It's almost 2022 and there are still no good CRT shaders.

[Anonymous No.8252968]

[Anonymous No.8252969]

soul

[Anonymous No.8252970]

soulless

[Anonymous No.8252976]

Because you emulate the display and not the analogue signal. NTSC shaders alone make a huge difference

[Anonymous No.8252979]

>>8252968
It's more shocking that people still pretend this matters at all. Though in a way it's inspiring that in this age of virtue signaling there's some that make a point of being as shallow as possible.

[Anonymous No.8253456]

>>8252968
left looks worse

[Anonymous No.8253468]

>>8253456
nope
looks shittier than an actual CRT sure, but still better than a clean picture on an LCD

[Anonymous No.8253493]

Screenshots of shaders are bullshit, you should take a pic of the actual screen

[Anonymous No.8253497]

>>8253493
why?

[Anonymous No.8253515]

>>8253493
but that is clearly an actual screen
you can tell because it's under exposed

[Anonymous No.8253562]

crt royale looks pretty damn nice on a 4k oled. Pic hosted elsewhere cause too big

https://files.catbox.moe/o4pa0r.jpg

[Anonymous No.8253571]

>>8252968

[Anonymous No.8253575]

>>8253562
try and change the mask size because I think it looks better at 4K if you change it

[Anonymous No.8253772]

>>8253571
If you zoomers had actually ever seen a CRT before the image should be flat and not hideously distorted into a fisheye shape. That's why shit like the 240p Test Suite exist: to give a metric to help eliminate geometry distortions on your screen.

[Anonymous No.8253806]

>>8253515
>you can tell because it's under exposed
crt shaders end up making the image too dark.
I don't see why they couldn't just add a relevelling layer over the whole thing, but they don't.

[Anonymous No.8253817]

>>8253772
Where did this fucking "zoomers have never seen a CRT" meme come from?
?????????
Did zoomers grow up with 4K flatscreen LCD's? CRT's were common until like 2012.
Do you think that zoomers - who grew up during the fucking GFC - were getting snazzy new televisions when they were little?

[Anonymous No.8253829]

>>8253817
Keep zoomin'
>Where did this fucking "zoomers have never seen a CRT" meme come from?
Probably came from the fact that zoomers have no idea what an actual CRT looks like and base all of their assumptions off of second hand knowledge. Gee, zoomie, ya think you'd actually get it right if you had actually seen one?

[Anonymous No.8253837]

>>8253829
picked this one up in may
grew up with a samsung

[Anonymous No.8253849]

>>8253837
the face of /vr/

[Anonymous No.8253850]

>>8253849
it is a privilege

[Anonymous No.8253925]

>>8253817
I used to be friends with this guy who's parents had a crt monitor for like six months before they moved onto an lcd monitor, he legit thinks FF7 was supposed to look like >>8252970
I used to show him comparison pics and explain how devs would try to overcome the lower resolutions/colors by creating art that would blend better when displayed on televisions with inferior video cables.

He'd always just answer with "I think >>8252970
looks better".

He actually went into game development.

[Anonymous No.8253975]

I was looking for this exact thread
Pic related is from my BVM, but last night I was fucking around with RetroArch on a Switch and noticed there are a fuckload of CRT shaders
Are they really all shit? I'd like to emulate some stuff on a Switch for handheld, so are any acceptable? I definitely don't expect everyone to be as autistic as us CRTchads so it would be nice to have a decent one

[Anonymous No.8254047]

>>8253817
This. We had a 32 inch CRT in our living room until we replaced it in 2013-2014ish. It's gen Alpha that has no idea what a CRT tv is. Had a relative's nine year old come to my place once and he said "I've never seen a TV like that before".

[Anonymous No.8254052]

>>8253850
he is kewt, and is swee.t

[Anonymous No.8254086]

>>8253975
>Are they really all shit?
No, CRT Royale and very few others are pretty good and close enough to any real CRT.

[Anonymous No.8254103]

I grew up with decent resolution VGA monitors playing Commander Keen and Jazz Jackrabbit, so I remember seeing crisp pixels but miss the glow and deeper blacks of a CRT monitor. Whats a good CRT shader for me?

[Anonymous No.8254118]

>>8253806
you can just add brightness (or get it from some other method) within most mainstream shaders without even having to mess with the code

[Anonymous No.8254150]

>>8253975
>Are they really all shit?
Honestly, it's VERY subjective, but if you ask me, some are quite nice. CRT-Royale is the gold standard, but it's very demanding and can be daunting to tweak, so maybe try something like CRT-Guest or CRT-Easymode first.

>I'd like to emulate some stuff on a Switch for handheld, so are any acceptable?
Oof, at 720p resolution? That's harder to do. It's not impossible, but I personally have not seen a CRT shader deliver results that I consider satisfying at such a low resolution. 1080p is the minimum for delivering at least somewhat-convincing CRT emulation, and that's with a Trinitron-esque mask.

[Anonymous No.8254167]

>>8254103
Are you looking for full-on emulation of line-doubled Mode 13h on a CRT monitor? That's very hard to do, unfortunately. Closest I got was first applying a regular 2x pre-scale nearest filter, then a shader called CRT-Guest-SM on top with a dot triad mask. Looks ok.

[Anonymous No.8254214]

This is exacty how I remember when I was a 14
shaders developers are doing an excellent job

[Anonymous No.8254218]

>>8253975
>game made for lcd system
>crt

[Anonymous No.8254221]

>>8254214
Where'd you get that overlay?

[Anonymous No.8254226]

>>8254218
Nigga...

[Anonymous No.8254278]

>>8254167
Yeah, that looks a lot like my first 14" VGA monitor.

[Anonymous No.8254593]

>>8252979
It objectively looks like shit without the crt.

[Anonymous No.8254724]

>>8252979
I legit can't tell if it's simply that I grew up with CRT, but there's a velvet warmth and roundness to the image that I don't feel like anything can match. It's like trying to describe sex to a virgin. It's not as simple as nostalgia, because I can hook up an SNES to CRT right now and it will look just as good as I remember, but trying to convince anybody else is like arguing with people about Covid-19. I know we're just going to disagree.

[Anonymous No.8254740]

>>8253837
You look like Ivan Drago if he were a faggot

[Anonymous No.8254745]

I always hated these kinds of shaders but now that I have a 4k tv and a 1440p monitor I think they look real good. 1080p is just barely too low resolution for it to look good, I guess.

[Anonymous No.8254767]

>>8254214
> YOU'RE JIMMY PATTERSON!
> ALAAAAAAAAAARM!

[Anonymous No.8254782]

>>8252968
Huh, I can actually make out "Texas" in this one.

Also, fuck Texas.

[Anonymous No.8255106]

>>8252968
Retroarch has the only one. It's a damn shame.

[Anonymous No.8255225]

You can work something out without Retroarch.

[Anonymous No.8255228]

>>8255225
honestly asking:
is there a way to hook something like reshade into regular emulators?

[Anonymous No.8255232]

>>8255228
What do you mean by "something like Reshade"? I just took that screenshot with Reshade's screenshot function on Duckstation.

[Anonymous No.8255243]

>>8255228
of course, that's what Reshade is. just run it again after you've installed it and manage your installations; you can choose a specific .exe with the file browser

[Anonymous No.8255247]

>>8255232
>>8255243
oh then i'm just an idiot
i'm used to it using dlls to hook into things only

[Anonymous No.8255323]

>>8253837
Take a good look. This is what's trying to tell you all about the past he wasn't alive for. This is what's sitting in some middle class suburb, spending his parent's money on plastic crap, and larping at you while he sits there watching it all collect dust on a shelf. The guy who works as a body double for Morrissey in gay pornos.

[Anonymous No.8255409]

>>8255323
This town was rural when I was born, the local police station had horses and sheep lol

[Anonymous No.8255610]

It's almost 2022 and OP is still a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8255614]

>>8252968
>no good crt shaders in 2022
nigga its called getting a real one thats the only good shadder

[Anonymous No.8255869]

>>8252968
this one is bretty gud

[Anonymous No.8255906]

>>8255869
I think this CRT shader is a preset in Retroarch, but I can never actually get my shit to look exactly like this. Wonder what that person did...

[Anonymous No.8255940]

>>8255614
>Have CRT
>Have no way to plug my emulation based systems to it.
>Wii U has no 240p
Yeah but nah unless you are rich or something to start shilling money for old shit that gets nowhere real fast.

[Anonymous No.8255949]

>>8255906
Look at the resolution, that’s what the person did

[Anonymous No.8256349]

>>8253837
You gots some purty lips, boy

[Anonymous No.8256362]

>>8253837
now lets you just drop dem pants

[Anonymous No.8256460]

>>8253925
Sounds like that guy got a job in an industry he found interesting and you kept posting

[Anonymous No.8256583]

>>8253925
>He actually went into game development.
Lmao good for him. What do you do?

