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

This has to be a joke, right?

Here we go again.

>>2881418
No?

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

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

>>2881418
>>2881424
>Explain the LCD Gameboy Advance with 16-bit graphics with no scanlines

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

>>2881432
>Being this dumb and not understanding that games were not designed with RF and scanlines in mind

because pixels are an illusion and crt blur hides the pixels but i will literally report you if you use a linear filter in an emulator grrrr quit hiding the pixels

>>2881441
RF usually doesn't have visible scanlines.

>>2881406
It didnt look like in that picture, stop being a dumbass
They were designed with scanlines in mind, consoles displayed 240p, not 480i
And for video signals, it really depended on the developer and console. Arcades where made for RGB

>>2881447
>composite and RF cables
>240p

Anon...

File: Before After.jpg (21KB, 324x203px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 324x203px

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

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

>>2881448
Are you implying that composite and RF don't carry 240p for retro games?

http://www.chrismcovell.com/gotRGB/rgb_compare2.html

>>2881457
No, the fact it's progressive means it's not meant to have any kind of refresh/scan lines.

>>2881441
You are a fool.
I told you what the designers knew about what they were creating and how it would turn out, that is a fact.

>>2881460
But if you put a 320x240 image on a 640x480 screen, you're going to have gaps between lines. Unless the TV draws the lines twice as wide.

This fucking thread again? Goddamnit OP, how did you get to be such a faggot?

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

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

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

>>2881467
>upscaling

>>2881476
We're talking about putting 240p on a standard definition tv. Not upscaling.

>>2881459
first page
http://www.chrismcovell.com/gotRGB/rgb_compare.html

second page its just there to show how shitty the genesis composite is

Is /vr/ doomed to be trolled by CRT/LCD/RF/Emulator/whatever threads forever?

>>2881484
Only until people stop caring.

>>2881425

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

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

>>2881441

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

>>2881406
>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.

Yes, this is exactly what happened, you stupid fucking cunt faggot who should die instantly.

>>2881496
>Of course they were designed with that shit in mind when it was what tech they had at the time. They knew what they were working with.

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

>>2881503
>since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.

>Yes, this is exactly what happened,

>Sega Master System supports RGB natively

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

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

>>2881514
>Game Boy

>>2881510
>Sega Master System supports RGB natively

So you proved your point, the developers were fucking shocked that the games didn't look the same.

I mean, they had no way of knowing.

>>2881506
projectors are even more blurry than crts and lets not forget laggy
there was literally no reason to use one of them during development of a game

>>2881525
No scanlines though

File: tumblr_nq41ovWNO91roj02so1_500.jpg (109KB, 500x746px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x746px

>developers had scanlines in mind!
Explain this shit then, Christians.

File: 1450734918617.jpg (451KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1000x750px

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

>>2881406

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

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

File: come on now.jpg (266KB, 905x881px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 905x881px

>>2881526

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

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

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

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

>>2881552
Get that wife a Retron!

File: when-dad-amp-039-s-a-jew_o_2990489.jpg (639KB, 939x720px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 939x720px

>>2881554
>Dad, had you ever seen a television before you developed Zelda?
>Television?? What's a TV??
>*Jumps out window and runs away*

>>2881449
Or you could not be a moron and pay for a half baked port that everyone knew was shit.

>>2881406
>he thinks Nintendo devs thought the Famicom had a PPU and output RGB

It would still have scanlines faggit

>>2881457
RF and composite are always interlaced, always.

>>2881496
SCART is eurotrash, and RGB isn't definitive for /every/ retro console. If it's not generated natively by the original hardware, it can't be definitive. FC/NES is a good example.

>>2882069
You're wrong

>>2881406
They didn't design with scanlines specifically, but they would've been testing on CRT monitors, because that's what people were using back then. Colour LCD/TFT and such tech wasn't economically viable until the 2000s.

>>2882080
lol. show me a fucking progressive scan composite image (pro-tip, you can't).

