measures at 0. I imagine that there's some exotic piece of equipment that can pick up the actual black level but it's low enough to where no one can perceive the differences. It IS lower than a CRT because of how the filters handle ambient light. Stop buying cheap shit and you wouldn't complain.
>>503142
The banding is so minor. Like you can only physically measure and see it in the most extreme of tests. Most CRT tv's probably have worse banding issues.

>> No.503165

>>503142
Also, image retention has been listed by owners of the VT50.

>>503146
Sure it would if the game has some form of gradient going for it that's semi-blended or if you're putting it through an emulator and the gradient looks smooth.
Yeah color banding wouldn't be an issue if your colors were raw pixels with a rather limited color set, but then again you've got bigger problems than that.

>> No.503175

>>503165
I grew up with DOS games, I don't need to blur everything to shit to appreciate dithering.

>> No.503178

>>503165
The image retention is incredibly minor. There literally isn't a tv out that performs better.

>> No.503186

>>503175
This.

>> No.503190

>>503165
It will also only retain images at contrast levels above like 30. And if you have to use contrast levels above 30 you have no reason to complain about picture quality if you can't even darken the fucking room to appreciate a good picture.

>> No.503191

>>503178
>The image retention is incredibly minor. There literally isn't a tv out that performs better.
Nearly every CRT in existence doesn't have that problem.
Your opinion about what's minor and whats not is that, you're opinion.
Having ghosting shit in the middle of my screen is not a minor problem in my book.

>> No.503197

>>503191
>you're opinion
Also it doesn't ghost. Do you not understand how FFD works? Also CRT's do have image retention. And like I said if it's properly calibrated and not at some overly bright shit ass settings it will not have IR problems. Which go away after like 2 minutes anyways.

>> No.503204

>>503191
>Having ghosting shit in the middle of my screen is not a minor problem in my book.
Not him, but last time I saw noticeable ghosting on an LCD screen was pre-2006. That really isn't an issue on modern LCDs.

>> No.503224

>>503191
I think the videophiles with 40k+ setups that praise the VT50 know more than someone that bought a 50 dollar sony pvm.

>> No.503238

>>503197
> Also CRT's do have image retention.
>play a game on CRT for 8 hour straight, not a single distinguishable brightness difference at all
>play a game for an hour on plasma, entire fucking hud overlayed on everything for the next few hours. Built in 'image retention remover on plasma' nessecary, still takes twenty minutes and leaves ghosting as well as ramps brightness.
Brilliant.

>> No.503246

>>503224
Really? Logical fallacies are what you're going to rely on? Well then fuck off mate.

>> No.503267

>>503204
Which would be a problem if anyone fucking said LCD. Hence why I said a fucking PLASMA is the worst of all worlds and an LCD is the better choice of the two.

>> No.503269

>>503238
They do not retain images if properly calibrated. They will ony have IR problems on really high brightness/contrast settings.

>> No.503282

>>503269
Citation needed.

>> No.503297

>>503282
oh god. Just look up the root problem of any reported IR issues with the vt50. They are all using high contrast levels.

>> No.503313

>>503297
Everything I've seen says differently.
So, citation needed.

>> No.503337

>>503297
FYI the display should be high contrast as well. If it's incapable of high contrast, that's a gigantic image quality issue.

>> No.503353

>>503313
I'm also being very generous here with the shifting goalpost since you already stated that it does not, which is to say that it does not. Not that it doesn't under specific circumstances, while simultaneously also trying to pin shit on technology which doesn't have image retention problems at all standard configurations. It might be possible by going inside and overdriving the shit out and beam concentrating it. That's how defensive you are about it.

>> No.503526

I use filters, I don't really care if others don't as it doesn't effect me at all, but do you guys seriously prefer sharp, jagged pixels with distinct colors to soft edges and blended colors? To me, retro games without a CRT look like bad MS paint pictures.

