/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.538745]

>Filling your screen with random black lines on purpose

Why would anyone do this shit? It doesn't look like a TV at all. It's just fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.538750]

>muh nostalgia

[Anonymous No.538796]

>>538750
more like
>muh fake nostalgia

[Anonymous No.538801]

Not a single emulator anybody has any fucking clue how to emulate a CRT. They're not even trying.

Scanline implementations are usually off, no one wants to figure out how to simulate proper CRT stretching (the concept is super fucking simple so this doesn't even begin to make sense), and other CRT effects aren't even a thought.

If emulators suck for any reason, it's that up there. Funny, because "looking like it's supposed to" is half the actual emulation.

[Anonymous No.538803]

To relive the wonderful days before good televisions and monitors were invented.

[Anonymous No.538804]

I never understood this either. I understand the filters that make it look blurry or whatever like it does on old CRTs, but this shit is retarded.

[Anonymous No.538812]

>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.538819]

>>538801
Except you are wrong. Modern CRT shaders emulate color bleeding, phosphor patterns, halation, etc.

[Anonymous No.538826]

That filter looks awful.

The only filter setup I use is an NTSC filter with a slight scanline.

[Anonymous No.538829]

If you really need to go the extra mile to make games look blurrier on fucking emulators then you might as well give up on emulators and play on some shit old crt and an actual console. I don't want idiots like that shitting up emulation threads any further.

[Anonymous No.538840]

>>538819
Holy shit. From what, in what, and why the hell is the picture still almost-square?

[Anonymous No.538846]

>>538840
It isn't it has the correct aspect ratio, but it also has 3d curvature.

[Anonymous No.538848]

>>538801
You tell me which of these two has more definition as a body of shapes.

[Anonymous No.538851]

scratch that i think i need to see the whole monitor for a better frame of reference

[Anonymous No.538868]

>>538848
That's not the point. I have no problem with disabling any kind of filter entirely and I personally would almost always play like that. I'm just talking about principles here, that's all.

No one cares about the actual CRT experience, they just want to slap on some useless scanlines and call it done. Emulators themselves were like that too... no idea what's happened. People care about this shit?!

[Anonymous No.538881]

[Anonymous No.538882]

Filter wars need to be banned now. Both sides are equally as retarded and we have this thread everyday.

start a filter war general on /vg/

[Anonymous No.538895]

>>538881
>oh my god where are the scalines
>where is my blur
>this controller is uncomfortable
>my eyes hurt
>I want to stop playing

[Anonymous No.538896]

There is no war here. The morons who aren't bothered to simulate what they're actually trying to simulate are wrong wrong wrong. The people who just don't play with filters at all are not.

[Anonymous No.538954]

What does /vr/ think of non-CRT filters? I know I'm revealing how much of a pleb I am but the Mortal Kombat Kollection had a painted filter which I rather liked

[Anonymous No.538967]

>MUH ACCURACY

Oh, wrong thread.

[Anonymous No.539029]

>console emulator emulating a TV

[Anonymous No.540104]

>>538881
0/10 bait

[Anonymous No.540109]

>>538896
>The people who just don't play with filters at all are not.

Until you try to scale non-integer and get uneven pixels

[Anonymous No.540121]

>>538882

This.

This has very little to do with Retro Games

[Anonymous No.540141]

You do know what "line doubling" means right?

Anyway, your image is doing it fucking wrong. The lines are not supposed to be fully black because the lit scanlines bleed into the dark ones, making the effect less noticible. On a scanline filter, this translates to making the lines only slightly darken, about 15%-20%.

[Anonymous No.540162]

>>538745
combined with the actual picture a console outputs (which is in most cases pretty blurry compared to that of an emulator), they result in a rather smooth picture which looks much less blocky than the mess of upscaled pixels you'd see on an emulator

[Anonymous No.540183]

>>538868
1. There's a ton of scanline shaders out now that do try to make the experience more faithful

2. However, because of resolution constraints, they can only go so far. It's not an issue of laziness, it simply cannot be done on common 1080p displays. We're talking about 4K resolution here to even get close to a true CRT effect, and even then, 8K might be necessary to get it just right.

[Anonymous No.540189]

Oh fuck you, OP. I thought it would be an R-Type Leo thread.

[Anonymous No.540197]

Because I like it

/thread

[Anonymous No.540221]

>>538896
How about you do your fucking homework and actually try to get to the bottom of why there's no "true" CRT filter/shader/effect/whatever that's up to your standards? Plenty of people have tried, you know, all with varying and mixed results. But no, it's much easier to just say they're all lazy or clueless about how CRTs look and work.

http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=147&hilit=phosphor

http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3793&hilit=phosphor

There are plenty of knowledgeable people working on shit like this, but until display technology and resolutions dramatically increase, all we can get are approximations.

[Anonymous No.540257]

>>538848
They have exactly the same amount.

Because the image on the left is distorted, you subconsciously fill in detail that isn't there.

[Anonymous No.540265]

>>540257

Right is distorted too because it's scaled up too much

[Anonymous No.540278]

I didn't even know about filters until /vr/ became a thing, now that I've played around with them...I just don't care. The game is all that matters, not minute detail. Emulators are just a temporary fix while I rebuild my collection anyway

[Anonymous No.540282]

>>538745
I never understood this, but then again I'm using a CRT.

