[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 1.67 MB, 1600x1200, 1375764894796[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
967950 No.967950 [Reply] [Original]

Yo dog, if you use CRT shaders, you gotta treat it like a real CRT. You put 5+ feet between you and the screen. Up close it looks bad. But the farther away you are, the blurring of the shader, and the distance combine to make the image look pretty good.

Most of you guys are pimply ass nerds, sitting like 1 foot away from your computer screens, complaining about all the scanlines. Shit, man. That's not how you're supposed to roll man. That's messed up yo.

And these things replicate Aperture grille CRTs, the high end consume and medical monitor shit. Not your ghetto ass shadowmasks.

http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/CRT_Shaders
http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/CRT_Geom

>> No.967978

>>967950
>And these things replicate Aperture grille CRTs, the high end consume and medical monitor shit. Not your ghetto ass shadowmasks.

We consumers know it because muh Trinitron and posterior clones

>> No.967992

One thing I haven't yet seen in commonly used CRT shaders that kind of bothers me is the bleeding you get from bright areas near dark areas. I can kind of replicate it with bloom filters/shaders added on top of CRT shaders, but it's not quite the same.

>> No.968000

>>967992
That happened because the contrast was set too high on your TV

>> No.968009

>>968000
That sounds probable. I think I generally set the contrast as high as possible on my TV when I was little, although at least I was smart enough to not set the saturation or whatever as high as possible. But still, I've found that a little bit of bleed like that looks nice in some games (maybe I've been conditioned by own poor decisions?), and I know I'm not the only one who did that.

>> No.968089

>>967950
> real CRT.
But it is a CRT I'm using CRT shaders on.

There's nothing wrong with shadowmasks. and no those things don't replicate aperture grill, they replicate square pixel shadowmasks that a shit ton of consumer CRT TVs were. In fact, I've never actually noticed anyones old TV being anything but a shadowmask.

>> No.968194

>>967992
>One thing I haven't yet seen in commonly used CRT shaders that kind of bothers me is the bleeding you get from bright areas near dark areas. I can kind of replicate it with bloom filters/shaders added on top of CRT shaders, but it's not quite the same.

CRT Geom Halation can do that. The default setting is WAY too high though.
http://emulation-general.wikia.com/wiki/CRT_Geom#Halation

>> No.968621

>>967950
>You put 5+ feet between you and the screen.

Then you won't need to use filters at all.

>> No.968647

>>968621
>Then you won't need to use filters at all.

Half true. It's the combination of the blurring of the filters plus the distance that does the trick.

>> No.968737

What's the appeal of scanlines?
I just don't get it.

>> No.968747

>>968737
Nostalgia.

>> No.968790

>>968737
>>968747

Well, you should sit far enough away that you don't even see the scanlines. I suspect that scanlines themselves aren't needed per se, and are probably more trouble than they're worth. The benefits from the CRT shaders are the scaling algorythms, and the blurring.

>> No.968854

>>968737
On a real CRT, 240p is less aliased than upscaled graphics.

>> No.968869

>>968790
>The benefits from the CRT shaders are the scaling algorythms
Not really no. They usually get the image prescaled from the emulator and deal with that. Blarggs just doubles up the size. The scaling also is typically just a nearest neighbor stretch with aspect then if you want, a bilinear filter over it.

>> No.968889

>>968869

CRT GEom uses Lanczos, which seems to do most of the work.

>> No.970328 [DELETED] 
File: 13 KB, 480x360, 1375284406971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
970328

>>968000
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!
HOLD THE FUCKING PRESSES!

I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO DUBS ON THIS BOARD AND YOU GOT TRIPS!!

>> No.970345

>>970328
Don't you fucking dare do this it nearly killed /v/

>> No.970347

>>970328
Wow you're fucking stupid.

By the way filtered.

>> No.970357
File: 24 KB, 171x247, Kryten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
970357

>I'll stay and watch the fart

>> No.970368

This was a shitty thread to begin with, but it's going down even darker roads now.

>> No.970375

>>970368
Not really.

>> No.970437

>>967950
The whacked thing is that us PALfags didn't even see the scanlines at reasonable distance because our TVs had higher scanline density than the pleb NTSC TVs.

>> No.970523

>>970437
Yeah, but on the other hand

>50hz

>> No.970527

OP, have you tried tweaking the shader to make the scanlines less dark? I think it'd look better that way.

Also, the phosphor emulation is frankly pretty unneeded. It doesn't really add anything other than slight discoloration. It's not even accurate.

>> No.970532 [DELETED] 

>>970523
>50hz
Which didn't matter because American and Japanese games are also for plebs.

The only games worth playing came from glorious PAL regions like the UK and Australia.

>> No.970536

Wasn't scanline visibility strongly correlated with TV size? I played on a not-too-big TV long ago and didn't find the scanlines very noticeable, but whenever I saw big TVs, I was confused about why they would make a TV so big if the picture ended up looking so ugly with those huge scanlines. I also didn't understand why there were scanlines at all at the time though.

>> No.970541

>>970536
Four things affect the visibility of scanlines:

1. Size
2. Type (shadow mask vs. aperture grille)
3. Calibration (convergence, focus, etc.)
4. Region (PAL vs. NTSC)

Most people had smallish shadow mask TVs that weren't of the greatest quality and thus weren't that well calibrated, hence most people didn't really see them.

>> No.970552

>>970541
Thanks, this is more informative than anything I could have found on my own.

>> No.970565

Huh, that actually does look almost good. neat

>> No.970638

>>970541

Don't forget dot pitch

With a fine dot pitch, even a 17 inch shadow mask CRT monitor will have sharp scanlines like a Trinitron at 240p

>> No.970905

>>968737
It appears more detailed, which is slightly more visually stimulating.

>> No.972758

CRT Geom is over-rated.

There are good CRT filters which use a quarter of the power it requires, especially if you're going by the "sit far away from the screen" rule.

>> No.973041

>>972758
>There are good CRT filters which use a quarter of the power it requires, especially if you're going by the "sit far away from the screen" rule.

{{CITATION NEEDED}}

>> No.973151
File: 513 KB, 512x448, visuallystimulating.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
973151

>> No.973221

>>967950
what game is that?

>> No.973243

Wow, it looks like total shit.

>> No.975348
File: 11 KB, 480x360, grenouille-triste.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
975348

That feel when your filter will never emulate a reflection of your friend sitting beside you playing.

>> No.975439

>>973221

Legend of Mana.

>>973243

Sit 5 feet away nigger. You're not supposed to see the scanlines.

>> No.975474

>>970905
For some games I use scan line filters. It depends on what it looks like without. But I'm too near sighted to sit far enough away not to see the scan lines. I sit pretty close to the TV too. But I don't have a CRT anymore to compare it with filters.