>> No.503536

>>503353
Oh god.... Let's start listing crt problems okay?
You wanna talk about poor contrast on a vt50? Even the BEST CRT's have shit ass contrast under any kind of lighting. Contrast ratios on plasmas have easily surpassed even the best CRT's. Yea CRT's may not ghost but they have halo's and glares, both of which are far worse problems. CRT's have distortion from simple fluctuation in the fucking power lines while plasma's have no issue even remotely like that. Sharpness on a CRT? Nonexistant. Don't even ask. Also crt's don't burn in? Why do you think screensavers even fucking exist. The amount of artifacts a crt picture has can't even be fucking counted. Yes CRT's have their advantages but most people that aren't retarded would realize the advantages of a modern Plasma or a backlit LED outweigh those of a CRT.

>> No.503540
File: 13 KB, 1215x885, 30086-ffvi_upres.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
503540

Disgusting non-filtered emulation peasants.

>> No.503542
File: 700 KB, 1240x785, 30085-ffvi_ntsc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
503542

>>503540

Glorious CRT filter master race.

>> No.503556

>>503542
crt filters=shit. Buy a scanline generator.

>> No.503583

>>503540
>>503542
>13kb vs 700 kb

hmmmm

>> No.503617

>>503583

Congratulations, you're a fucking idiot.

>> No.503671

>>503536
>Even the BEST CRT's have shit ass contrast under any kind of lighting.
False. Proper lighting and their contrast is fucking unbeatable.
>Yea CRT's may not ghost but they have halo's and glares,
Actually they may ghost and they may not have halo or glare. It depends on the build quality, and yes it exists, also happens on plasmas depending on the glass used ironically enough. But no modern CRT has image retention without pressing it way out of the range of standard operating procedures, you have to do shit it wasn't intended to do.
>CRT's have distortion from simple fluctuation in the fucking power lines while plasma's have no issue even remotely like that.
That's not really a CRT issue, that's an issue with poor cables, if I start shitting over my power cable and let rats eat it at it till it starts fucking up, do I still get to claim that as a plasma issue? No.
>Sharpness on CRT
It's sharp. It also depends on if it's a TV or Monitor. CRT monitors can be really sharp, but you may have to maintain it to adjust convergence, which is a problem occasionally.
TVs are sharp, but low resolution typically and also typically but not always use interlacing except with signals that half the resolution, but they can bleed depending on the quality, which varies.
>Why do you think screensavers even fucking exist.
Why do you think it's still the 70s. You don't need to use a screensaver these days.
>The amount of artifacts a crt picture has can't even be fucking counted.
Then they don't exist. If it did you could count it.

>> No.503681

>>503671

>Yes CRT's have their advantages but most people that aren't retarded would realize the advantages of a modern Plasma or a backlit LED outweigh those of a CRT.
For a TV they have their benefits, none of which listed are huge issues.
The major issue is size, move-ability and HD resolutions. Of which Plasmas mostly beat out for TVs. Their picture quality is worse than HD CRT TVs that worse and far worse than CRT monitors which shit all over plasmas, hard.
The only way to compete with Plasma for size and moveability is with CRT projectors, and that comes with it's own issues.

>> No.503689

>>503617
Wow, fucking owned.

>> No.503727

>>503671
There is literally no point in arguing with a fucking idiot that wants to use a dated technology that has been far surpassed in many ways by modern tv's. The most hardcore of videophiles swear by plasmas or a tri mirror projector.

>> No.503776

>>503727
There's no point in arguing with an idiot like you either. A bad day to you rabble.

>> No.503898

>>503542
What filter is this?

>> No.503907

>>503898
Looks like NTSC-RGB plus bilinear.

>> No.503925

>>503540
>>503542
wow, it's almost like the graphics were designed to be looked on a TV.

>> No.505469

>>503526
Yes. I'm guessing anyone who doesn't never played any DOS games.

>> No.506110

>>496021
>Play the game in its original resolution and a CRT tv, it looks marvelous.

Fixed that. CRT tvs can display the game at the native resolution at full screen. No need for filters. Wii can display 2D in 240p, which is great.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action