[Anonymous No.540312]

For everyone saying they don't understand: did you at least try to? I know this is 4chan, where instead of people going "I don't understand why this is so, can someone explain it to me or link me to something that explains it?", they go "I don't understand it and I have no desire to learn, so I'm gonna bash it to high heaven because I don't like it", but christ. If you have no idea what you're on about, try to ask someone who might know at least.

[Kage !!CKhi3Y7AOqx No.540313]

I run with 25% scanlines. It looks nice without making the game look like ass.

[Anonymous No.540317]

>>540141
This guy gets it.

Also, I don't know about Europe, in America most TVs were shadow masks, which don't have scanlines.

[Anonymous No.540412]

>>540317
In America most TVs were imported from Japan.

[Anonymous No.540516]

>I only watch films through a projector and on a cloth screen because that is how movies are suppose to be watched.

This is what you guys sound like.

[Anonymous No.540574]

>>540516

Unlike movies, games don't look like a sprite massacre if you watch them on a new TV.

[Anonymous No.540582]

>>540516

Unlike games, movies don't look like a sprite massacre if you watch them on a new TV.

[Anonymous No.540598]

>>540313
I usually do 12.5% Just enough to give it a retro edge and make the pixels less chunky in text.

[Anonymous No.540602]

i'm so nostalgia hardcore that i put my 1920X1080 led monitor on black and white with CRT filters and a sound filter that makes the sound of a needle on a vinyl recording.

making your hi fi stuff look lo fi = genius

[Anonymous No.540607]

A correct aspect ratio is more important than filters.

[Anonymous No.540614]

>>540317
Well, it depends on the TV. Technically, the scanlines were there on every TV (they had to be, because the TV would only be drawing every other line), but on a lot of sets, they were obscured due to the lines bleeding into each other, often due to convergence or focus issues. Small TVs often had unnoticeable lines as well simply due to the drawn lines being very close to each other. Similarly, PAL TVs, due to the higher number of lines that could be drawn, pushed the drawn lines together more than NTSC TVs, resulting in less noticeable black lines.

So really, it's not really so much shadow masks themselves, but rather the fact that most lower quality TVs happened to be shadow mask TVs. Later shadow mask models got pretty damn good, and produced noticeable lines almost on par with Trinitrons.

[Anonymous No.540620]

God Tier: subtle NTSC blur
High Tier: unfiltered
Low Tier: scanlines
Shit Tier: 2xSAI

Can we all agree on this?

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.540616]

>claim to be a fan of retro games, and retro graphics
>deliberately try to obscure them

[Anonymous No.540624]

>>540582
>look like a sprite massacre

Meaningless bullshit.

The only reason I can think of to explain this autistic fucking insistence on MUH AUTHENTICITY is that you get a kick out of the idea that you're playing the game "the right way" and everyone else is playing "the wrong way."

Enjoy being a foreveralone manchild.

I'm done posting in these threads forever. You authenticity faggots refuse to use logic or respond to logic. This is a waste of my fucking time.

[Anonymous No.540634]

>>540624

[Anonymous No.540635]

>>540616
>people growing up on emulators
>thinking >>538848 this is how their games should look like

[Anonymous No.540637]

>>540624
The main point is that the graphics were designed with CRT TV in mind.

>I'm done posting in these threads forever.
Don't let the door hit you on your way to >>>/v/.

[Anonymous No.540639]

>>538819

To me, this image is near indistinguishable from the real thing.
What issue could anyone have with this?

[Anonymous No.540652]

>>538848
Definition is clarity, the one on the left is blurred. So by your requirements, I pick the one on the right.

[Anonymous No.540653]

>>540639
I use that shader, except I don't use the curvature because I personally find it pointless, and I play the retro games I actually own on a flat screen Trinitron anyway.

My only other beef with that image is the lines are uneven due to lack of integer scaling..

[Anonymous No.540656]

>>540607
Very true.

[Anonymous No.540660]

>>540639
My only complaint would be that the scanlines are darker than what I'm used to. My tv's never had scanlines that pronounced. Sure if you put your face up to it you could see them, but then mom would yell at you to sit back from the TV.

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.540667]

If games are supposed to have scanlines, why don't Wii virtual console games have a scanline filter?]

[Anonymous No.540668]

>>540667
If you play them in 480i mode on a CRT, they display scanlines just as they would on the real console.

[Anonymous No.540691]

>>540667
>implying the Wii VC is more accurate than the corresponding top emulators

[Anonymous No.540684]

>>540620
>filters above unfiltered

No, we cannot agree.

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.540693]

>>540668
>if you're playing it on a CRT it looks like a CRT

[Anonymous No.540718]

>>540693
Just saying, they could have made them display in 480i, but they deliberately made sure they displayed in proper 240p. 480p mode (for use with HDTVs) upscales them through nearest neighbor as far as I can tell, but simply adding black lines would have been way too messy and would not have looked good.

There's more to proper CRT emulation than slapping black lines onto the image, and 480p is nowhere near high enough a resolution to do any better.

[Anonymous No.540762]

>>540684

Some filters are better than nearest scaling.

[Anonymous No.540785]

>>540762
>that aspect ratio

I'm sorry, but you're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.540795]

>>540785

4:3 is the correct aspect ratio for SNES, nothing is being done wrong.

[Anonymous No.540792]

>>540762
I literally cannot tell the difference between these two images.

[Anonymous No.540798]

Unfiltered gives you a pixelated mess.

[Anonymous No.540807]

>>540792
Look at the edges of the pixels on the right image. Some have very slight blurring. This is due to a shader called Pixellate, which corrects for nearest neighbor scaling artifacts when setting the scale to anything other than a whole integer.