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

>developers didn't develop games using currently existing technology, they time traveled into the future and brought back 40 inch LCDs to design games on

oh okay

File: 1414045950914.jpg (1MB, 4800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4800x1200px

>>2881406

>>2881460
this would seem to imply that the developers tested their games on a 320x240 screen which is just laughable

>>2882101
they used monitors which displayed pure RGB.

>>2882142
source on this please

>>2882142
And they still had to design their games around the fact that most people would only be playing their game through RF or composite.

Hence, all those dithering tricks.

>>2882142

Which still had blurring and scanlines

File: RollcageStgII.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

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

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

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

>>2881406
>Where did this rumor originate?
See picture for details.
TL;DR - Reality.

>>2882085
My Super Nintendo was always hooked up via composite video RCA. It was 224p

Try the CRT thread if you want pictures

RF and composite can't display more than 24fps

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

>>2882134
But they did, you dolt. Your regular old TV *is* a 320x240 screen.

These people are mentally ill.

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

File: 1449991951926.jpg (3KB, 99x113px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 99x113px

>>2882198

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

>>2882191
>>2882085

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

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

>>2882207
Some developers did, some developers didn't.

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

>>2882205
What? It's got 480 lines total, an SDTV just lacks the capability to draw all the lines at once...

>>2882227
Ok, we'll just ascribe it to a difference in terminology.

There are CRTs that will display 240p with almost no scanlines though. I guess those could be called 320x240 monitors.

>>2882226
Thank you for clarifying that. Bottom line I guess, there are no even/odd fields occurring, so it's not quite progressive but is effectively not interlaced.

>>2881432

this makes sense for me

>>2882227

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

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

>I guess those could be called 320x240 monitors.

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

>>2882250
Ugh, of course.

Intended >>2882231

>>2882119
RGB looks the best to me, but I think the devs tried to exploit composite for the waterfall.

You still get scan lines with RGB and I don't think anyone claims Game Boy games were deigned to be played with scan lines.

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

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

>>2882826
>I'm sure it's not unheard of.
I'm sure it's not unheard of in the games industry.

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

>>2881527
SMB's designers drew out all of their graphics on graph paper before putting it into their games. It's made to be blocky.

>>2882762
>>2882834
>Source: My ass

File: 1450346067887.png (17KB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x448px

>>2881406
So you're claiming this was how it was intended to look, then?

File: Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_12.jpg (187KB, 508x689px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 508x689px

>>2881406
What's up with the color of that sword?

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

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

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

File: 2562-alien-carnage-dos-screenshot-game-here-we-go.gif (107KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x400px

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

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

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

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

>>2882893
No need to waste a sprite on the sword. If you want you it to have its own color you'll end up with a flickery slow mess like the Megaman games.

>>2882910
even with a composite filter, that shit in the lower left isn't going to look any better.

>>2882910
15" displays were common in the time of mode 13h. Most of them were even SVGA compatible. Mode 13h on hardware of the time looked very close to integer nearest neighbor + LCD.

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

trasnparent characters after being hit like megaman x

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

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

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

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

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

>>2882952
you're about as likely to remember scanlines as you are to remember any specific details about the 240p era

>>2882952
You've never played a retro console on a crt?

>>2882952
OP doesn't say or show scanlines as the comparison, but a CRT shadow mask and bloom. Most consumer CRTs used a shadow mask.

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

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

>>2883116
>>2883116

This thread has been done a lot before. Its a blatant troll thread made by people who got their panties in a bunch over /vr/ actually having games discussion moreso than shitposting.

In other words, /v/.

>>2883112
120Hz + BFI lets you have real native 240p scanlines on a 31kHz+ CRT, but they are way too sharp looking. You get more realistic results with shaders.

>>2883121
>realistic
>shaders

>>2882952
How old are you? 8? 10?
Cause if youre older, then you should remember.

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

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

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

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

>>2883437

Sorry, I got the time wrong. It's 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video, not 10 minutes. He says immediately that you wouldn't be able to see individual pixels clearly back in the day, either.

>>2883219
He's probably some young adult who's first console was the PS2.

>>2883437
It's always seemed obvious to me the graphics were often made with that in mind, on the Megadrive at least. But it's nice to see a developer confirm it.

