Linear filtering on or off?

>>3898448
Off. If you have to emulate, why would you want that smeary shit?

>>3898448
Blurry X, but not the entire game, the blended look for Character/enemy sprites looks great, but not the environment

If you don't like the look of pixels you don't like video games art.

>>3898448
Off with very light scanlines. I only use linear filtering for GBA games on PSP because frankly they look like hot garbage without it.

I like sharp graphics so no linear filtering for me.

>>3898448
Trick question. The answer is neither, use a nice CRT shader instead

>>3898472

Part of the art involved with pixels were hiding that fact. No blur destroys illusions of curvature, etc.

Sharp pixels look so fucking bad, like it's a blurry mosaic. So glad I kept my CRT.

>>3898510
This.

Off. If I wanted that blurry CRT look, I'd just hook my computer up to an old television.

>>3898719
thing is, on a CRT it looks neither like the pics in OP, it looks better.

>>3898448
Off, and displayed on a CRT monitor.

>>3898690
That's why scanlines are helpful.

Crisp pixels + scanlines > linear filtering

>>3898448
The only reason to use a filter is if you're playing on a low-res screen that can't scale perfectly. For example, a PSP or DS.

I would say off.

Bilinear filtering? Never. Blurry graphics give me a headache.

>>3898448
i would say ON just if you are using non integer scaling like in >>3898886
>>3898730 is the best option

>>3898820

Agreed.

>>3898448
Off.

The only kind of acceptable filters are the ones that simulate old TVs, like Blargg's NTSC.

>>3898448
you were never meant to see the sharp pixels to begin with, it was a hardware limitation that didn't allow them to draw Guilty Gear or Skullgirls style sprites.

>>3898448
Off. I'd rather things looked crisp.

Linear scaling is necessary on a low-res display that doesn't match the emulated device, like a 3DS.

>>3899287
The 3DS has 240p screens though.

>>3898472
That, or maybe they don't like the look of pixels.

>>3899357
>How can you play games with jaggies?

If I want linear filtering I can just take off my damn glasses

File: 240p yellow.png (3KB, 267x240px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 267x240px

>>3899291

Not many retro consoles are an exact multiple of 240. I've noticed similar problems trying to run GBA games on a PSP. Linear filtering off just looks awful.

It's not as bad if your screen's over 2x the emulated device's resolution.

>>3898472

Except I don't remember seeing pixels when I played these games.

If I emulate I always use Scanlines + Bilinear Filtering on my CRT monitor for maximum authentic blurryness.

Looks just like my shitty CRT TV.

>>3899410
Not him, but I certainly did.

>>3899410
>Except I don't remember seeing pixels

So you don't remember seeing anything at all ?

God you guys are retarded.

File: Seiken Densetsu 2 (Japan)-170403-181123.png (2MB, 1196x896px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1196x896px

>>3900692
Yeah look at all these pixels! Wow. So hip, much retro.

File: Seiken Densetsu 2 (Japan)-170403-181142.png (73KB, 1196x896px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1196x896px

And here's a nearest-neighbor upscale for comparison. Notice how all sense of depth is lost, the main character's eyes are far apart and look like fetal alcohol syndrom, the HP bar is a fucking mess, and the grass looks like someone sneezed through a screen door.

>>3898510
/thread
If I ever use emulators which is not very often.

>>3900858
....You can clearly see pixels here.

>>3898698
>sharp
>blurry

These don't add up

>>3900872
Compared to the second pic?

In the first pic, you can't *clearly* see the pixels, you can *indistinctly* see the pixels, which is the whole point. Keep zooming in. The pixels blend into each other like the phosphors on a real CRT. Good artists used this behavior to create the illusion of greater detail at the cost of sharpness. Look at the way the colors blend more naturally on the roof tiles, or the way the HP numbers become rounder and easier to read.

8 bit i like unfiltered sharp pixels, once you you start getting more colors around 16 bit its more situational depending on how detailed the graphics are, sometimes when you have too much detail or a lot of different color pixels next to each other things can get noisy and a slight filter can help imo

>>3898448
I think anyone who likes the blurry one is legit crazy. Without blur the it's beautiful.

>>3900909
>Good artists used this behavior to create the illusion of greater detail at the cost of sharpness.