[Anonymous No.540810]

>>540792

Left has rounding errors due to non-integer scale, right hides the rounding errors by blurring the edges by 1 pixel.

You can easily see the difference on the slope.
The difference is extremely noticeable when the screen scolls.

[Anonymous No.540843]

>>538848
The one on the left looks better. The one on the right has a lot of visual noise at the spatial frequency of the pixelation, which is distracting. It's essentially aliasing, and not wanting to filter it out is akin to not filtering out the tape hiss on an old recording. On the other hand, too much filtering would start to filter out the actual content of the image, so it's important to use only a moderate amount. Tastes may differ in regard to the optimal degree of filtering.

[Anonymous No.540853]

>>540795

That's not 4:3

It looks like the squashed image of a PAL console.

[Anonymous No.540858]

anyone have the screenshot of super metroid running with a filter/shader.

its a screenshot i see reposted here from time to time.

im not familiar with which the name of the filter, but it was just what I remember a crt looking like. lines weren't too big/dark, pixels were just starting to blur/look fuzzy.

[Anonymous No.540859]

You guys are like old people who would rather listen to vinyl records than digitally remastered music.

[Anonymous No.540864]

>>540798
And filtered gives you a blurry mess.

No one has the resolution to properly emulate a TV screen and those of us who grew up with PC games are usually fine with it.

[Anonymous No.540868]

>>538819
Sexy, can you tell the configuration you're using? As in which shaders/filters

[Anonymous No.540871]

These threads are usually pretty funny since people on both sides usually have no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.540879]

>>540810
Oh you're right, the slope looks awful in the left image. I don't really consider that filtering because the pixels still look like pixels, and besides it's pretty much necessary if you want any kind of decent results with non-integer scaling. I think my emulator does that automatically.

[Anonymous No.540881]

>>540859

Video games have always been digital so your comparision is shit.

[Anonymous No.540886]

If you want to post comparisons, use screenshotcomparison.com or some other site where you can easily see the differences.

>>540798
>>540864
Stop posting this shit, it will never look as bad as you are trying to argue.
https://archive.foolz.us/vr/search/image/VIRDOc-Vwn5e--F__HlkhQ/

[Anonymous No.540889]

>>540859
apparently you've never listened to records

[Anonymous No.540892]

>>540864
Not if you do filters right.

[Anonymous No.540905]

>>540879
>pixels still look like pixels

A pixel isn't a little square.
The only systems where pixels actually look like little squares are monochrome LCDs like the original Gameboy.

[Anonymous No.540906]

>>540892
But that just looks like the unfiltered screen with a light blur.

[Anonymous No.540914]

>>540886
>The sign is still pretty much unreadable.
It says INN.
How could anyone not see that?

[Anonymous No.540921]

>>540853

It is 4:3, I just did the math.

[Anonymous No.540945]

>teenagers who wanna be retro
>but are too young to remember what old televisions looked like
>see pictures of old television screen
>they don't realize cameras end up distorting old T.V. screens in a way that exaggerates the scanlines far beyond what the naked eye sees
>they think that's what the old television displays actually looked like

In my lifetime, I've seen VERY few televisions that have such ridiculously heavy scanlines that people emulate with. The only way the average old television even begins to look like that is if your eyeball is an inch away from the screen. You don't actually really notice them on an old television because there's more there like a bit of blur and color bleeding.

[Anonymous No.540957]

>>540945
I have a big old CRT on right next to me. The scanlines are hardly visible unless you're really looking for it. No resolution is high enough to properly capture what is there.

[Anonymous No.540958]

I like how younger gamers now are so graphics-inclined that they have to doll up perfectly good SNES games with visual filters or else it's a "mess."

I guess that's what a childhood full of Cowadoody and AAA super-realistic brownanbloomin games does to kids.

[Anonymous No.540963]

>>540798
>INN

>>540864
>ᴵMN

[Anonymous No.540983]

>>540945
>>they don't realize cameras end up distorting old T.V. screens in a way that exaggerates the scanlines far beyond what the naked eye sees

That's untrue. That only happens on interlaced content where dark scanlines only show up for 1/30 of a second. Non-interlaced 240p conent has scanlines that are dark 60 times per second and are as easily seen by your eyes as well as by cameras.

And CRT TVs are not made equal. High quality TVs like Sony's Trinitron and PVM have very noticeable scanlines thanks to the sharp aperture grille.

[Anonymous No.540985]

>>540945
THIS holy shit.
Also it's replicating a photo of an aperture grille crt where most American sets were shadow mask screens

[Anonymous No.540989]

Why do any of you care how other people play their games...?
Filtered or unfiltered, it's a taste of personal preference of aesthetics. Don't get all angry about opposing views, yo.

[Anonymous No.540992]

>>540921

Maybe it is if you count the black borders.
You a PALfag?

[Anonymous No.541003]

>>540958

I grew up with a real SNES on a CRT and it never looked like >>540798. That simply looks horrible and takes a lot of charm out of the games.

[Anonymous No.541004]

>>540989
The problem comes when each other thinks they are defending their tastes against others when in fact they're just expressing their own personal tastes.

[Anonymous No.541007]

>>540957
Then why bother if overlaying a fake ass effect doesn't even replicate a real CRT?

[Anonymous No.541013]

>>540992

The black borders are just overscan areas that bsnes outputs.