[Anonymous No.8256608]

>>8252968
What shader programmers aren't noticing about CRTs is that scanlines were extremely rare. Most CRT televisions had their pixels aligned in such a way that every-other-column was shifted about one half-pixel, so that if a TV were to have scanlines, 1) they'd be vertical, but 2) the image would still be too blurry to notice those scanlines.

[Anonymous No.8256634]

>>8256608
What?
Scan lines are literally half of 480i being drawn at a time so every second line would be blank
240p didn’t work otherwise

[Anonymous No.8256652]

>>8256634
I'm talking about the physical layout of the pixel cells. Put a magnifying glass up to an old Zenith TV and see what i mean

[Anonymous No.8256752]

>>8253925
>He actually went into game development.
So that's why most games nowadays are shit huh? It's full of tards like him.

[Anonymous No.8256764]

>>8256608
>What shader programmers aren't noticing about CRTs is that scanlines were extremely rare
Every time I see this remark I know the person has no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.8256768]

>>8256608
Apparently every CRT my family owned was the mythical horizontal scanline-producing kind

[Anonymous No.8256772]

>>8256768
That's so rare. Your family must have had trinitrons. The rarest of CRTs.

[Anonymous No.8256774]

>>8253562
pretty dope.
Sadly not as dope on switch (This kills the GPU, frame rate, your hope in humanity, games launching in human times)

I hate the curved shaders even if everything else seems fine with some of them because none of CRT's we had as a child never looked that curved when you watched the screen - I just though about it as square personally, or your brain would autofill it so.

Also CRT I have now is a flat screen - as in the glass is flat. Too bad I have miniscule amount of systems to plug into it after getting rid of few.

>>8256608
>>8256652
You really like to talk about shit you know nothing about huh?

[Anonymous No.8256787]

>>8256772
Oh my, I can only dream of owning the fabled Trinitron from Sony, the niche and boutique electronics manufacturer. What we did have were the notoriously hard to find Magnavox, Sanyo and Zenith tubes. All inspected painstakingly in-store with a magnifying glass before purchase, of course

[Anonymous No.8256798]

>>8256774
>You really like to talk about shit you know nothing about huh?
I literally gave you instructions on how to confirm what I'm talking about. Are you not following them because you don't want to be proven wrong?

[Anonymous No.8256827]

>>8256798
You talk about "pixel grids" on a CRT.
Which CRT does not have.
It has no horizontal resolution, CRT's in general have very loosely defined vertical resolution, and oh, what you are talking about visual artefact of light and shadow when you look at CRT light beam hitting the shadow mask up close.

And your ignorance of what people now call 240p which is literally what every NES outputs along many other gaming devices until PS2 and Dreamcast is telling too. And you never seen a Street Fighter 3 Third Strike cabinet in your life either.

Now go somewhere else proving yourself wrong with posts telling others how they are proven wrong.

TL;DR:
What do you think moden image would look like if you output 540x1920 image by "stretching" it blanking every 2nd line.

Shit like this does not work 1 to 1 with modern displays because they are not a light dot being directed to change brightness and intensity and location faster than human vision can tell.

[Anonymous No.8256860]

>>8256827
I had a shit-ass old Zenith CRT when I was a kid, and if you held up a magnifying glass to the TV's screen you absolutely would see cells with little red-green-blue rectangles. Those cells were not aligned in a perfect grid; every other column was shifted by half.

Found a picture on Google Images which demonstrates exactly what I saw. So you wouldn't perceive visible scanlines on a physical display like this, they would practically be smudged away by the layout of the physical pixels or whatever you prefer to call them.

[Anonymous No.8256881]

>>8255906
It looks like the Royale XM29 preset, which looks pretty good but changes the colours a bit.
You can make the colours more like default if you mod it to change the LUT to a more basic one or bypass that bit altogether.

[Anonymous No.8256902]

>>8256860
>So you wouldn't perceive visible scanlines on a physical display like this, they would practically be smudged away by the layout of the physical pixels or whatever you prefer to call them.
You would actually. Even if you don't, having only half the lines active influences the picture. Anyway here's composite on the identical type of technology - slotmask, with visible scan lines. Maximize it so you can see the exact thing you think isn't there.

[Anonymous No.8256904]

>>8252968
I'm gonna be honest, I need shaders because I can't stand the high pitched sound CRTs make. I spent my whole childhood listening to that 15.625kHz faggot ring and couldn't get used to it. I hate CRTs, I hate old people who don't hear the sound they make anymore and I hate disabled fucks that can't hear it despite being in their 20s

[Anonymous No.8256916]

>>8256902
um, bro? do you seriously think I can see those scanlines without my trusty magnifying glass?

[Anonymous No.8256926]

>>8256904
Understandable, but that's a shame. I'm getting rid of my CRTs soon since I'm moving across the country and don't want to repair them in 20 years, but I don't have much of a problem tuning that ring out once I get immersed in whatever I'm playing. I have also had tinnitus since I was like 5 though, so different strokes

[Anonymous No.8256932]

>>8256860
That is not a pixel grid, and not pixel cells. That is shadow artefact of how three beam color TV's work. It is not pixels it is light alignment from three different light beams that make a color TV as against a monochrome TV - A monochrome CRT would not have any of those because a shadow mask exists only for Color TV's.

You ignore repeatedly the fact that CRT signal is done in lines, or "Fields" where the image is not pixels, it is a goddamn multicolored laser beam changing intensity and location so fast you need 3000fps camera to shoot the process so a human can make sense of it without studying it otherwise.

What "hides" scanlines is brightness of light versus absolute darkness and size of the tube. This is why scanline intensity options exist, because scanlines exist on every TV that is receiving 240p, but their intensity is different because of light bleed versus darkness.

You are just a dum dum talking facebook vaccine science and insisting thrice over your literal child science is right versus - actual documentation and explanation of CRT's.


again, in way someone like you understands:
DURR, THEY ARE PIXELS, DUUUHHHHH KINDA LIKE LIONS ARE HOUSECATS DURR.

[Anonymous No.8256945]

>>8256904
>>8256926
>That feel when you have tinnitus, and you hear the TV high pitched sound
For me worst thing is having some stroke like episode with some CRT's and signals to that CRT - more likely if I am tired, where I become blind to the CRT screen. Still see the screen, but stop registering anything that happens on the screen. Very unique to CRT's too as I never experienced it with modern flat panel types of any kind, and some CRT's never gave me problems, like every computer monitor and my widescreen trinitron that was a hand-me-down.

[Anonymous No.8256948]

>>8256860
That's the slot shadow mask, anon.

[Anonymous No.8256950]

>>8256902
There are no visible scanlines in that picture. I don't doubt it's skipping every other line, but this proves what I said about the image being smudged enough to the point where you don't actually see scanlines. Emulator shaders draw scanlines so crisp and clear in ways most TVs never did; maybe high-end Trinitrons did but who the fuck could afford those except that one token rich Korean kid every neighborhood had, that kid with the Neo-Geo whose parents were dentists or lawyers or whatever?

[Anonymous No.8256951]

>>8256860

[Anonymous No.8256960]

>>8256951
>combination of three light beams of red+white+blue to produce the illusion of any arbitrary single point of color
>single point of color is totally not a pixel though bro

[Anonymous No.8256989]

>>8256950
There are, here I even marked the ones in the sky for you to see.

[Anonymous No.8256994]

>>8256950
Again.
Never seen an arcade machine, ever.

Scanlines differ from every monitor to another, from video signal type, and more.

There IS visible scanlines in the picture. They are just not as visible as others. The TV is also fucking small - these things change from all kinds of different analogue properties including analogue way the image is displayed.

The brightness of light versus no light bleeding changes how scanlines show up on screen to screen, depending on many variables. This is why there is more than one shader with retroarch alone, why scanline options come with scanline strength options, and pixels are not square on almost any non portable system before 2000's.

>>8256960
It is not single point of color. It is physical mask causing physical distortions so there is a color signal instead of just a bright white light square. Monochrome TV's have nothing like this because monochrome TV's deal only with intensity, which still happens on Color CRT's the exact same way as on monochromes. The dot mask only physically separates different color beam output so there is an illusion of color picture and colors instead of bright white light.


Most people do not insist this fucking hard in being wrong but then again I do not understand anti vaxxers either.

Also the single point is entirely different from any resolutions assigned to CRT's. Every CRT has 500+ lines if you count the over scan and remember PAL is a territory. But every CRT has different amount of "pixels" depending on make, size, and whatever other factors. They are not pixels because they are not pixels, they are dots meant to block some light so there is a way to mix colors in cost effective and manufacturable manner.


But it takes far less brain energy to insist stupid shit you thought up as a child from thin nothing than actually reading about technology and how it works in electrical and mechanical sense. That shit hard.

Only thing harder is to not listen to people who do read.