[Citation needed]

>>3900960
look up

>>3900858
this looks like intertwining blades of grass
>>3900864
this looks like a random pattern of green squares

>>3900909
>Good artists used this behavior to create the illusion of greater detail at the cost of sharpness.
>greater detail at the cost of sharpness.
>greater detail at the cost of sharpness.
>greater detail at the cost of sharpness.

>greater detail

>at the cost of sharpness.

My sides are in orbit.

>>3900984
>Random
>>3900858 looks like shit.

>>3901009
Yes you dumb faggot, dithering is used to create detail or a blend of colors.

>>3898448
on
i don't remember counting pixels on a crt and i played these games on an emulator before /vr/ and the rest of the internet told me what's the right way to do it

Off for certain famicom era games, but even then, a game like zelda 2 with such raw pixels gives me a headache. I am a crt autist but i think emulatibg is fine for people, use an ntsc filter, not fake scanlines if the harsh edges+scrolling bothers you

>>3901287
> dithering is used to create detail

You're not even trolling are you? You think this is real.

>>3901504
That's because it is real, moron.

I'll never understand why people prefer blurry shit over beautiful, clear pixels.

>>3900858
>>3900864
To be fair, mana looks fucking great with super eagle or 4x hq to give it an awesome hand-painted look. I'm not by any means a huge fan of filters, but for mana it works really fucking well.

File: Akumajou Dracula X - Gekka no Yasoukyoku (J) (v1.2) [SLPM-86023]-170403-221825.png (450KB, 548x480px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 548x480px

I usually just use Pixellate to make all pixels as sharp as possible on a 1080p screen, but this thread made me want to try out some CRT filters and this does look pretty nice. Just like a real CRT monitor, it looks awful from up close, but much better if you sit far away from the screen. I bet a lot of people, when judging different filtering options, don't take into account the fact that when you play on the computer you tend to sit much closer to the screen.

File: SUPER_SHARP_PIXELS.png (5KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 400x200px

I use a filter to downscale all my games to 140p. That way it's even more pixellated! Haha I'm such a retro geek. Anyway, please support my indie game on Steam Greenlight!

I never liked the look of bilinear filtering in 2D games. It just looks bad in my opinion.

On the other side of the spectrum, bilinear looks better than nearest for textures in 3D games.

>>3899357
Both the Nintendo and Super Nintendo used used 256x224. They don't scale to the full vertical resolution of the 3DS' screen. Same with the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance, which used 160x144 and 240x160 resolutions respectively.

That being said, all of these resolutions can be displayed at 1x on the 3DS just fine, even though the NES Virtual Console games don't support it for some reason (seriously, what the fuck?).

>>3902776
Meant to quote
>>3899291

>>3898448
Depends on what you are emulating it on

>>3899118
>you were never meant to see the sharp pixels to begin with

Clearly you didn't have a TV capable of RGB as a kid

>>3902687
link to your game?

File: dkc2.webm (2MB, 1600x344px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x344px

>all these people afraid of pixels and the "wrong" aspect ratio

I play my games on a triple LCD monitor setup, with no filters, and some background layers disabled to make things easier to see.

>>3902919
This is pretty much how the developers intended.

>>3902828
no consumer CRT displayed digitally sharp pixels, rgb or not.

>>3899410
this, playing super mario bros. doesn't feel nostalgic at all unless i turn on some kind of filter.
that said i prefer no filtering most of the time.

File: outrunarcade wide.png (12KB, 1195x224px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1195x224px

>>3902919
batrician taste

Can someone throw Wild Arms into a CRT filter? I wanna see what it looks like.

>>3902818
this

depends on the screen you emulate it on and the size of it

sometimes i turn bilinear on at night, makes it easier to look at the screen. aside from that, fuck any filters and even vsync since they all add input lag.

>>3903221
also, pre-rendered games like guwange make my eyes bleed if not filtered.

Playing Link to the Past for the first time on SNES 9x emulator, on my 2012 Dell Windows 7 laptop using a Xbox 360 controller.

Should I keep Bilinear filtering on? Any settings tips in general?

File: Wild Arms (Japan) (v1.1)-170404-183000.png (1MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x960px

>>3903186
>Wild Arms

>>3903276
Wow, low-resolution 3D looks really good with Royale.