[Anonymous No.541016]

>>541003
So did I, but honestly, I prefer the clarity of emulation.
>>541007
Because people really want the 'true' experience without having to fork over money for a real CRT, system, and games.

[Anonymous No.541019]

>>541004
No. It's because you have people saying "It looked like this" when you have people who know better saying "no, that looks absurd what are you even talking about?"

[Anonymous No.541028]

>>541003
>takes a lot of charm out of the games.
What do you mean? If you want the charm, you should stick with the actual system on a CRT.

[Anonymous No.541030]

>>541007
I realize anecdotal evidence counts for shit in a discussion, by my own CRT shows scanlines pretty prominently.
Not all CRTs are built the same, you know.

[Anonymous No.541036]

>>541019
>thinks they are defending their tastes against others

[Anonymous No.541037]

>>541019
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Your opinion is shit.
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.541032]

>>541007

Because CRTs weren't created equal.

Most CRT shader/filter simulations usually replicate aperture grille, because shadow mask simulation takes way too much resolution to do properly.

[Anonymous No.541040]

>>541032
Shadow mask is what I grew up with but I don't mind crisp pixels at all.

[Anonymous No.541042]

>>541013

Well they should not be included in the 4:3 calculation!

That image is stretched.

[Anonymous No.541050]

>>541030
If you sit an inch from the screen yes, you'll see the lines, but since they disappear when you sit back like a normal person, why add them back in?
They bleed away unless you're BREATHING on the glass. You're not supposed to see them and you DON'T on a real TV in a real living room on a real system. Adding them in is pointless.

[Anonymous No.541058]

>>541016
>So did I, but honestly, I prefer the clarity of emulation.

It's okay if you like it, but for me it's simply inacceptable.

>>541028

That would be the royal way. But why not trying take emulation a bit closer to the original? Sometimes you don't want to set up all your stuff just to play a bit.

[Anonymous No.541061]

>>541050
I'm sitting away 2m from my screen right now, playing Ape Escape. The scanlines are clearly visible, yo.

[Anonymous No.541057]

>>541042
>That image is stretched.
Duh.
That's what happens when you put it in a new resolution without any buffers like scanlines.

[Anonymous No.541067]

>>541050
>You're not supposed to see them
Thank you.

TV companies weren't like: You know those gaps between our color cells? Lets make sure they're as obvious as possible.

[Anonymous No.541070]

>>541036
It's not "defending taste" if someone insists the sky is brown and you call them out for being wrong.

[Anonymous No.541072]

>>541058
>inacceptable.
unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.541073]

>>541050

Hm, no. My CRT has very sharp scanlines, and I can easily tell the difference between 480i and 240p from 10 feet away.

CRTs aren't created equal.

[Anonymous No.541075]

>>541058
>But why not trying take emulation a bit closer to the original?
Because it's a sad and very often uglier attempt to recreate what it can't.

[Anonymous No.541080]

>>541061
>>541073
Your TVs must have been pretty cheap.

[Anonymous No.541084]

>>541061
>>541073

You should be aware that's definitely not normal for a CRT. If you got that CRT specifically for retro gaming, you made a bad choice.

[Anonymous No.541076]

>>541061
Then your TV is busted. My condolences

[Anonymous No.541090]

>>541070

Except CRT shaders do replicate an idealized aperture grille CRT, just not the shadow mask CRT you grew up with because it's unfeasible to do at current monitor resolutions.

[Anonymous No.541096]

>>541076
>>541080
>>541084
>CRTs never had visible scanlines!
>mine does though
>b-but that's because it's b-b-broken!
Nah, fuck you.

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.541093]

>>540892
That actually looks pretty good. Adds a little bit of blur to soften the banding and dithering, without trying to conceal the fact that it's a raster image.

[Anonymous No.541094]

>>541016
>Because people really want the 'true' experience without having to fork over money for a real CRT, system, and games.
I've seen people give these away for free. Money shouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous No.541102]

>>541093
Why bother? It's just a less clear version of the first.
>>541096
>The TV manufaturer intentionally made it so I can see the scanlines
Right.

[Anonymous No.541109]

>>541094
Then I have no idea.
Maybe convenience.

[Anonymous No.541119]

>>541080

You do know that visible scanlines = sharp image quality, right? Sony's Trinitron's are hardly cheap, in fact they were the gold standard of CRTs.

>>541084

It's normal for quality TVs like Trinitrons. It looks fucking great when using RGB/Component output, so I don't see how a Trinitron is anything but the best choice for retro gaming.

[Anonymous No.541110]

>People saying you can't see scanlines on an actual CRT and it's just visible in photos
Nope. Good CRTs should display scanlines clearly. I can see the scanlines on my PVM perfectly.

[Anonymous No.541126]

>every emulator thread ever

[Anonymous No.541127]

>>541110
>Use a photo to prove your point

[Anonymous No.541141]

>>541119
I don't use a Trinitron though, just some 30" Panasonic from the early 2000s.
Pretty vibrant though, especially on SCART.

[Anonymous No.541132]

>>541102

TV manufacturers intentionally made it so each scanline is sharper which makes the overall picture quality better. The more visible scanlines on 240p content is a side effect (and a nice effect I might add)

[Anonymous No.541134]

>>541110
>Good CRTs should display scanlines clearly.
Do you really think that? Do you really think that they want you to see scanlines over your display?

[Anonymous No.541135]

>>541127
Alright, bro. Just head on down here to Georgia and come see my CRT in person then.