[Anonymous No.8257002]

>>8256945
Like, nothing in your field of view distorts besides what's on the CRT? That sounds pretty bizarre. Do you ever get the same sensation while standing up or is it just from specific CRTs?

[Anonymous No.8257004]

>>8256960
Pixels are digital. RGB cells are analogue.

[Anonymous No.8257014]

People like "CRT filters" because they add

>blur
>higher contrast and chroma
>bloom
>a textural overlay to fake high frequency detail

You can just add that stuff in without having to do an exact emulation of a CRT.

[Anonymous No.8257040]

>>8257002
Yeah, everything is fine, I SEE the TV but I just - stop registering what is moving and how - the sensation is fucking weird. I could lean my head down, use my baseball cap lowered partly to block my field of vision, so I was looking "up" with my eyes in sense to look at the CRT, but it was still harder to make sense of the signal.

It would be specific CRT's, and at specific times. One cheapo semi large TV in my childhood caused this to me two or three times as far as I remember, when it was morning or evening so I was also probably more tired.

Last time this happened was with retro gaming enthusiast meet up. One guy had a Neo Geo with one of arcade adaptors to hook it up with scart to CRT. But Neo geo does not output exact 60hz or anything while PAL TV's here would very much like it one or another. So, the slight mismatch would make hard for the guy to get any TV display the signal in watchable manner and I could watch and see it for while until it hit me hardest with the blindness.

I have not experienced it, but the sensation is probably like snow blindness or something like that. You SEE, but you do not see. It is like all of the information gets to your eyes but your brain is going error in processing that information from this specific tubular area - excuse the pun.

Heck, it might be indication of me having a brain condition more complex than "just ADHD lol" but that is harder to confirm or anything. I never heard of anyone else talk about the problem I have, but only getting headaches or feeling of eye strain from CRT's that were not @80+hz

My trinitron advertises 120hz refresh but I have no idea what it actually means, it is no computer monitor and most it can take is PAL SCART RGB, handles NTSC or PAL60 signals but nothing else. It could be "double refreshing" so refreshing one frame twice or something like that, minimizing any problems I and other people might have usually. Think of cinema 24fps at 48 refresh.

[Anonymous No.8257046]

>>8256960
Also if you'd done what you talk about this is what actual pixels look like.

[Anonymous No.8257063]

>>8257014
I dunno. It is hard to say but mostly I like the image to be in correct aspect ratio and softened, because of non square pixels etc.
CRT filters make it look better scanlines or not. In my case, and my flatscreen TV in specific, they also can help eliminate color to color ghosting which happens REALLY hard in games like super mario world where geometry and colors are simple, so scrolling a green hill into blue background can leave a long ghosting effect that CRT filters can eliminate.

I like it "blurred" but sharp too. I dunno. It can make stuff like policenauts on PS1 and Snatcher on SegaCD look way more "right" in my shitty opinion than just unfiltered or bilinear filtered.

But, I do concede that without options (on my vita) I rather have bilinear filtering on NES etc. than nearest neighbor. Or, depends, for GBA/GB I want nearest neighbor but that is just the square pixels and low resolutions of the systems.

[Anonymous No.8257064]

The problem isn't that there aren't shaders. The problem is that there's no new CRTs. Remasters of old movies look like smeared shit on my 55" LCD, even if I download the 4K version, so I just download the 1080p version and watch on my CRT, but it will eventually die.

[Anonymous No.8257078]

>>8256989
Yes, they're still smudged together. I've never seen a shader which does this effect properly; scanlines are always drawn by emulators like they were these atom-perfect crisp lines.

[Anonymous No.8257081]

>>8257078
Yeah I think it's because they approximate a single CRT picture element = 1 game pixel

[Anonymous No.8257083]

>>8257064
Ironic, because old Movies are stuff that you can get actual 4K transports of. Most modern movies are just 1080p waifux2'd to 4k on paper.

The reason they still look "smudged" is because of Film grain and it being more pronounced with better resolution but you get much more closer actual 4K footage by watching a good 4K transport of blade runner than watching a "4K" release of Blade Runner 2047

[Anonymous No.8257093]

CRT is old technology which held back video game graphics for a long time. The standard emulator graphics is how the game was actually designed. It's like adding film grain and hairs to an old movie to mimic the cinema experience how it used to be. Pretentious, useless and quite frankly: stupid.

[Anonymous No.8257096]

>>8253817
If you weren't poor you had a plasma TV by 2008

[Anonymous No.8257098]

I've been happy with CRT-Royale and CRT-easymode. I guess I'm pretentious but 240p games just look better to me on my 1440p monitor with a CRT shader applied.

[Anonymous No.8257109]

>>8257083
Only reason I don't watch the 4K version instead of the 1080p on the CRT is because I'm using a PS3, which I doubt can handle it. It can't handle h265 either. And not all movies have a 4K version, like Samurai from 1954.

[Anonymous No.8257112]

>>8257081
>>8257078
No, because there is no picture elements in CRT, especially horizontally.
The hurdle is that CRT is a damn strong light beam, which none of modern screens are not. At best, super bright HDR OLED that would burn itself within week could maybe come somewhat close to simulate scanlines and even then you'd need image processing because of non square pixels in most if not all systems until Dreamcast.

>>8257093
I assume and hope you are just trolling but in case not.
>Developers never looked at what they made on anything before it was released
>What you look your game on has no impact what it will look like when you look it on particular thing you output your game to.

There is evidence even that some arcade games were accidentally made too dark because developers had possibly dying or too bright monitor, maybe in their test unit but it could be also tuned up on arcade CRT's. Not as fun on your multi system emulation box tho.

[Anonymous No.8257115]

>>8257109
Understandable. I am just poor and think 1080p is enough for me, since it took long enough for media to embrace that, not to speak of 4k and 8k.

Man do I laugh internally and externally at the 8k push. Literally no content for next decade.

[Anonymous No.8257126]

>>8257115
problem with 1440p and 4k over 2k is that the monitors are huge which end up too big. Also at least the 4k ones are laggier and blurrier so you need 1440p or smaller like 2k which have better latency

[Anonymous No.8257136]

>>8256881
Just tried that preset and it's pretty nice. Changes the colors too much though and I don't feel like messing with that shit.

[Anonymous No.8257138]

>>8257112
It doesn't matter. CRT looks like absolute dog shit outdated technology. Literally all retro games look better without it.

[Anonymous No.8257145]

>>8257126
Just a small question anon.
What is the resolution of 2k?
Because unless you were on different assumption, 2k in consumer screens is 1920x1080 and in movie mastering 2048x1080 same as 4k is 3840x2160 in consumer screens and 4096x2160 in movie mastering.

[Anonymous No.8257146]

>>8257115
1080p is fine, but if you have a 55" then you'll want 4K to watch non animated stuff and to play PC games. Even if your set is smaller, it will benefit from it. For a CRT 1080p is fine, especially for my widescreen 28".
8K is already available and does provide a better picture quality, but I can't think of any company that provides such content aside from YouTube.

[Anonymous No.8257148]

>>8256960
Do these look like pixels to you, or a light funneling apparatus?

[Anonymous No.8257169]

>>8257136
The colors are supposed to look different. You're using a 32-color LUT on a 64-color emulator.

[Anonymous No.8257196]

>>8257145
For consumer, 1920x1080 (other 2k resolutions are not common on consumer screens). The smaller largely available 1440p screens are larger than smaller or medium 2k screens, and 1440p is less compatible with general media if you watch it too, so it's a bit of an awkward resolution.

[Anonymous No.8257210]

>>8257196
Yeah. I just at some point went "wait a minute" when people kept calling 1440p 2K and realized that 2K is actually just 1080p (PS4 pro calls 1080p 2K in one screen - or rather, refers to 1080p content as 2K) which got me looking and realizing that the K's are being mixed up for marketing shenanigans and people who think they have a 2K monitor because they were sold one, actually have 2.5K monitors and also actually not, and we just need to stop using the retarded fucking K's for consumer TV's and monitors but as much as Blast Processing for the 90's, the K's are here to stay.


On the note. yeah, 1440p is sadly "just a computer or computer gaming resolution" - cannot even make consoles output their 1440p content in native 1440p. Sad because a lot of people like it, but it is for sure not ideal media consumption resolution.

[Anonymous No.8257215]

>>8253837
Hint of Charlie Sheen

[Anonymous No.8257246]

>>8252968
>its almost 2022 and people still want CRT shaders

[Anonymous No.8257362]

>>8257246
as long as people play games meant for CRT's, yes.
If third strike and super turbo stop being popular with Melee and other old shit, then CRT shaders can die too.

[Anonymous No.8257391]

>>8257040
Anon, I have had similar experiences to yours. Can you get tested for Epilepsy? As you read this, don't worry too much. You've evidently managed to get by so far, so even IF you get diagnosed with it, it will be mild. I would still recommend that you keep it in check. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.8257409]

>>8257391
Thanks for the tip anon.
Like I said, I have had a feeling it might be sign of "some brain problem that is not just ADHD" but have had no pointers or nothing to what.