Mind posting more screenshots of low-poly PS1 games using that shader?

These "crt" shaders look really bad.
Please stop posting them.

>>3903291
this. shaders are fake and gay.

File: Chrono Cross (Japan) (Disc 1)-170404-191115.png (2MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x960px

one more comparison shot and I'm done.

>>3903291
Thanks for your opinion, sport.

Now run along and go shit up some other thread.

Off for games that are supposed to be cartoony. On for games that attempt 3D.

File: 1up copy.jpg (548KB, 650x1950px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 650x1950px

>>3901885
No.

If you think this >>3900858 actually has more detail than this >>3900864 you are legitimately retarded. Noise is not the same thing as detail.

>>3903264
>>3903265
>>3903270
>>3903271
>>3903273
>>3903276

Aw yeah, that's it right there. Thanks anon.

>>3903497
>Shadow-masks != noise

Your example proves nothing because the noise in it blends none of the pixels with each other.

>>3903939
It wasn't supposed to. You clearly didn't understand, which isn't surprising. Noise is not detail. Again, if you think this >>3900858 actually has more detail than this >>3900864 you are legitimately retarded.

>>3903952
No, I understood what you were trying to prove. Problem is your argument is flawed at its core. Shadow-masks are not the same as noise.

>>3903957
That's just an extreme illustration to make the point. The fact remains that in the case of the screenshots, the filtered one does not have more detail as is claimed. It just has more noise. They are not the same.

File: like_the_developers_intended.png (52KB, 640x224px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x224px

>>3903968
Your strawman game is weak, bro. Anon said "illusion of greater detail".

Now try proving your point with actual screenshots instead of artifical examples.

If anything raw pixels are noisier than filtered/shaded screens, because the pixels do not blend, and the dithering/pseudo-tranparency techniques no longer work. Pic related.

Look at the Chrono Cross shots. In the first shot, the background plausibly suggests a coral reef in the middle-left. In the second shot, it looks like fucking glitch art.

File: Rockman (Japan) (En)-170405-024532.png (861KB, 823x720px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 823x720px

Now this is the real retro experience. I'm unironically loving this desu.

This argument is making me miss the days when I played my N64 on a small CRT I bought with my own money. I sort of kind of like the ntsc filters in openemu, but they wreck performance on my weak machine.

>>3904391
Illusion of greater detail is equally ridiculous. I don't need to post screens because the ones in this thread are plenty already. Blurring and adding noise to something doesn't make it look more detailed.

You can like the image on the right that you posted more, there's nothing wrong with preferences. But keep your reasons to reality. Saying it's more detailed or has an illusion of greater detail is crazy.

>>3905553
You seem to have trouble talking about concrete examples, always going back to semantic nitpicking and generalities. Hmm.

>there's nothing wrong with preferences
And now the backpedal. I'm disappointed, anon. I was really looking forward to your spirited thesis on how Sonic's translucent waterfalls are vastly inferior to the pixel-perfect gypsy bead curtains.

See, composite blending of vertical lines to create translucency, in this case the appearance of smooth, continuous running water, is an example of an illusion of greater detail.

Dithering, in which alternating pixels of two different colors are blended to create a new color outside the available palette, is another example of an illusion of greater detail. You're producing more apparent colors than the hardware actually supports.

In the end, we're all just trying to play the games like we remember them in the old days. In your case, I guess that means like ZSNES on daddy's Windows XP laptop from Gateway. As long as you're having fun, champ.

>>3905615
>In the end, we're all just trying to play the games like we remember them in the old days. In your case, I guess that means like ZSNES on daddy's Windows XP laptop from Gateway. As long as you're having fun, champ.

Ahh the classic "I disagree with you so I call you kiddo" tactic. There has been no backpedaling and my examples are right in this thread.

>>3898719
crt blur is nothing like linear filtering and it depends on luminance. crisp scanlines and linear filtering as a way to portray crt rendering are literally worse than hell.

>>3903309
Why do PS1 games have that dithered filter over everything? Especially shit like Silent Hill.

>>3905620
Just poking fun at ya, sport. No hard feelings.

>my examples
????

>>3905628
The water example does give it an illusion of transparency, but it's at the cost of a loss of detail. Same with the blending of colours through dithering. Yes you see a gradient because it's blurry, but that's not detail or an illusion of detail, it's just blurry.