>>2883471
Exactly. Sega was doing that shit all the way through to the Saturn. If anything, RGB makes games on that machine look worse.

>>2881406
It originated a long time in the past. Long before you were born.

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

Why the fuck wouldn't they be?

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

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

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

File: Super Mario Bros 2.png (39KB, 516x1224px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 516x1224px

>>2883638
This, and early GBA games were designed to have super washed-out colors to accommodate the really dim lighting.

File: 1445146909078.gif (2MB, 237x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 237x300px

>>2883638
>>2884108

Boom bitch get out the way. So tired of these stupid ass ignorant troll threads. Thanks for these posts.

/thread

Anybody that believes the N64's anti-aliasing algorithm was not designed with CRT screens in mind is very very silly.

>>2884191
Is that why I think the N64 version of Banjo Kazooie looks better than the Xbox 360 version?

File: Mario with the QuickNES emulator.png (126KB, 602x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 602x480px

Were the diagonal stripes intended?

>>2881406
Maybe we should get an actual developer from the 80s and 90s in here to answer this question.

Of course they were designed around it.
It's not like fucking video game developers magically had high definition flatscreen lcd screens while making games. They had the same tvs everyone else had at the time.

>>2884219
Try contacting Ryuichi Nishizawa about that

>>2884205
Shut up, faggot.

>>2884260
What the fuck /v/? It was a genuine question.

File: 2-northpoleitself.jpg (710KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1067x1600px

>>2884205
I think so

>>2884219
see
>>2883437
1:30 into the video.

>>2882952
>I was born in 1990
>wevegotabadass.jpg

>>2882142
No they didn't. They used whatever Sony/NEC they could get their hands on.

>>2882142
>>Implying chink devs back then had enough money to afford "pure" RGB CRTs.

EBIN

>>2884403
>>2884397
uh im pretty sure computer monitors have been "rgb" since the 80s. they tested the games on regular tvs but they actually developed them on computers.

>>2881597
Honestly why isn't everyone's opinion this?

You vote with your wallet. And all money thrown at that port, is regression.

I agree with whole CRT/scanlines thing but not RF. Where I live TVs had SCART since 80s.

>>2884413
I developed games on composite in the early 80's Anyone who disagrees and was actually already born at the time feel free to chime in.

>>2884413
CGA monitors with like 8 colors you mean?

>>2886172
what games did you work on?

File: WiiPage02 - large.jpg (565KB, 1220x482px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1220x482px

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

>>2886192
SNES Jr. RGB mod is light years better than a Wii through component. Not saying the Wii looks bad though..

>>2886213
I'd rather ouput accurate refresh and 15.7 KHz signal from my Radeon HD 4000 to my PVM.

>>2886251
>accurate
>Radeon HD 4000
lol

>>2886258
Yeah it only comes within one 10,000th of a Hz, from 48 Hz through 62+

Game Boys always used an LCD screen.

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

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

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

>>2886284
The Super Gameboy put a huge bezel around the represented Gameboy screen in order to give the pixels "squareness".

Isn't it possible that this is just a case by case situation? Some game developers know about the issue with composite or RF, while others might have just used CRT monitors and not care.

>>2886287
The NES / Famicom can't output RGB broseph.

If they were using monitors it was through composite or RF connections.

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

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

>>2886286
Care to explain it to us ?

File: Super_Mario_Land_SGB_Palette_Title.png (6KB, 256x224px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 256x224px

>>2886308
Like this

>>2884265
It's about as genuine as asking "was the non-1080p resolution intended?"

>>2886352
Shut up, faggot.

File: 222005501.jpg (302KB, 1195x850px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1195x850px

>>2886298
>I guarantee you that almost no developers for the NES/Fami knew or cared that one day people would play their games in RGB.

Where is your God now?

>>2884205
>using emulator screenshot to make a point
Kill yourself

File: 12792902062.jpg (79KB, 600x422px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x422px

Miyamoto at work in the 80s.