VERY mild epilepsy might be it but yeah, gotta get tested and stuff. Thanks for the tip for sure.

[Anonymous No.8257419]

>>8257169
I like the rest of the way the shader looks though. Is there another royale version without the color change or a way to turn it off?

[Anonymous No.8257425]

>>8257419
Just replace the LUT with a 64 color one.

[Anonymous No.8257428]

>>8257210
i and p nomenclature need to be dropped, they have no relevance with digital display technologies of today

[Anonymous No.8257440]

>>8257210
>I just at some point went "wait a minute" when people kept calling 1440p 2K and realized that 2K is actually just 1080p
4K is 2160p, double the size of 1080p. People are using "4K" because they're referring to the width rather than the height. They round 3840p to "4000p" and "2K" because they round 1920p to "2000p".
The "K" acronym is a misnomer because it's not referring to the number of vertical lines. 1440p, however, is perfectly divisible by 240p, which is the resolution most retro games you care about were shown in, hence why it works well for CRT shaders.

[Anonymous No.8257487]

>>8257428
No but content still exist. But yeah, everything is now progressive scan including content so it is something that will make us look really old really soon.

>>8257440
Well, to be exact, it is what I said. 2K and 4K etc come from Movie industry where it refers to horizontal resolution, instead of vertical, as it can be 2048x900 for the extreme movie aspect ratio, etc, but largest size for it is 2048x1080p, and in homes TV that can display this best would be 1920x1080p - technically home version of 2K. But none of this mattered before 2160p TV's started getting marketed with 4K and messed everything up. For short while 1080p TV's were marketed as 2K as were 1440p monitors which makes no sense.

I had people who I told this for LONG AND HARD fight me on the fact that they did not in fact have 2K but 2.5K monitors and were just absolutely insistent that they have 2K monitors and movie industry has nothing to do with the 2K and 4K monikers. Fucking consumerist sheep.

And people understand that it is horizontal lines but fuck is marketing propaganda stronger than basic math.
"What is 4 divided by 2?" "What is 2160 divided by 2?" "So, what would 2K actually be?" "1440p of course"


But yeah, 1440p is cool for gaming. Even modern, you get boost to resolution without tanking your framerate and forcing you into GPU scalping program. This is why I think pushing 8K this early is a memetic move that shows that all industries are in some bubble desperate to make money continuously or are just doing shit before thinking should they first.

[Anonymous No.8257495]

>>8257391
I'm the guy he was replying to and I'm glad you posted this; I didn't feel confident enough that it was epilepsy to suggest he get tested for it.

>>8257409
Glad someone could share that with you! My initial suspicion was some sort of dietary deficiency which is why I asked if it happens when you stand. I've had a similar problem but it isn't triggered by light, it's due to an iron deficiency

[Anonymous No.8257497]

>>8257495
I was usually sitting, not standing.

[Anonymous No.8257504]

Why is no one posting setups

[Anonymous No.8257506]

>>8254214
moh 1, good stuff

[Anonymous No.8257561]

>>8257246
Nah, we want someone to manufacture CRTs again.

[Anonymous No.8257601]

>>8257561
At least two companies in the USA, as well as Samsung, still makes CRTs.

[Anonymous No.8257616]

>>8253849
Definitely not!

[Anonymous No.8257624]

>>8257409
Hey no prob. Glad to help you!

[Anonymous No.8257693]

>>8253456
Spotted the zoom zoom.

[Anonymous No.8257697]

>>8257561
I wish SEDs weren't left to die. Canon laid it to rest in 2010 as it was too expensive to be made commercial at the time as LCD price but they basically solved the issues with flatscreens back before 2010 (being similar to CRTs but in a thin, flat form factor), but for astronomical price.

[Anonymous No.8257769]

>>8257440
4K is 4x the size of 1080p

[Anonymous No.8257878]

>>8253456
You literally can't even read the right sign

[Anonymous No.8257881]

>>8253772
most crts hid that geometry distortion with terrible overscan

[Anonymous No.8257884]

>>8257769
Which is 2k. if 1080p is 2K then 4K should be 8K.
If 2K is 1440p then why isn't 1440p two times 1080p.
If we also forget that HD is 720p and "full HD" is 1080p.

I mean it would make sense because 1440p is Double of both dimensions of 720p but it also by same logic is quadruple of 720p so with this logic... There is no logic.

If 4K = 4x 1080p
2K = 1440p
2K != 4x 720p
2K = 4x 1080p

This shit is brainlets eating marketing. We never even spoke about resolutions as the whole but either vertical or horizontal resolution. the 2K and 4K coming from movie industry's horizontal resolution since vertical resolution changes from movie to movie and consumer displays have been marked with vertical resolution or resolution estimates of sort because CRT technology when this started had no horizontal resolution.

2K = 1080p (2048x1080)
4K = 2160p (4096x2160)
The math adds up.
2 times 2 is 4
2 times 1080 is 2160
2 times 2048 is 4096
2 times 1920 is 3840


It is even more retarded because we could just call it UHD or UltraHD. HD, FullHD, UltraHD (maybe UltraHD+ or UltraHDR with HDR)

But no we need to suddenly pull off movie industry markers that nobody but people who edit and finalize movies with movie theatres and movie theatre equipment need to think about, slap it into consumer products, and all of sudden everyone forgets how mathematics work.
That was a joke, most of you all have no idea how basic maths.

[Anonymous No.8257893]

>>8257769
It's not. Divide 2160 by 2.

[Anonymous No.8257906]

>>8252979
>It's more shocking that people still pretend this matters at all.

It's nothing but dumb zoomers, literally only DUMB FUCKING RETARDED ZOOMERS use scanlines filters

[Anonymous No.8257918]

>>8257906
Why the fuck would people who never even seen a CRT in their life want to make stuff look like CRT output?

Zoomers are far more likely to use 8:7 aspect ratio with NES and SNES since it is pixel perfect and so awesomely crisp what you mean the moon is not right in Chrono Trigger the fuck's a Chrono and why is he trying to Trigger me oy vey.

[Anonymous No.8257923]

>>8257906
Wrong. Zoomers do things like pic related because they don't have any memories of playing on CRTs and thus don't have any desire to see if modern technology can imitate them.

[Anonymous No.8257935]

>>8257923
>It's still in 4:3 instead of 8:7

[Anonymous No.8257948]

>>8257935
They also play on widescreen on their phones but I can't bother to look for that trash.

[Anonymous No.8257963]

>>8255323
I remember having sleep overs and staying awake long enough to hear the american anthem and then static.
Just because im an old fuck doesnt mean this kid shouldnt seek out crts to play retros

[Anonymous No.8258004]

>>8257963
Yeah. Appreciating old technology so you have better appreciation for modern technology, especially when it is largely compromise based is not a bad thing at all.

If people who out of interest use and study CRT's and end up becoming engineers that might bring back stuff we lost like actual zero input lag etc. then yeah.

Think that there is already adults who probably do not remember that phones used to stay on for the whole week with one charge, even if you were an absolute texting maniac, and we could actually call without Wifi or 4G connection.

Like am I gonna shit on some dude who at 18 bought a sixties, seventies or eighties IBM main frame just for fun and studying how it worked and how to develop and run things on it? No that is fucking rad.

[Anonymous No.8258021]

>>8253829
I used to play on a very small crt that was curved... 2 decades ago. Yes, it was very cheap and the image quality was shit. Sometimes I had to punch the back to make it work.

[Anonymous No.8258048]

>>8257893
based retard

[Anonymous No.8258056]

>>8258048
Dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.8258112]

>>8257918
>Why the fuck would people who never even seen a CRT in their life want to make stuff look like CRT output?
Because zoomies, like you, are fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.8258121]

>>8257893
Anon a resolution isn’t solely vertical

[Anonymous No.8258127]

>>8257884
There is no math here, these are just advertising monikers
2160p doesn’t have the same ring as 1080p which they tried to call full hd but 1080p stuck
As does 4K

[Anonymous No.8258138]

>>8258121
2K refers to width, but it's still double the size, not four times the size, but the height is consistent.

[Anonymous No.8258139]

>>8258121
Anon, resolution is not solely vertical either, which 4000 refers to. 4K is just "four kilos" but that is what dumb ameniggers miss about numbers even if they play WoW still.

BOTH dimensions are half of UHD in FHD, 1080x2 is 2160 and 1920x2 is 3840. Both. Are. Double.

If your fucking logic would go around then 1080p would be 2Mil and 4K should be 8Mil but for some reason those are what we do not call them.

[Anonymous No.8258196]

>>8258138
>>8258139
Anon
I want you to take an a4 piece of paper and then put another one next to it

[Anonymous No.8258202]

>>8258196
now watch it, the last thing we need here is for entire sheet of paper saturn collection guy to become TWO sheets of paper saturn collection guy

[Anonymous No.8258226]

>>8258196
and now put one on top of both.
Both dimensions, are doubled.
Amazing right?