[Anonymous No.541148]

>>541127

Since the scanlines are being shown 60 times a second, I don't see how a photo would be invalid.

[Anonymous No.541150]

>>541135
I'm just saying it's kinda a moot point. I have a CRT next to me right now and it's nowhere near that prominent.

[Anonymous No.541158]

>>541096

>quotes one of my posts even though I never actually said yours was broken.

Look. We know you're a hipster too young to actually remember the age of CRTs, and you're trying to be retro and you're taking offense because we challenged your "MUH VINTAGE!", so take it from us who are actually old enough to remember the average CRTs: most CRTs did not look like that.

[Anonymous No.541160]

>>541150
Not all CRTs are made the same way, fucking hell. CAN you read, or are you just playing around?

[Anonymous No.541162]

If you'd keep a proper distance from your monitor your eyes would MAGICALLY reproduce what you see on a CRT from a completely unfiltered image.

[Anonymous No.541165]

>>541148
>>People saying you can't see scanlines on an actual CRT and it's just visible in photos
>Use photo with obvious scanlines to prove them wrong.

[Anonymous No.541172]

>>541158
Sorry, I forgot that when you were born in the 70s you magically have personal experience with watching every fucking CRT ever made.

[Anonymous No.541174]

>>541160
Can YOU read? You just used a photo to try to prove that photos worked as evidence.

[Anonymous No.541185]

>>541174
That's not me, bro.

[Anonymous No.541191]

>TVs are made differently
>They don't show scanlines the same.
Then how where the games intended to be shown on all of them correctly?

[Anonymous No.541197]

>>541185
Then change the second 'you' to 'he'.

[Anonymous No.541203]

>>541165
>>People saying you can't see scanlines on an actual CRT and it's just visible in photos

That's only true if talking about interlaced content.
It's like you people don't know what the fuck 240p is.

[Anonymous No.541210]

>>541162
Fucking this.
You guys seem to forget that you're not supposed to be 5 inches away from the screen.

[Anonymous No.541213]

>>541174

Photos work as evidence just fine if it's progressive content.

Intelaced content is what can't be captured on camera properly, because only half of the image is being shown on each frame.

[Anonymous No.541206]

>>541191
it is a mystery

this entire discussion is pretty vapid, no one's going to convince anyone of anything
how about playing some vidya instead of complaining about CRT scanlines?

[Anonymous No.541217]

>>541206
Because apparently I'm not playing my games the way the where meant to be seen.

[Anonymous No.541218]

>>541150
Yeah, that's why it kinda sucks. It's hard to argue about scanlines when people can easily just go "It's a photo, it doesn't count." And to be honest, these photos look like shit compared to the real thing. Get your consoles hooked up to a PVM with RGB and it's pretty much the clearest, sharpest picture ever.

[Anonymous No.541219]

>>541203
It's like you have no idea how photography works.

[Anonymous No.541234]

>>541126
Yes they should just be deleted, everything that has anything to do with the ZSNES or filter bullshit. They just turn into huge shitstorms with people posting without any real arguments.

[Anonymous No.541238]

What's the obsession with emulating the scanline-heavy Trinitron look? Because it was expensive? We know it had a sharp image, but it was at the cost of very visible scanlines over everything. That's not a good thing.

It's like some people want to emulate a classic television look, but why that very specific, uncommon scanline-riddled look that most CRTs didn't have?

[Anonymous No.541241]

>>538848
People who say the right one looks better didn't click on the image. In the thumbnail the right one looks better, but if you click it the left one is clearly better.

[Anonymous No.541256]

>>541238
>That's not a good thing.

[Anonymous No.541260]

I think it's good to raise the awareness that full-retard scanlines, HQ4x and other stuff makes most games look like shit. However, anything beyond that is pretty much opinions.

I grew up with relatively recent PC monitors (like around 1995 or so) that had no scanlines, blurriness or anything else (unless someone had kept huge speakers next to them, which would make them warped and shit), but nowadays I do use slight scanlines because it just looks nicer IMO.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/20518

[Anonymous No.541261]

>>541241
It's a blurry smudgy mess.

[Anonymous No.541262]

>>541238

Your eyes are good at tuning out static objects in images just like it tunes out the blood vessels and blind spot in your eye. And some people like the scanline effect so that's why they use scanline filters in emulators.

[Anonymous No.541264]

>>541238
>What's the obsession with emulating the scanline-heavy Trinitron look? Because it was expensive?

It's not an obsession. It's rather that shadow mask TVs require insane resolution to do properly, so all we can do is default to emulating Trinitrons, which are much easier to get right with current displays, although I'd argue they're still not quite there yet.

>We know it had a sharp image, but it was at the cost of very visible scanlines over everything. That's not a good thing.

Opinion. A lot of people like it. Your tastes are not objective.

>It's like some people want to emulate a classic television look, but why that very specific, uncommon scanline-riddled look that most CRTs didn't have?

See above. It's not for lack of interest. We literally cannot do it right at the moment. We need higher resolution, and higher DPI.

[Anonymous No.541267]

>>541260
That's not too bad, but is there any way to make it brighter?

[Anonymous No.541268]

>>541264
>A lot of people like it.
Why? It just obscures the image.

[Anonymous No.541278]

>>541268

Only if you use 100% black lines. It doesn't obscure anything at sane levels of blackness such as 25%

[Anonymous No.541275]

>>541268
No it doesn't. If you're basing scanlines from what you've seen on emulators, it's hardly the same. Scanlines make the pixels more defined, and as a result look much sharper and easier to look at.