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

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

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

>>2886728
I'm not trying to make a point you retard. I was just wondering if the effect was intentional or an after-effect

File: 182861390.jpg (116KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x640px

If you want the "authentic" experience just play it on a CRT like the Lord intended.

File: contra_lcd.jpg (199KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 768x1024px

>>2887361

File: vomit.jpg (26KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 312x312px

>>2887363

>>2887361
Tah-tay?

>>2886383
That's an afterthought. The money was in home consoles.

>>2881597
the port is fine except for the graphics. if you paint a new sports car in clown colors does that automatically make it shit?

File: 1349217226441.jpg (42KB, 720x439px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 720x439px

>>2887637
>the money was in home consoles

>>2886317
I have no idea what I'm looking for

>>2887361
What a blurry mess. I can't even tell what this is supposed to be. Is it a huge pile of shit? Because that's what it looks like.

>>2887363
Oh, it's a face. I see now. This looks good. It's fukkin' art.

>>2882119

This image makes a good argument.

I'm still going to use LCDs, mind you, but it does look best on the right.

>>2887905
Are those emulator shoots or a real screen?

If real screen it's not an aperture grill. With a 'Tron or the right Mitsubishi you'd see clean horizontal lines with no differentiation via vertical lines.

>>2887942
I don't know, I didn't post it

File: Link RGB Compare.jpg (70KB, 384x130px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 384x130px

>>2887942
>>2887943

>>2887879
>Is it a huge pile of shit? Because that's what it looks like.
Go to sleep James.

>>2884403
Yeah, the world capital of console and arcade game development wasn't able to afford equipment. Sounds legit.

>in the whole game development, the devs never plugged the console with the game to a tv to see how it looked like, and even if they did, they would not make changes based on it.

>>2887361
From what Contra is this?

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

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

>>2888159

idk

I use RGB, not a CRT.

File: FF3-NES-WhiteMage.png (328B, 36x52px) Image search: [Google]

328B, 36x52px

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File: sf2_lcd.png (58KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x600px

>>2888376

>>2888376
>>2888379
if you have a comparable screenshot, you should post the shitty 360 version that uses that god awful filter

File: non-integer example.png (6KB, 821x464px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 821x464px

>>2888379
Integer ratio you fucking retard

>>2887373
agreed. this attitude like having a bunch of blocky looking trash is better seems like a troll argument

>>2888151
Super Contra arcade if I recall correctly

>>2888504
>if you scale
>implying there is scale at all

Lel.

>>2888163
Have a (You), because no one replies to well thought out or insightful posts.

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

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

>>2888636
WTF are you talking about? SF2 wasn't 800x600 native resolution.

>>2881449
Why not just play the GBA version with the colour correctoin/ sound replacement mods?

it's gr8 for a phone

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

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

HD CRT monitors did NOT have scanlines. I had one in the early 2000s. It exceeded 1080, actually.

The guy who worked for ID Software and programmed Doom and Quake had one of the earliest ones. He was certainly not programming with scanlines in mind.

>>2888731

And both are in the same ress, so what's your point?

You can go ahead and take your own unfiltered print screen of sf2 if you want, it will not bring it any improvement.

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

You CRT purists are retards.

File: super_mario_maker_mustache.0[1].jpg (189KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1920x1080px

>>2889047

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

>>2888905
They're just too small to see

>>2889087
>>2881449
>>2888861
the best version of final fantasy vi is the european psx version because uncensored, superior script to snes and no slowdowns like ntsc version. combined with mednafen integer scaling its fucking perfect.

>>2889107
PLUS GORGEOUS 8MIN FMVS
>How could I forget the most important thing

>>2889092
Shh.

>>2888895
They didn't fucking use LCDS to make NES games, holy shit.

File: sfii_correct.png (376KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 800x600px

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

File: sfii_wrong.png (46KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x600px

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

File: sfii_integer_vertical_correct.png (162KB, 896x672px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 896x672px

>>2889182
Despite the rectangular pixels, you can have at least one axis be integer ratio if you choose the right size. You get more sharpness this way.