Like said you have to answer first why 1080p is not 2mil and why 2160 is not known as 8mil for your fucking "quad damage" argument to be anything but a monkey not understanding words and numbers right.

[Anonymous No.8258232]

I don't know, I feel like they're pretty damn good these days

[Anonymous No.8258235]

>>8258226
Last time I checked dude
2x2 was 4, don’t worry, you’ll figure it out eventually

[Anonymous No.8258240]

>>8258232

[Anonymous No.8258247]

>>8258240

[Anonymous No.8258248]

>>8258235
You, who failed 3rd grade math it seems, should not be teaching others about mathemathics.

[Anonymous No.8258251]

>>8258240
>>8258247
Tell me your secrets

[Anonymous No.8258257]

>>8258232
>>8258240
>>8258247
that's fucking ugly and doesn't look like a real tv at all

[Anonymous No.8258258]

>>8258226
>>8258196
We're discussing lines of pixels, not physical dimensions.
Fucking smartphones can be 1080p these days, yet they're much smaller than normal computer monitors. There are 4K monitors the size of 1080p ones.
You dumb fucking nigger.

[Anonymous No.8258265]

>>8258251
HSM mega bezel

[Anonymous No.8258290]

>>8258232
what shader

[Anonymous No.8258302]

Why do zoomers feel the need to assert their correctness on things they don't know a thing about and have zero experience with? And then they go through absolute peak mental gymnastics when they're BTFO so they can be like "n-NO TECHNICHALLY I WAS CORRECT BECAUSE-"
Just stop. It's over. Your generation is fucked and retarded. There's no reason to telegraph that to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.8258316]

>>8257601
Source?

[Anonymous No.8258335]

>>8258226
4K is four times the total area, not four times the height/width dimensions, you retard. Four times 1920x1080 equals 7680x4320, which is 8K.

[Anonymous No.8258371]

>>8258258
I want you to do a quick pixel count my man
1920x1080 is?
3840x2160 is?
Come back to me when you figure out the difference in pixel numbers

[Anonymous No.8258394]

>>8258302
I could understand if it was about something with some degree of nuance or subjectivity, but this is just multiplication. Bleak

[Anonymous No.8258430]

>>8258371
Lines of pixels, dumbass.
3840 divided by 1920 is?
2160 divided by 1080 is?
Resolution dimensions differ, and the term 4K refers to any resolution with a horizontal pixel count of around 4000 pixels in one line, not because it's a 1080p resolution times four. Do you not know the difference between pixels in one line and the total?
4096x1716 is a 4K resolution. Is that four times 1080p to you too, shortbus?

[Anonymous No.8258458]

>>8258430
>Lines of pixels
we were talking about the resolution
now your changing the format to say it's double the vertical resolution and that's all that matters?

[Anonymous No.8258479]

>>8258458
>we were talking about the resolution
Resolution means counting the lines of pixels, not the area. We measure 1920 lines per 1080 lines, not 2073600 pixels.
Shut the fuck up and save the few teeth you have left before you run out.

[Anonymous No.8258492]

>>8258479
well I am glad I can have a 2160p image span across the earth 3 times and it's still the same resolution, thanks anon for clearing that up

[Anonymous No.8258503]

>>8257138
False

[Anonymous No.8258506]

>>8257138

[Anonymous No.8258509]

>>8257893
American education, everybody

[Anonymous No.8258510]

>>8258492
You can do that too, because the resolution is independent of how large a monitor you can make. As I said, you can have 1080p screens the size of smartphones, and you can have 4k TVs the size of a wall, because we're discussing the number of lines, not multiplying them.
Dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.8258514]

>>8257906
>>8257918
>>8257923
Zoomers had CRT's into middle school

[Anonymous No.8258517]

>>8257425
Good looks, just did this and I think this is gonna be my go to shader.

[Anonymous No.8258536]

>>8258510
what?
you can't be this dumb can you
a pixel is what shape?

[Anonymous No.8258537]

>>8256860
That's a slot mask, and yes there's tons of crt shaders that emulate those

by the way you'd still see spaces between scanlines on TV's using slotmasks. It's entirely dependent on the TVL count of the CRT - that's what baffles me about these kinds of threads, you get tons of people pointing at a shader saying "that looks nothing like a CRT" when just about every CRT had a completely different look in terms of mask, curvature, TVL count etc. There's not one universal, specific CRT "look"

[Anonymous No.8258538]

>>8258537
That's what happens when you ask the average retard to comment on shit he only has his own anecdotal experience to draw upon.

[Anonymous No.8258552]

>>8258536
Pixels can be made larger or smaller, you retard. How do you fucking think they managed to make smaller screens with more of them over time?

[Anonymous No.8258556]

>>8258538
To be fair he's somewhat right in that a lot of TV's with low TVL counts had imperceptible spaces between scanlines, especially with blooming on lighter colors. On low TVL sets, a 240p white image would probably look completely white, where as you might see some noticeable spaces between darker colors

[Anonymous No.8258560]

>>8258552
>Pixels can be made larger or smaller
no shit, because they change resolution, the size of the screen keeps the same pixel display
have you heard of pixel density before?

[Anonymous No.8258564]

>>8258560
>no shit, because they change resolution
???

anon, are you saying a 27" 1080p display and a 65" 1080p display have the same sized pixels?

[Anonymous No.8258568]

>>8258556
The point is that the average retard who may have owned only such TVs growing up takes that as THIS IS WHAT A CRT LOOKS LIKE FAGGOTS, whereas, like you state, there are many kinds of CRTs, small and big, low and high TVL, slot masks and aperture grilles, well or badly focused, etc., all attributes that influence how the CRT will handle 240p scanlines, and whether they are starkly visible, not at all visible, and everything in between.

[Anonymous No.8258574]

>>8258560
Apparently you didn't because that's not what we're discussing in the first place.

[Anonymous No.8258582]

>>8258564
No, I am saying they are the same resolution
>>8258574
we are discussing resolution
you said 4K resolution is double the resolution
I said it's quadruple
you then said horizontal resolution does not count towards resolution
and now we are here

[Anonymous No.8258620]

>>8258582
>you said 4K resolution is double the resolution
You said 4K was four times 1080p, which is false. 4K is any resolution whose width is close to 4000 lines of pixels.
I said here >>8257440 that 2160p is a 4K resolution, and here >>8257893 that 3840x2160 has double the dimensions of 1920x1080.
>you then said horizontal resolution does not count towards resolution
I did not. I said multiplying the dimensions to get the total amount pixels is not what we're talking about.
Keep being retarded though.

[Anonymous No.8258643]

>>8258620
I think you need to learn what resolution means
and then you need to learn what pixel count is

[Anonymous No.8258652]

>>8258643
>The display resolution or display modes of a digital television, computer monitor or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed
>The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920×1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels

[Anonymous No.8258690]

>>8256608
>>8256764
>>8256827
>>8256860
>>8256932
>>8256950
>>8256951
>>8256960
>>8256994
>>8257004
>>8257046
>>8257148
>>8257884
>>8257893
>>8258196
>>8258226
>>8258235
>>8258258
>>8258536
>>8258582
>>8258620
Have any of you cunts ever paid income tax

[Anonymous No.8258712]

>>8258652
congratulations, you've just figured out that 4K is four time the resolution of 1080p

[Anonymous No.8258721]

>>8258712
I already told you that's wrong, you goddamn mongrel.

[Anonymous No.8258738]

>>8258721
>The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920×1080)
>the maximum number of pixels in each dimension
>in each dimension

[Anonymous No.8258752]

>>8258738
In each dimension. When you multiply them you're talking about area. Total number of pixels.
Centimeters are not the same as centimeters squared. The number of lines on width and height is not the same as the total amount of pixels. NO ONE measures resolutions in total pixels.
Even fucking wikipedia will tell you this and you insist on being retarded.

[Anonymous No.8258753]

>>8258712
>>8258721
1920×1080=2,073,600
3840×2160=8,294,400

8,294,400÷2,073,600=4

Debunk?

[Anonymous No.8258760]

>>8258752
>The number of lines on width and height is not the same as the total amount of pixels
fucking what?
a 65" tv that is 4K has the same resolution as a 32" monitor that is 4K
why the hell are you bringing in centimetres

[Anonymous No.8258765]

>>8258760
>same resolution
same pixel count*

[Anonymous No.8258769]

>>8258690
I would also like to know the answer to this question.

[Anonymous No.8258778]

>>8255228
Reshade Hooks on any emulator AS LONG as it supports its DLL's or vulkan
DX10+ is better because you can even shove MXAO and fucking Raytracing for shits and giggles.