[Anonymous No.541276]

>>541268
Depends on the implementation. Modern CRT shaders like CRT-Geom have scanline blooming and halation effects that keep the image considerably brighter than most simple scanline filters.

[Anonymous No.541301]

>>541264
Why not just play the damned game without a filter then, problem solved?

[Anonymous No.541307]

>>541301

because raw output looks like donkey balls scaled to 1080p

[Anonymous No.541308]

>>541267
I don't really know. You can freely adjust the opacity, though. Here's a shot at value 239 (you can compare it to the others if open them up in different tabs).

[Anonymous No.541309]

>>541275
>If you're basing scanlines from what you've seen on emulators, it's hardly the same.

Well, I HOPE that's what I'm talking about, considering that's the subject of the thread. While it might look alright on a real television, it's weird in an emulator.

[Anonymous No.541323]

Using scanlines is like sitting 10 cm away from a CRT. Fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.541329]

>>541301
That's personal taste in the end. I, personally, play with a CRT shader called CRT-Geom because I like how it looks. It's not perfect, but it's the closest thing there is at the moment to a real CRT, and I think it looks good enough. I'd love to use something even better, but I realize it's basically as good as it can possibly get at 4x scale. The next step requires 4K or higher resolution.

[Anonymous No.541338]

>>541323

No, it isn't. Stop making stupid generalizations

[Anonymous No.541345]

>>541338
You say that as if you expect anyone other than a select few people to know enough about this subject to do otherwise.

[Tensnake !S/BuDDdVmc No.541351]

What's the point of this scanline shit on emulators?

If you want scanlines so bad, why not just get a CRT TV/monitor?

[Anonymous No.541365]

>>541351
I said this in the last thread. You are not the first one to say this, nor will you be the last. It's not that goddamn simple. If you knew anything about anything, you'd know getting a proper 240p signal out of a PC onto a CRT is very difficult without special (and usually expensive) hardware and/or obscure graphics driver trickery.

[Anonymous No.541367]

>>538745

Because it's not that easy to output a proper 15hz 240p signal to a CRT TV from a PC

[Anonymous No.541371]

Did we really need another one of these fucking threads?

[Anonymous No.541380]

>>541371
No, we did not, but some people are so smug in their ignorance of a complex subject they feel the need to demonstrate it to everyone.

[Anonymous No.541381]

Even if you could accurately emulate a CRT I don't know why anyone would want to. Playing retro games on a nice big LCD tv is amazing, especially with a good third-party gamepad.

[Anonymous No.541391]

>>541381
Because many of us disagree that retro games look good stretched over four times their original size without some kind of filtering. To me sprites and backgrounds look like a mess of pixels when blown up like that.

[Anonymous No.541398]

>>541391
>doesn't like pixels

What are you, a filtersexual?

[Anonymous No.541413]

>>541398
I like pixel art when it actually looks like it has integrity. Low-res pixel art, however, was not meant to be scaled to such ridiculous proportions. I like sprites when they look like sprites, but there's a point where they just look like a collection of colored pixels.

[Anonymous No.541417]

>>541398

Maybe just someone who remembers how the games actually looked like.

[Anonymous No.541419]

>>541381

Well, there are shaders that emulate LCD screens too

[Anonymous No.541430]

>>541218
>>541135
>>541110
Thats fucking neat. Shame nobody will ever make a good CRT filter.

[Anonymous No.541431]

>>541381
>Playing stretched as fuck games in 16:9 with a disgusting input lag
Just play on your monitor in 4:3 unless you're some kind of gross faggot.

[Anonymous No.541432]

>>538801
>>538745
>>538750

Read:
http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/Shaders_and_Filters

[Anonymous No.541429]

>>541419
>emulating LCD on an LCD
>mfw

[Anonymous No.541436]

>>541430
Yes they will. You just have to wait for 4K displays to become commonplace.

[Anonymous No.541437]

Scanlines are placebo.

[Gray Blob !1fuckupmdM No.541441]

>>541431
>implying you can't turn off the aspect ratio "correction"

[Anonymous No.541446]

>>541441
Yeah, but you'll always have input lag.

[Anonymous No.541453]

I don't care about nostalgia. I just want the image to look the best. I've come to the conclusion that you can't really do this on current digital displays.

SD displays for SD images.

[Anonymous No.541454]

>>541429
It makes some sense, a little, but not with superdark lines like in the posted image.

[Anonymous No.541458]

You all need to get with the times...

[Anonymous No.541459]

>>541429

Well, you can only get that effect on your own LCD if you display at 1x scale.

[Anonymous No.541467]

>>541436
No. We require 2 things:
>Geometry scaling
>Phosphor effect for transparancy
And we must never forget:
>Higher saturnation and contrast to componsate for the lack of color on LCDs and shittier palettes
Filters like >>541419 would already be FOTY if it where not for the idea of having 200% darkness on the image.

[Anonymous No.541473]

>>541458

You're on a retro games board.

[Anonymous No.541485]

>>541473
hence 'retro'

[Anonymous No.541481]

>not using filters that stop them from looking like pixelly, line covered messes.

[Anonymous No.541482]

How's this?

[Anonymous No.541487]

>>541454

There's no lines in that image, it's literally drawing each pixel with it's subpixels.

Also, it's one of those shaders that looks better the higher you scale it.