I can see where you're coming from, that because it looks blurry and grainy you can imagine that the blur and grain is obscuring details that are there, I just think it's crazy.

And I legit don't care that you prefer it looking that way. I just think it's silly to say the reason is that it looks more detailed.

>>3905640
>Yes you see a gradient because it's blurry, but that's not detail or an illusion of detail, it's just blurry.
It's additional color that wouldn't otherwise exist! That's literally what dithering is. What do mean "that's not detail"? Do you think pixel artists just said, "Hey, let's spackle this shit up a bit for no reason at all!"

>>3905679
>It's additional color that wouldn't otherwise exist!
>What do mean "that's not detail"?

I mean what I said.

>>3905625
Eh, lack of real 32 bit colors. Sorry I don't know the actual tech explanation.

analogous to subpixel rendering on lcd displays, you can exploit the physical characteristics of a crt display to achieve an illusion of detail that exceeds the technical capabilities of the display. in the case of lcd screens, it's generally used for making fonts look smoother, in the case of crts, it's used for smooth color transitions and transparency effects achieved with the use of dithering and also for displaying details smaller than individual pixels when exploited by a skilled artist. it adds colors that wouldn't be possible to display otherwise and it gives the image the appearance of having a higher resolution than it actually has, at the cost of making individual pixels look soft/blurry.

consider a strictly black and white pattern displayed on a crt monitor. a blurry display shows more color values (shades of grey) than a perfectly sharp display, which ideally would only be capable of displaying two colors - black and white. a blurry image is more complex and has a higher level of detail from the standpoint of information theory, since it's made up of a greater number of discrete states. compare the file sizes of two pngs with the same dimensions - first png showing a black square next to a white square, second png showing the same image but with heavy blur applied, adding a smooth transition between black and white.

when dealing with low resolution graphics, the blur imparted by the limitations of crt technology is actually too insignificant to lose any pixels - the source image being displayed contains less pixels than the screen is capable of displaying to begin with. you can still discern each individual pixel of the image being displayed, it's just smoothed out, and thus there's no loss of information, no loss of detail. you can reconstruct the original image based on its on-screen representation if you so wish. for loss of information to take place, the noise level has to exceed the signal level.

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

1MB, 2000x3000px

>>3898448
I'm with Nintendo.

>>3905787
>DOT MATRIX WITH STEREO SOUND
Metroid II was played on a low-res LCD, and the graphics were designed for such.

>>3905751
It's no use explaining it. anon probably turns off all font smoothing and anti-aliasing on his computer, so he doesn't lose any "detail" lmao.

>>3903264
What filter is this?

>>3906352
Retroarch CRT Royale shader, hand-tweaked to look like my Trinitron.

Here's the .cgp file. Still a work in progress.
https://pastebin.com/mq078XRh

One of the key parameters controlling overall sharpness is TVOUT_RESOLUTION. Bumping this value with sharpen and pixellate the image more, making it look more like a PC CRT monitor.

If you want something that looks more like a broadcast BVM/PVM monitor with thick, meaty scanlines, look up the CRT Royale Kurozumi settings. It looks nice on arcade games, but it's looks a little too clinical for old console games.

File: 1488428935483.jpg (17KB, 285x279px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 285x279px

>ITT : people who are unaware of signal processing

File: blur and noise.jpg (722KB, 1196x896px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1196x896px

>>3905751

Images designed for LCD screens will also use dithering when they have to. And they do this because it's not necessary to blur the shit out of everything to create the illusion of more colors. Your eyes will do that for you, even with the Sonic waterfall.

Even if blur did help, I don't think there's anything special about what CRT displays do.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (91KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1920x1080px

CRT fanatics are the video game version of people who use PS1s as CD players.

>>3906939
and emulators are the section 8 of gaming

>>3906939
Not nearly as pretentious. CRT are common, and many people just use the same ones they had when they were kids.

But I think the biggest factor isn't CRT, it's SD screens. There are SD LCDs that are 4:3 and those are also OK.
The problem are the screens that are HD, obviously SD games on them won't look as good.