Also you can combine shaders for your liking with CRT shaders

[Anonymous No.8258784]

>>8258778

[Anonymous No.8258785]

>>8258760
>why the hell are you bringing in centimetres
I'm giving you a secondary example of two different types of measurement, dumbass. Clearly you're too dumb to understand what a line of pixels is, maybe you'd get a hint, but I guess you're short a chromosome or three.
>>8258753
Now compare 1920x1080 to all of the following 4K resolutions:
>3840x2880
>3840x2304
>3840x2076
>3840x1920
>3840x1634
>3840x1620
>3840x1607
>3840x1574
Find that 4 again, go on.

[Anonymous No.8258790]

>>8258785
Literally who is talking about 3840×1634
Some science fiction fantasy resolution that is a different aspect ratio to the control group

[Anonymous No.8258804]

>>8258785
>but I guess you're short a chromosome or three
dunno about that but clearly you have an added one

[Anonymous No.8258812]

>>8258790
>Literally who is talking about 3840×1634
We are talking about the fucking definition of 4K, which stands for the amount of lines of pixels in the WIDTH of a resolution being close to 4000.
This retard >>8257769 said 4K is 4x the size of 1080p (the height), which is fucking wrong. The resolution is only doubled.

[Anonymous No.8258814]

>>8258778
oh dang I didn't know I could force raytracing with reshade. that's cool

[Anonymous No.8258816]

>>8258812
Haha dude the working aspect ratio for everybody is 16:9, so 4K is 4x 1080p

[Anonymous No.8258842]

>>8258816
>the working aspect ratio for everybody is 16:9
So 4096 x 2304 is 4 times 1080p?
4K in general is a meme but people are also buying 4096x2160 screens (256∶135), so no.

[Anonymous No.8258848]

>>8258842
That's 4.55111111111 times 1080p

[Anonymous No.8258849]

>>8258814
yes, the RTX shader isn't hard to find though its literally a beta build of the stuff at patreon, also its Marty McFly developing it as he did with MXAO.

[Anonymous No.8258861]

>>8258848
Well done. Are 4.55 and 4.00 the same number? No.
Are both of their widths close to 4000? Yes, because that's what makes them 4K.

[Anonymous No.8258870]

>>8258861
Find me 4K content made for a width of 4096 pixels
Never heard of a display with that resolution either

[Anonymous No.8258890]

>>8258870
he's a dumbass, I've stopped responding to him because I felt like every post was dumber than the last

[Anonymous No.8258895]

>>8258784
Is that interlacing artifacts I see there? Why not turn that off?

[Anonymous No.8258896]

>>8258870
Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.8258898]

>>8258896
Fuck off pseud

[Anonymous No.8258903]

>>8258890
I bet you think 240p CRTs had pixels.
See >>8258056

[Anonymous No.8258906]

>>8258903
>240p CRTs
never happened

[Anonymous No.8258923]

>>8258895
because since D2DX has unlocked fps and Reshade royale has interlace tweaks, they look smooth and nice with it, it was a experiment that went right.

[Anonymous No.8258927]

>>8258923
It introduces ghosting though doesn't it

[Anonymous No.8259021]

>>8258290
mega bezel

[Anonymous No.8259025]

>>8258503
They hate us because they ain't us.

[Anonymous No.8259120]

>>8253806
You say "they" like you only know about shitty ones and think they're universal, just like OP. Shaders can look like anything including a CRT, they need to be configured correctly and shaders capable of it have existed for a while now.

/vr/ is unsurprisingly full of people who haven't learned a new thing in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.8259153]

It's almost 2022 and no sane person gives a shit.
>BAWW PIXELS I NEED MY SMUDGED OUT SHIT THAT LOOKS LIKE OLD EYE CANCER TVS

[Anonymous No.8259156]

>>8257601
Did you hit your head, or something?

[Anonymous No.8259160]

>>8259156
We've covered this topic extensively many times. Samsung as well as at least two US companies are currently manufacturing new CRTs.

[Anonymous No.8259171]

>>8259153
idiot

[Anonymous No.8259185]

>>8259156
he's right, there are still some being made, mainly for military and medical reasons
but don't expect anything consumer grade from that
there is also dotronix sets, which is the price you'll be expected to pay for newer sets if they ever came back in limited supply

[Anonymous No.8259191]

>>8259156
Yes, on your mom's headboard. While I was fucking her.

[Anonymous No.8259195]

>>8259185
>mainly for military and medical reasons
>but don't expect anything consumer grade from that
Well, shit, that's the same as saying they don't make them anymore.

[Anonymous No.8259196]

>>8259185
It's not that bad really, something like $2k for a 27" 500+ line TV.

[Anonymous No.8259204]

>>8259195
dotronics makes normal TVs, but they're not like $400, they cost as much as they ever did if you consider inflation

[Anonymous No.8259206]

>>8259196
closer to 3K but honestly you're better off getting a PVM if you're spending that amount of money for new old stock

[Anonymous No.8259215]

>>8259206
PVMs are made for 1" broadcast inputs, the beam width is too narrow unless you really tear into the thing and adjust it. Games weren't made at the higher line counts which PVMs are made to support.

[Anonymous No.8259219]

>>8259215
I know what they're for, I'm just saying if you wanna pay that kinda money, it's better to get something unique

[Anonymous No.8259227]

>>8254724
Nah,I get it. It's part of wanting to play the way you remember it on period correct hardware.
You can see this in TV show special effects back in the day. Watch Jurassic Park, star wars, or Independence Day on a crt. That shit looks real. LCD, and the quality of the 30mm shows and the real life illusion is lost.

[Anonymous No.8259262]

>>8259219
>if you wanna pay that kinda money, it's better to get something unique
i'd rather get something sold by a US company which has a US warranty

[Anonymous No.8259448]

>>8257487
4k isn't a movie industry term, it's TV marketing. First, we had "HD", which was 720p. Then we had "FHD", which was 1080p, now, we have "UHD" and "4k", which are both 2160p.

2k has never really been a thing, and anyone who isn't retarded knows it's 1080p anyway. 1440p is a meme computer resolution that's been around for years, it's inherently worthless and the modern equivalent of 900p. Going from 2000x1000 to 2500x1500 is barely even an increase, while going from 2000x1000 to 4000x2000 is literally 4x the size. I can't imagine using anything under 4k for computing now I've got one, my old 24" 1080p screens look embarrassingly small by comparison.

>>8257884
>Which is 2k. if 1080p is 2K then 4K should be 8K.
1920 is 2k, 3840 is 4k. 4k is 2 times bigger than 2k. When you double both horizontal and vertical pixel counts, you get an image that's 4 times bigger, that's how areas work. I'm very sorry that math is difficult for you.

4k works as a term because it's as easy to say as 1080p or HD were. Everybody knows what you mean, the only point it got murky is when we had "HD" and "full HD" because manufacturers wanted to sell garbage. It's the same story with 4k, funnily enough. 95% of 4k displays sold have no reason to exist. 27" displays are worthless, while anything sub 80" is garbage for a living room. Right now, the only acceptable 4k displays are ~40" desktop monitors, which are extremely rare.

[Anonymous No.8259452]

I feel like maybe it's because these games look like shit to begin with. A good pixel game doesn't need a CRT tv to look good, half of the NeoGeo library looks great emulated on a 4k monitor but also look great on a CRT because the game looks great. FF7 looks like shit no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous No.8259456]

>>8259452
Ff7 is charming

[Anonymous No.8259458]

>>8259456
I love the game, and it's great to play. Doesn't change the fact it looks like shit. Charming does not mean good.

[Anonymous No.8259460]

>>8259448
DCI which is digital cinema industry has been using 4K and 2K as official terms since 2005 and they have been used widely in that industry even before they were officially put into the place.

The TV marketers did not pull out "3800=4000" out of their ass it comes straight from DCI's 4K specification which is double of both.

and 2K has been a thing in that industry, for longer. The funny thing is that most modern movies are mastered in 2K instead of 4K because of all the digital effects are easier and less time consuming to process in 2K rather than 4K which is why 4K blu rays of old film movies are actually 4K while new movies are upscaled to 4K.

and you can google "2K" TV and get hits, marketers tried it as much with 1080p TV's right as they started to using 4K.

I have no idea where people pulled "it is 4K because it is 4x 1080p" which has no sense because it is 4K not 4x and we never talk about resolution as full field (like said; that would be 2mil and 8mil for rough count of total pixels in 1080p and 2160p respectively) - We always had height based classification in consumer products because of CRT's.

The funniest shit is you all acting like some grand brain wizards when you yourselves cannot just google once or twice to learn are you actually correct or not.
You're not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Cannot believe this site has gone so downhill that one has to link fucking wikishedia to you monkeys. This is why this site remains shit. Bunch of monkeys larping as intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.8259478]

>>8259458
Pussy is neither good looking not charming but you know what I still fuck it

[Anonymous No.8259482]

>>8259478
>pussy
>not ass
and I thought I was the one with shit taste

[Anonymous No.8259493]

>>8259482
Yeah you literally are when you bowel prowler

[Anonymous No.8259496]

>>8259493
Thanks for getting the joke

[Anonymous No.8259503]

>>8259460
>CRT
>having a resolution
>line height
This is how I know you are a troll

[Anonymous No.8259528]

>>8253806
>crt shaders end up making the image too dark.

that's how it is supposed to be. There's a color shift as well but this is completely intended.