[Anonymous No.541493]

>>541481
CRTfilterfags and nofilterfags both agree that you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.541506]

Best filter I've seen is Blargg's NTSC RGB.
I wonder why it isn't a shader yet.

[Anonymous No.541508]

>>540868
>sexy
my god why do people say this about video games

[Anonymous No.541502]

I like SuperEagle.
It makes the picture look clear and neat.

[Anonymous No.541503]

>>541487
While its true, its still extremely dark, and the point is thus valid.

[Anonymous No.541510]

>>541482

That's okay. What is it?

[Anonymous No.541517]

>>541506
I want to know as well. Most versions I have seen is limited to 2x scaling.

[Anonymous No.541519]

>>541506

Blargg NTSC is some weird thing where it's very system specific. It only works on certain resolutions.

[Anonymous No.541515]

>>541453
>I don't care about nostalgia. I just want the image to look the best. I've come to the conclusion that you can't really do this on current digital displays.
>SD displays for SD images.

I agree. Filters are trying to fix how bad 2D games look on digital displays. And it's failing. The games were never meant to be scaled like that. You can't fix it.

[Anonymous No.541523]

>>541481
>please kill me, i'm suffering

[Anonymous No.541526]

>>541517

http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/Shaders_and_Filters#NTSC_filters

Here is a link to downloads to them. They work pretty well.

[Anonymous No.541527]

the one thing i wish scanline people would learn is that they aren't all in a perfectly straight line, that goes for shadow masks as well. scanlines also dont make a perfect border with phosphor lines. phosphor lines would bleed a bit into the blank scanline areas.

pic related

[Anonymous No.541529]

>>541510
CRT-Geom, with some slight modifications to reduce the blur and lighten up the scanlines.

Actually, I think that shot looks slightly too blurry due to the increased blooming. I toned it down slightly more here (though it darkened the lines a bit), and I really like this.

[Anonymous No.541530]

the one thing i wish scanline people would learn is that they aren't all in a perfectly straight line, that goes for shadow masks as well. scanlines also dont make a perfect border with phosphor lines. phosphor lines would bleed a bit into the blank scanline areas.

pic related

[Anonymous No.541532]

>>541481
This does not help at all.

[Anonymous No.541537]

>>541529

I'd like to see CRT geom looking like that, but with the tinyest halaation effect. The default halation is so huge.

[Anonymous No.541538]

>>541530
CRT-Geom does that to an extent, but in the end it's very limited by the resolution it has to work with. It's not a novel idea to replicate this behavior, it's that, once again, we lack enough pixels to do it justice.

[Gray Blob !1fuckupmdM No.541542]

>>540859
Records are GOAT, and I play all my emulated vidya unfiltered.

[Anonymous No.541551]

>>541542
>I play all my emulated vidya unfiltered.

But many people play them fullscreen, on an LCD. This is a kind of filtering, Nearest neighbor scale x4. Just remember that.

[Anonymous No.541553]

>>541537
I can reduce the halation effect, but I haven't tried to reduce the blur. I don't use the halation version personally.

[Anonymous No.541557]

why not use the superior thing? hang them on your monitors

[Gray Blob !1fuckupmdM No.541558]

>>541551
you know what I meant

[Anonymous No.541562]

>>541553
>but I haven't tried to reduce the blur.

Some guy from Emu General was was able to do that. Are you the same guy?

>>541558

True "no filtering" would be at native resolution on a CRT tv. Otherwise we're all just bickering about the kind of filtering we use on an LCD. I think the whole debate is pointless.

[Anonymous No.541565]

So did everyone spontaneously throw away all of their CRT's in the years 2005-2010? I have three lying around in my house.

and I still play my old games on my hd

[Anonymous No.541569]

>>541557
i lol'd

[Anonymous No.541575]

>>541562
I am the same guy. I can reduce the blur on the regular version, but apparently the halation version is a bit more complicated, so I haven't bothered.

[Anonymous No.541584]

>>541575

Oh that sucks. Because I like the concept of the halation effect, but it is way, way too strong. It should be super subtle.

[Anonymous No.541591]

>>541565
2001 here.

[Anonymous No.541590]

>>541565
>So did everyone spontaneously throw away all of their CRT's in the years 2005-2010?

Many, many, many people did.

I still have several though.

SD displays for SD images.

[Anonymous No.541595]

>>541526
WTF is that file format? And what emulators/frontends accept them?

[Gray Blob !1fuckupmdM No.541602]

>>541565
Two moves between 2009 and 2012, from apartment to apartment and then to a house, killed off our remaining CRTs. One was thrown out, and the other was given away. It's all LCD where I live now.

[Anonymous No.541612]

>>541565
Once HD for satellite and whatever was rolled out for normal TV broadcast, the CRTs had to go, litterally.

[Anonymous No.541613]

>>541584
That I can reduce.

mul_res += pow(texture2D(rubyTexture, xy2).rgb, vec3(monitorgamma))*0.1;

Reduce the last number to reduce the effect.

[Anonymous No.541618]

>>541595
>WTF is that file format? And what emulators/frontends accept them?

It's .filter format. Old bsnes used them. Retroarch uses them too.

Bsnes abandoned .filter format for only supporting .shader format. He's right that it's a better format, but we still don't have Blargg NTSC filters ported into .shader format, so it's a bit stupid to just abandon that format yet.

[Anonymous No.541619]

>>541595
RetroArch.