File: sfii_integer_vertical_wrong.png (49KB, 896x672px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 896x672px

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

File: The-Chaos-Engine-5.jpg (101KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x800px

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

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


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

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

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

File: 1451622260739.png (1MB, 1328x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1328x360px

>>2881406

File: RetroArch-0102-014627.png (9KB, 110x158px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 110x158px

>>2889292
actually people playing on emulator see this.
stay pressed bitch
emulated looks best tbqfh

>>2889061
That's an optional screen mode for weirdos like you. When you play the game normally it looks sharp, not blurry.

>>2889292

still think far right looks best, i don't know why the fuck this is even debatable

I don't give a shit either way, I just want to see more screenshots. Preferably PS1 games since they relied on dithering.

>>2889357
But that looks digusting

File: Nintendo1993Calendar-04-vgo.jpg (1MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x3000px

>>2889292
>Nintendo is an indie developer

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

>>2881506
>>2881514
>projectors
I know I'm a bit late, and my collection is an ocean away from me at the moment, but I seem to remember Nintendo game manuals (NES/SNES) warning against playing on projectors due to possible projector damage.

>>2889536
Interdasting.

>>2889536

You're thinking of projection TVs, not projectors.

Projection TVs were susceptible to burn in, so things that would be constantly onscreen in a game (HUDs, scores, etc) could burn into the screen if the game was played for too long.

>>2889571
Ah, thanks for the correction.

>>2889521
only if you are a indie dev. my condolences.

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

>>2889762

Image persistence and total burn in are two different things anon.

>>2889869
Nobody suggested it wasn't.

>>2881432
He's trying to say he has brain damage.

>>2889190
>>2889186
>>2889182
>>2889178
wow... they all look the same

>>2889920
See an optician, it's not normal to have such bad vision.

>>2882181
What game is this?

>>2889942
i do agree with him. they all very quite looks the same.

>>2882181
thats why i play ps1 games with bilinear blur.

>>2889957

Mods should just start banning anyone who asks the name of a game when it's in the filename.

>>2889869
You're sounding even crazier. Maybe time to take a break?

>>2889920
get glasses

>>2889983
If I knew that, I wouldn't be asking.

Then again, what do I expect from the umpteenth thread on this board arguing about who's nostalgia filter looks better

File: RetroArch-0102-033209.png (72KB, 259x248px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 259x248px

Never let any woman tell you that CRT shaders look ugly on LCDs.

File: 39648492_p4.png (15KB, 256x212px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 256x212px

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

File: Amiga-Akanoids_zpsfvkznksj.jpg (124KB, 640x545px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 640x545px

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

>>2892072
NEC PCs had composite output doe.

File: post-23476-0-17013000-1340511663.jpg (61KB, 1105x1099px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1105x1099px

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

>>2892704
PC88 had RGB output since PC-8801mkII SR, the first model that can actually play games.

>>2892763
It's called an RF switch. The NES even came boxed with one. I used it all through my childhood; of course, I didn't know any better back then.

File: 3retro5u.png (590KB, 1024x960px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1024x960px

>>2890037
just liek i remenbur

So wait, was I not supposed to use the antenna cable thing to connect my SNES to my TV? Because from what I'm aware that was the only way to do it until N64 came out with composite. What does the antenna cable thing do differently?

>>2888895
who are you quoting?

>>2895693
Pretty sure I got one with my PS2 ffs

>>2881406
They DID.

>>2881406
>you draw the graphics on a computer with scanlines
>what you see while making it is what you get while its running on the console

Nothing has changed.

Just fucking tell me what emulator settings match what the devs intended the closest.

>>2896083
For Japanese devs: sharp-bilinear
For PC games (including PC-88/PC-98), or portable systems: sharp-bilinear
For American devs: it's a mystery

File: piq_18444_400x400.png (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>2897358

He's wrong, but you're mentally ill.

>>2897374
(Good) (one)

>>2896186
>Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'.
Well we know what some intended because they've said it themselves.

>>2896186
Do you just lack any common sense at all, dick sucker?

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

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

>>2888162
Those aren't different things.