[Anonymous No.8259530]

CRT is nice.
Shaders are decent option too if you don't want hassle.
I'll never understand who hurt people enough to bitch about either.

[Anonymous No.8259536]

I don't really enjoy emulation for the same reason I don't like heavily moddable games: I'm paralyzed by the sheer variety, and by and large I'm just too impatient to wanna deal with fiddling in the settings menus. Plus I already have most consoles I care about, all hacked and modded and hooked up with high-quality RGB/component cables.
And that's great for 240p content which I can just play on my BVM, but for 480i content and higher (arguably any/all games released up until the end of that wonky SD>HD transitional period where they started making text too teensy for CRTs; mid-to-late 2000s I'd say, Dead Rising and Madworld leap immediately to mind) and so I feel like I need to invest in a quality scaler.

That said, I hate pure integer scales and have thought for years that the OSSC's output looked like complete dogshit. Do any of them support advanced scaling algorithms yet?
I want something that can take a 480i PS2 and deinterlace it, then pump out a signal that can make it look convincingly like a CRT on my 4K OLED. Ideally something that can emulate a rounded screen and the way bright colours radiate slightly into the gaps between scanlines- pic related, I don't know if there's a term for this phenomenon but I'm referring specifically to the bloom you can see especially on the pixels forming the middle of the menu borders that makes it look contiguous despite the horizontally oriented scanline which present with gaps on less-bright colours.

[Anonymous No.8259539]

>>8254150
>CRT-Guest or CRT-Easymode first.

No just go for royale, remember there's an intel version for a reason.

[Anonymous No.8259553]

>>8256904
>I spent my whole childhood listening to that 15.625kHz

wow, I didn't even notice that sound had gone away, peace on earth.

[Anonymous No.8259581]

>>8256904
I'm pretty sure that once sound starts coming from the speakers the high pitched sound stops, or is muffled, so I'm not sure why it's a problem. I don't like really high nor low sounds either, but I don't mind it, probably because muh nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.8259802]

>>8258503
>>8258506
>tfw every crt filter in indie games just adds shitty scanlines instead of the actual good shit

[Anonymous No.8259919]

>Smear it
But Mr. Bogdano-
>Smear. It.

https://forums.libretro.com/t/crt-royale-xm29plus-request/31084

[Anonymous No.8259937]

>>8259802
this is why this thread is getting raided by retards like >8259153 they will never accept that old vidya is better than their indie shit that is even an insult to atari graphics

[Anonymous No.8260320]

>>8259919
kino filter

[Anonymous No.8260347]

I have five of these so no need to deal with fake crap shaders

[Anonymous No.8260363]

>>8260347
Nice. Why five of them though

[Anonymous No.8260428]

>>8254214
What is it?

[Anonymous No.8260492]

>>8260347
there is no point in a CRT without composite

[Anonymous No.8260496]

>>8260363
because he's fucking hoarder scum, what do you expect. he probably has 20 import saturns too.

[Anonymous No.8260531]

>>8260496
flippers will never contribute to society, they are even worse than welfare bludgers. They've never made anything, they've bought something somebody else made from somebody else who already bought it, and are selling it again. These are not artists. These are not engineers. These are not chefs. These are not leaders. Every single one of them will die alone

[Anonymous No.8260563]

>>8252976
this, really hate how nobody seems to know that the ""pixel smoothing"" is mostly done by the shitty video signals (composite, svideo) rather than the display itself

[Anonymous No.8260591]

>>8260563
Not entirely true. Even with RGB it's just a fundamental properly of CRTs that lit-up phosphors are NOT pixels and there aren't squares with 90 degree angles, instead the "pixels" are more rounded and shaped differently depending on things like the luminosity

[Anonymous No.8260612]

>>8260320
I wish I could add something to change the scaling because I can't make it work with overlays.

[Anonymous No.8260643]

>>8260591
you are correct, however most of the "cool crt tricks" norms jerk off to are video signal quirks

[Anonymous No.8260646]

>>8260531
Very true. Couldn't be me

[Anonymous No.8260662]

>>8257138
Ass blasted like a little bitch by >>8258503
seethe more

[Anonymous No.8261171]

[Anonymous No.8261425]

>>8252969
No shit.

>>8253925
Your friend is a fag.

[Anonymous No.8261429]

>>8252969
It looks...less shitty?

[Anonymous No.8261640]

>>8252968

[Anonymous No.8261698]

>>8260563
It's both the display and the signal, composite looks like shit on LCD for a reason

[Anonymous No.8261997]

>>8252968
Do you think 20 years from now when some new display tech emerges there will be LCD shaders to make 2010-2020 games look "like the devs intended"?

[Anonymous No.8262013]

>chasing the dragon

[Anonymous No.8262017]

>>8261997
I think all content looks better at native resolution

[Anonymous No.8262060]

>>8261997
LCD shaders exist already, anon

[Anonymous No.8262071]

>>8262060
Those are simulating TFT panels tho, not the good shit we have now

[Anonymous No.8262110]

Boom Boom here, I think if a game can't look good past 50 year old hardware, it's not a good game
Cope. Timeless games are timeless for a reason. If the graphix matter so much, make them timeless.

[Anonymous No.8262137]

>>8262110
That's retarded, I can just as easily say modern games truly don't have good graphics if I force them through an analogue 480i on a CRT

[Anonymous No.8262138]

>>8262137
>Implying a HD game on a CRT is going to look like shit compared to a 1980s game on a CRT

[Anonymous No.8262142]

>>8262138
It will have artistic sacrifices whereas the old game will not. You're seriously retarded dude, your whole argument is that just about any game is shit because it doesn't play nicely on a touch screen

[Anonymous No.8262210]

>>8262138
at 480i sure
computer monitors hit higher than 1080 resolutions back in the day

[Anonymous No.8262284]

>>8262071
well then there won't be

[Anonymous No.8262296]

>>8258004
I hope they can revive the SED

[Anonymous No.8262483]

>>8262296
CRTs, SED, FED; none of it's coming back due to the required technical skill, machinery, cost, materials/bulk and environmental effects.
Hell, South Korea's whole GDP is basically thanks to Samsung (and its suppliers) and they will literally go to war before they'll let you muscle in on their racket with a competing tech. There's talk that the company president died, but they've suppressed it because the country's wealth tax/inheritance laws would put SK into the kind of recession that'd make the 2008 financial crisis look like a rounding error.

Anyway when we have 8k microLED screens we wont actually need CRTs anymore, because from that point a basic consumer model will start to offer such detail and fidelity that sufficiently good shaders could emulate the look of old TVs with asymptotic verisimilitude.

[Anonymous No.8262520]

>>8262483
what's asymptotic verisimilitude

[Anonymous No.8262853]

>Played OoT as a kid on a CRT TV
>Started emulating when I was 14, noticed it sort of looked like shit but could change graphic settings so who cares
>13 years later, buy a physical copy again, notice how much nicer it looks on a CRT

You fuckers weren't kidding when you say they're better for retro shit, to hell with messing with shaders.

[Anonymous No.8262976]

>>8262520
Pretentious way of saying "accurate."

[Anonymous No.8263234]

>>8262853
well shaders are good option for those who can't be bothered to actually get the hardware, but they always will be either too perfect or not as good.

[Anonymous No.8263337]

>>8255323
Imagine gatekeeping old TVs this hard. Sorry you can't get laid and despite your incredibly small penis you still can't fuck the S-Video port on your trinitron faggot

[Anonymous No.8263363]

>>8263337
LOL
i need to screenshot this for whenever i sight another faggot like >>8255323

[Anonymous No.8263438]

>>8253817
are you shitting mate?
>1994 japan launches a new crt flat screen
>1998 plasma TV are born to replace old CRT TV
>2001 LCD TV are born to replace the plasma TV that are plagued with problems
>2006 LED TV are born to mark the standard of HD television and analogue shutdown
>2008 LED TV with DVB included signaling the analogue shutdown.
you are thinking that way because america was obsolete by then in tech terms.
i still have my LCD monitor from 20 years ago.
SImple trick play a WII through a LED TV is a world of difference (looks better then xbox360 games)
I still don't know if you are shitting or just a guy from a third world country that only discovered interenet last year.

[Anonymous No.8263463]

>>8252970
That’s how it appeared in press screenshots though. Every gamepro and brady games strategy guide had pictures without scanlines

[Anonymous No.8263527]

>>8263438
>1998 plasma TV are born to replace old CRT TV
Plasma TVs were the industry standard for a whole 5 minutes until LED showed up to kick them out of the market.