[Anonymous No.541620]

>>541602
>>541612

Damn. I guess that CRT's are just one of those things that you have to try to hang onto. Ill try to hold onto at least one of mine when I leave my parents place...

[Anonymous No.541630]

>>541618

Which version of bsnes exactly? Download link? I can never find the old downloads. Just more complicated higan.

[Anonymous No.541651]

>Emulation plebs arguing about shaders/filters

[Anonymous No.541656]

>>541618
Retroarch does not accept .filter without know what config to setup for it.

>>541619
Can't get it to work with the phoenix config setup.

[Anonymous No.541661]

>>541656
>Retroarch does not accept .filter without know what config to setup for it.

What? I just set it to the bsnes filter on the shader options and it works fine. What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.541682]

>>541529
This also works great with games like FFIX.

Also, I had never encountered this bit of dialogue with Amarant before until literally just now. What the actual fuck?

[Anonymous No.541687]

>>541661
>RetroArch [ERROR] :: Command "D:/Spill/Emulatorer/retroarch-win64-0.9.8/Shaders/NTSC-RGB.filter" failed.

[Anonymous No.541704]

>>541687
Make sure you downloaded the right filter for your OS. 32-bit versions won't work on 64-bit, Linux version won't work on Windows, etc.

[Anonymous No.541727]

>>541704
Seems to be broken even if correct. *yawn*

[Anonymous No.541734]

>>541727
Then who knows. Everyone and their mother has this filter working on RetroArch. I don't want to sound mean, but you have to be doing something wrong.

[Anonymous No.541741]

>>541365
Yes we get that. But a filter IS NOT DOING THE SAME THING AS REAL SCAN LINES
You are not making the game look more authentic. You're making it look ridiculous

[Anonymous No.541759]

>>541741
In your view. I happen to think it looks quite nice, provided you don't go overboard. It can look better, but we need better technology first.

But whatever, we're just gonna have to disagree.

[Anonymous No.541802]

>>541734
Retroarch is rather quirky, so I don't really blame myself.

[Anonymous No.541805]

Ok ok ok ok
Serious question about scanlines
Do the lines separate actual lines of pixels? Like, say with this image of Rictor >>541530
In an emulator those sections of pixels would be touching and not separated, right? So a side by side comparison would show the dimensions of the emulated game to be collapsed?

[Anonymous No.541810]

>>541759
Why not just turn down the contrast on your monitor is you want the image murkier?

[Anonymous No.541813]

>>541805
thats not 100% how it works but basically yes. with no lines all of the main pixels would be touching.

[Anonymous No.541852]

>>541813
And do these filters chop the image up or just overlay another image over the screen

[Anonymous No.543439]

What the hell is up with this feud between filter users and non filter users? Why do you guys care so much about whether or not someone decides to use one? I could understand if an emulator forced it on someone or something but if it is optional the hell is the problem?

[Anonymous No.543456]

>>543439
Because you have posers acting like a filter is more accurate and won't accept that they are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.543467]

>>543439
Angry grognards have issues accepting that other people might somehow enjoy things they don't. See >>543456 for an example of this.

[Anonymous No.543526]

>>543456
>I'm angry that someone is having a good time doing something that I don't!

[Anonymous No.543592]

CRT flicker is far more important for CRT-look than scanlines or blurring. Flicker is the only way to get sharp looking motion for a fixed framerate game.

[Anonymous No.543597]

>>541852
depends on the filter man. usually no, no pixels are lost. most scanline emulators simply insert a line every X amount of lines (depending on filter). they get very complicated but basically, no, nothing is lost.

[Anonymous No.543636]

>>543456
>believes CRTs looked pixel perfect, no blur, no bloom, no spacing due to scanlines or mask.
>believes adding any of these things back is somehow less accurate than doing nothing and using raw pixels

[Anonymous No.543936]

>>540798

are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous No.543998]

>>543936
>using a horrible filter as an example of why not to use filter.

[Anonymous No.544017]

>>543936
I don't even know where to begin with that picture "comparison".

[Anonymous No.544038]

>>543936
Can we all just accept these will forever be troll threads and give up now.

[Anonymous No.545045]

A fake CRT filter for LCD monitors with an RGB subpixel layout. It needs to be viewed at 1:1 to be seen.

[Anonymous No.545065]

>>545045
I think I like picture number 2 (fake CRT) better.

[Anonymous No.545141]

Every time I read one of these threads I just visualize the posters angrily masturbating while tabbing back and forth between their emulator and this thread. They never actually play the games, just endlessly tweak filters and masturbate until their manhoods are raw and bleeding.

I can't be bothered to use filters. I just want to play the damn game and could not care less about any artificial authenticity

[Anonymous No.545168]

>>545045
I'll take this instead.

[Anonymous No.546196]

>>538750
Posts like these are why I'm going to filter "Muh" and you should too.

[Anonymous No.546702]

Personally, I think it depends on the game. Some games look better with filters/shaders/ scan-lines and some don't. It's better to just mess around for a while until you find the one you think fits the game the most. Sometimes I just play without anything as well.

[Anonymous No.546793]

>>545141
>bothered

its like one click on a drop down menu
gee, that was hard.

[Anonymous No.546854]

>>540607
>top = moon
>bottom = egg

[Anonymous No.546860]

>>546793
ANd it doesn't look right without all kinds of tweaking.

[Anonymous No.546865]

>>546860
a lot are just preconfigured, you literally just turn on or off with a drop down menu. tweaking is optional.