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

File: 1397192177876.png (364KB, 514x493px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 514x493px

>>2888163
Good post

File: LIMRk.jpg (50KB, 499x306px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 499x306px

>>2897602
>>2897474
>>2897374
>>2897358
>>2897347
> Can't form coherent counterpoint
> oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit

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

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

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

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

File: 1430175519549.jpg (66KB, 448x700px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 448x700px

>>2898806
some people in this thread get it

>>2889471
It's not even a screen mode, It's from a lousy powerup that you can only get from one of those 8-bit Mario amiibos. It makes mario slightly bigger and makes enemies look strange.

File: 1398364333435.png (491KB, 1280x1600px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1280x1600px

>>2881531
Eat shit and die

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well it makes sense in the modern day and age to make games more aesthetically pleasing. I mean it's 2015 and we have the technology, so even retro games could get that graphical boost they may desperately need.

>>2899420
>sonic looks miles better on an LCD
Being a fast scrolling 60fps game, Sonic is highly sensitive to sample-and-hold blur.

>>2899429
Modern screens don't have sample and hold blur. This isn't 2002 anymore you dolt.

>>2899301
I'm not sure what this post is trying to prove. Adding a bit of blur to those images is not necessarily analogous to the way they would appear on a real television. There are a lot of other factors that have to be taken into account.

>>2899478
I don't even know which ones he thinks we're supposed to say look better.

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

>>2899432
LCD response times are woefully slow compared to other display tech types, though. This still produces motion blur.

>>2899484
>woefully slow
That's quite an exaggeration. The refresh rates on modern screens are far beyond human perception at this point so any difference that is there isn't noticeable unless you're the Flash.

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

>>2899532
Response time and refresh rate are not the same thing.

And it's really not an exaggeration. Display technologies like CRT and plasma are inherently instantaneous. LCDs have taken years to get anywhere close.

>>2899406
You convinced me. I totally agree actually.

>>2881428
they couldn't fit a cathode ray tube in a handheld console retard. also pixel art on handhelds is done in a different style that takes the different kind of screen into account. use your brain.

>>2889535
the marketing department didn't make the game fucker

>>2899480
the one that doesn't give you eye cancer? (right side btw)

File: Nintendo1993Calendar-06-vgo.jpg (1MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x3000px

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

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

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

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

god don't tell me this brain damaged individual is still on the front page of /vr/...

>>2899673
That's why I asked, because the right side looks blurry and shitty to me.

>>2881406
The scanline one looks like shit. There is no reason to think that they were intended to look like that, other than "m-muh feelz"

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

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

File: Nintendo1993Calendar-00-cover-vgo.jpg (754KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 2000x1500px

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

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

File: 1992-Nintendo-Power-Calendar-RARE-PLUS-1990-1991-Calendars.jpg (40KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x375px

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

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

>>2899867
>marketing department
Of Nintendo. Who made the games. This is their ideal representation of them. Deny it all you want, you're factually flat out wrong.

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

>>2899484
This just isn't true. Many lcds oleds and plasmas surpass or are very close to crt response times.
>>2899481
This isn't true either. Any name brand won't have this issue.
Are you people actually this delusional or are you trolling?

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

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

>>2899873
The marketing department of any organization is always woefully out of touch with the creators. Especially for video games in the 90s.

>>2899906
Allow me to clarify that >>2899624 is also my post.

That being said I'm willing to believe this in regards to plasma (obviously) and OLED but LCD/LED, absolutely not. Do you have a source on this?

>>2899906
Show me a TV with 60Hz strobing.

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

>>2900016
Note, only monitors support displayport 1.2 properly. But for a TV there's no reason to get an LCD now. It's oled or plasma all the way.

>>2900016
>no LCD will ever beat a crt

Okay but in your last post, you claimed

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

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

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

>>2900094
Sorry I was being confusing. Lcds come close to crts but don't beat them. And generally people call all flatscreens lcds. Even if its plasma or oled.

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

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

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

>>2889047

Mario maker is an ugly game. Jesus christ, I can't get over the fucking drop shadows on everything.

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

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

>>2900179
depends on the lcd. some have really noticeable lag.