[Anonymous No.8263551]

>>8263438
cunt nobody had a plasma until 2008 get the fuck out of here you posh cunt probably wank into a condom

[Anonymous No.8263795]

>>8263438
Plasma TVs never got mainstream. Most people went CRT -> LCD.

[Anonymous No.8263805]

>>8262483
I wish Canon weren't so fat and lazy with SED, though maybe the legal problems really put a plug on it. Basically all the mainstream current panel technologies are chasing after the wind in comparison, with dumb tricks to try and get some of the things back which were lost with CRT, when SED solved the problem 12 years ago, but they couldn't make it cheap enough to put into homes.

[Anonymous No.8263903]

>>8259536
modding and emulation should be goal-oriented
>I wish I could do/fix 'X', lets get a mod to do exactly that
>this game I want to play isn't available anywhere, or for insane prices, lets emulate it
it should be an solution to a specific problem

[Anonymous No.8264190]

Any good CRT filters for reshade? And where can I get them?

[Anonymous No.8264280]

>>8263438
LED tvs are LCD though

[Anonymous No.8264382]

>>8264190
CRT Royale has a port for Reshade.

[Anonymous No.8264397]

>>8264382
I need this, please tell me where

[Anonymous No.8264472]

>>8263805
TVs are a zero-profit game now, what'd be the point?

[Anonymous No.8264524]

>>8262520
"When something that's already "better than just 'good'" will have what it needs to continue refining itself towards perfection", was the nuance I was going for, but >>8262976 is also correct (if less articulate).

>>8263805
Look, I do too; I'd love to just be able to walk out and buy a big screen monitor that'd render old games correctly for maybe a couple grand. But cost-effectiveness directs consumer interest, and these things are products of scale: if you didn't have a shitty ~200 TVL CRT in every family living room, TV stations won't have dozens of 600 TVL BVMs for gamers to scoop up at cents on the dollar a decade or two later. So unless you find a way to travel between timelines, we're going to have to continue dealing with the damage LCDs have done.

[Anonymous No.8265038]

>>8264397
https://github.com/akgunter/crt-royale-reshade

[Anonymous No.8265203]

How good are my filters?

[Anonymous No.8265497]

>>8265203
What TV model is that?

[Anonymous No.8265765]

As others have said, supersampling with crt-royale is the only acceptable option on the market.

[Anonymous No.8265918]

>>8265765
I think the xm29 royale preset looks better than stock royale.
guest and lottes work surprisingly well too (turn off geometry though) if you play around with the settings a bit.
using all three, they look natural after a while and you stop noticing it's a shader and the games just look good instead of a jaggy mess when full screen.

[Anonymous No.8266216]

>>8265765
how does it look without scanlines?

[Anonymous No.8266262]

>>8258503
That's not CRT, that's just composite.

[Anonymous No.8266275]

>>8265497
Hi, sorry for the delay, the model is
TV global-home GH 14S, a chink copy/variant of the Toshiba 14AF45 14" I think, but I'm not sure.
Has RF Output, 2 composite, S-video & Component.
It's hard to find information about this model on internet thanks to it's origins

[Anonymous No.8266324]

>>8266262
it's composite AND crt, the effect is produced by the flaws of both. Here's Sonic 2 on an LCD through composite. The waterfall is more convincing than in the clean picture but still not as good as on a CRT

[Anonymous No.8266342]

>>8257923
This is literally how boomers play on emulators. Zoomers are actually more respectful to the source material.

[Anonymous No.8266394]

>>8266342
Remember it was the fuckin retarded seniors of this board who were falling for Xbox 720 hoaxes and L is real hoaxes and 121st star hoaxes, the list goes on. They lack critical thinking and their memory is the opposite of photographic. They couldn't tell a broken Project 64 screenshot circa 2005 from actual hardware

[Anonymous No.8266407]

>>8262483
>CRTs, SED, FED; none of it's coming back due to the required technical skill, machinery, cost, materials/bulk and environmental effects.

This is unfortunate fact. Economies of scale is how you get cheap CRTs. I have actual CRTs though, so I don't really give a shit. And it doesn't really bother me that much to play raw pixels on a flat panel. I've tried shaders, and while they are certainly getting better, they give me eyestrain more than a real CRT. Could be because I"m at 1440p not 4k and sitting too close though.

[Anonymous No.8266854]

>>8266275
Not bad at all for a 14" chink TV.

[Anonymous No.8267390]

>>8265918
>xm29 royale preset
Hmm, is that only available with software rendering? Not seeing it as an option for slang shaders.
>>8266216
No scanlines? For a CRT shader? Sacrilege.

[Anonymous No.8267421]

>>8254150
>1080p is the minimum for delivering at least somewhat-convincing CRT emulation
I heard some say that 1080p doesn't work well but I'm not convinced.

[Anonymous No.8267423]

>>8267390
it exists with slang too - in most places which bundle them all it's in the Presets folder, not the CRT folder. It is a customised Royale, but I think it looks a bit better than stock and saves me having to fiddle much, apart from changing the LUT (the preset loads a custom LUT which changes the colours a bit but you can undo this easily).

[Anonymous No.8267513]

>>8267423
Neat. Who knew calculator screens could look this good.

[Anonymous No.8267621]

>>8267513
that looks pretty great

[Anonymous No.8267647]

>>8267421
in my opinion it really doesn't look good, but to each their own.

[Anonymous No.8267664]

>>8267647
Fuck man, it's not fair.

[Anonymous No.8267691]

Does it still look good in the remasters?

[Anonymous No.8268878]

>>8253571
Negus O Shim?

[Anonymous No.8268983]

>>8255869
>>8255906
>glow effect on the lights on the left disappears with filter
>glow effect on the lamp on the right appears with the filter
looks fake to me

[Anonymous No.8269093]

>>8268983
It’s not, they are most likely a frame apart
If I remember the sprite sort of flickers

[Anonymous No.8269912]

Any good configs for guest venom?

[Anonymous No.8271303]

Is there a CRT shader that works properly in 4K with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling? I want to check out some shaders on my LG CX, but I only have a GTX 650 Ti and it doesn't output full RGB/4:4:4 at 4K, so I'm limited to 1080p.
All of the ones I've tried mess up the colors, making everything green for example. I guess that's to be expected, but maybe there is something out there that could work?
I use the Guest Venom at 1080p and I think it looks great, but it'd probably be better at 4K.
No, I won't get a new GPU right now.

[Anonymous No.8271831]

>>8257093
they hated him, for he told them the truth.

[Anonymous No.8271852]

>>8258302
>old man yells at cloud

[Anonymous No.8271854]

>>8258503
Just because it has a fake transparency effect doesn't mean it doesn't look like shit overall.

[Anonymous No.8271857]

>>8259452
This is actually true. It's like women who need makeup to look good.

[Anonymous No.8271860]

>>8261997
Probably.

[Anonymous No.8271863]

>>8266342
Why was this post deleted? Are boomers salty?

[Anonymous No.8271875]

[Anonymous No.8272145]

>>8255940
>Have CRT
>Have cartridge based console
>Have flashcart
>Have CD based console
>Have CD backups or an ODE
>Wii is 240p
You're just a poorfag

[Anonymous No.8272217]

>>8272145
idk a single poorfag with a wii u

[Anonymous No.8272385]

>>8265038
It needs a few tweaks and it can be blended with other reshade shaders for your liking
OpenGL is better for this while D3D11+ offers more tweak

[Anonymous No.8272641]

>>8252968

I really like the analog pack collection of CRT shaders.

[Anonymous No.8272658]

[Anonymous No.8272684]

>>8272385
>can be
More like has to

[Anonymous No.8272823]

>>8258690

Income tax is colected by the Corporation of the United States NOT the republic of the United States.

If you sign your name in ALL. CAPS. and periods then you cancel your membership to the Corporation of the Unites States and thus canot be compleled to pay income tax.

[Anonymous No.8273206]

>>8252968
it's CURRENT_YEAR and a flatscreen will never emanate like those juicy sweet cathode rays

[Anonymous No.8273446]

>>8272385
Is that easymode? What's with the mask

[Anonymous No.8273501]

>>8273206
4K OLEDs with BFI say you're wrong bub.

[Anonymous No.8273525]

>>8273446
its dosbox easymode with reshade tweaking a bit
https://github.com/tyrells/dosbox-svn-shaders

[Anonymous No.8273790]

>>8255323
You didn't have to kill him anon, jeez

[Anonymous No.8273803]

>>8255869
Sauce of the game?

[Anonymous No.8274689]

>>8273803

Legend of Mana

[Anonymous No.8274780]

>>8253456
look at the wood, man.
i guarantee you didn't look at this for more than a second.

[Anonymous No.8275462]

>>8274689
Damn I played that ages ago and I don't remember it looking like that.

[Anonymous No.8276848]

do any of these work with reshade