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

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

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

File: super-mario-bros.jpg (157KB, 750x1061px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 750x1061px

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

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

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

>>2900161
>Mario maker is an ugly game

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

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

>>2900228

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

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

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

File: tWnEO.jpg (123KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x800px

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

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

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

>>2889292
All of these pics look like shit because they're from emulators with shitty filtering.

>>2900247
>Discussion about Nintendo's games
>Nintendo doesn't count

Never change, 4chan.

Ever since I discovered RGB on CRT I never came back to LCD

Also fighting games on LCD hurt my eyes because of the display motion blur

>>2900269

The fact that Nintendo made a conscious design decision doesn't automatically mean it was a good design decision. Try again.

File: 1451788321475.jpg (658KB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 2592x1456px

>>2900281
I think I'm forming a brain lesion by reading the comments in this thread

>>2900281
... Are... Are you real?

>>2900228
You're stretching logic a little hard there to justify your pixel purist beliefs, Firebrandx

>>2900346
>>2900293


So, what, Nintendo can't make bad design decisions? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

>>2900353
That's so far from what anybody is saying that you're not even wrong. You're having an entirely separate conversation.

>>2900247
LOL!!!! Nothing else is needed. You're grasping at the most ridiculous staws at this point.

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

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

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

>>2900356

All I'm saying is that Nintendo using clean sprites in Mario Maker is not proof that clean sprites look better. How is that confusing?

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

>>2900364
It's entirely tangential to the conversation? The conversation isn't about what looks better; it's about the look Nintendo intended.

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

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

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

>>2900228

Just so you know, posting that boxart proves nothing. It was created by a marketing/artwork team working for Nintendo of America and nobody from the actual development team was involved in any way whatsoever.

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

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

>>2900506
This is a very clever impersonation of a stupid person.

File: 3454581387_a677f0b64f.jpg (38KB, 440x318px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 440x318px

>>2900371
>The subpixels are micro-organisms that are being zapped
I'm guessing you asked the little man who turns the light on in your fridge about that?

>>2900637
That's why OLED displays burn out so quickly - the micro-organisms die of old age.

>>2900637
This is actually how they work. That's why they're called organic led tvs.

You could end the arguments by asking developers whether they took CRT blur into account.

https://twitter.com/bobsstuffgames
https://twitter.com/stepickford
https://twitter.com/daviddarlingcbe
https://twitter.com/ZXSpectrumDev

File: oledflakes.png (43KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 225x225px

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

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

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

To elaborate:

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

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

Are you that fucking stupid?

>>2900832
the flakes and flake dispenser are built in to the tv dumbass

File: haha topkek 1369259280076.jpg (104KB, 500x389px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x389px

>>2901159
>>2900832
>>2900810
>>2900648
>>2900371
top kek

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

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

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

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

File: Nintendo1993Calendar-13-vgo.jpg (1MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x3000px

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

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

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

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

>>2901212
This is also why subpixels can often bleed leading to distorted color in large areas or white/black splotches. The bacteria can multiply and cause this is some cases.

>>2900250
Why u make fun me :(

>>2901212
>>2901218
This was so stupid I actually almost believed it. Now I feel a bit wicked retarded.

>>2901228
This is how it works you Dingus. Look it up. It's either that or bioluminescent compounds which don't give off as much light.

I am really disturbed about using biological entities in electronics. Fuck biotech trying to pretend it's like electronics, it's a liviing entity like we are. Trust me biotech will be the end of humanity.

>>2901321
Need to get out more anon, stop watching so many movies

>>2901321
I hope you don't take any pharmaceuticals, ever. Or eat anything living. How's that mineral water and clay diet working out for you?

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

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

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

Thats not to say it makes a massive difference

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

File: mario-bros-fondos-de-pantalla-del-aniversario-super-460228.jpg (449KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1920x1200px

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

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

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

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

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

New theory: What if they weren't designed with anything in mind?

ITT: People respond without reading the thread and keep making the same arguments to no one

Delete this, please

File: mario-maker-day-5-04.png (767KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1280x720px

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

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

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

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

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