>>3906961
those old 4:3 SD LCDs are really bad. Very premature technology that still hasn't reached its point of ideal quality that is showing hard limitations for the tech despite its age. I just don't think LCD was a good move for display tech outside of portable or miniature specialized displays.

>>3906939
The problem on the other side of the equation are the 00s kids who fetishize chunky pixels as a way of distinguishing themselves from normies who only play AAA PS4 games. It's a complete mischaracterization of how these games were originally experienced and designed. The only time I ever really noticed pixels in the 90s was when I was playing DOS games on a high-res PC monitor.

CRTs are a very shitty technology in some ways, but the old pixel artists knew this and took advantage of CRT's strengths and weakness to get the best picture possible.

Looking at a raw pixel map of a NES game is like looking at a screenshot of a modern game with no AA, no anisotropic filtering, no depth of field, no ambient occlusion, nothing. It just doesn't like right.

I wonder if 20 years from now the kids will be emulating Xbox360/PS3 games and deliberately not applying antialiasing. "omg I love 720p jaggies they're so retro lol! Uncharted basically INVENTED 3d action adventures. There was nothing else like it before."

>"Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will sure become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided." - Brian Eno

>>3906895
Thanks dude, looks great but damn my PC cant handle it.

>>3907016
>CRTs were shitty tech
Suck my nutz

>>3907450
tell ur mom to suck my electron gun, degauss my ballz, and then reach around and massage my flyback transformer

>Get new glasses
>Games are too sharp can't enjoy them as the developers intended™

File: flat,800x800,070,f.jpg (80KB, 800x542px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x542px

>>3905751
sooo i should turn biliniear filtering on, right? i'd use shaders, but simple ones feel fake and advanced ones don't run on my pc and look to heavy.

File: Nintendo1993Calendar-07-vgo.jpg (1MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x3000px

>>3906294
It's not just M2 though. It was always meant to be this way.

>>3898448
Depends on if I'm playing on an LCD display or a CRT television. Duh.

>>3907794
That spritework isn't even made by the original devs, someone at NoA did those. The green Yoshi eyes are kinda creepy.
You always post that calendar when you want to argue LCD vs CRT, but it doesn't prove the games themselves were "meant to be this way".
That's still a cool calendar, even if some of the sprites look a bit wonky.

File: 1488096654551.png (4KB, 960x459px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 960x459px

>>3905751
You mistakenly claim information is more sparse in the sharp image vs the blurred image. The amount of information needed to describe something depends on your choice of how to describe it. For instance, you used a pixel basis to argue that the information content of a sharp image is less than a blurred image. However, countless image compression routines use sinusoidal bases instead to represent images, because image information is often more sparse in a Fourier-like basis than a pixel basis. In fact, the sharp image would require a huge bandwidth to accurately represent the sharp transition (look up Gibbs phenomenon). Furthermore, your claim that one can perfectly reconstruct the source data from a displayed image is actually a claim about the limited amount of information contained within the (bandlimited) signal, and by saying it's lo-res compared to the display, you are implicitly appealing to the Nyquist Sampling theorem.

> for loss of information to take place, the noise level has to exceed the signal level
This is completely false. A bit can flip in transit even with an SNR > 0 dB. In contrast, even when SNR < -90dB you can reconstruct signals perfectly if you are sophisticated and have something like an encoding scheme going on. Cross-correlation is a wonderful thing.

>>3907729
Intuitively I'd suspect a Gaussian filter to be superior from both a computational and aesthetic point of view (it's a separable filter (read really fucking fast) and isotropic (read smooths the same in all directions, unlike bilinear)).

File: wojak affine 2.png (74KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x500px

>>3907990
TFW affine mapping

File: rearranged.jpg (28KB, 226x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 226x300px

>>3907810
>but it doesn't prove the games themselves were "meant to be this way".

It proves that even back then there were many other people like me, who thought that is indeed how they ideally would look. An image of 100X100 pixels (or whatever) looks best with crisp definition, not blur and distortion.

File: SNES--Mario Paint Joystick_Feb8 19_13_49.png (5KB, 256x224px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 256x224px

>>3908154
People always knew how pixels were and how were they made.
That doesn't mean they were designed to be displayed on HD screens at gigantic resolutions.

File: P10707011.jpg (4MB, 3645x2734px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3645x2734px

>>3907016
>The problem on the other side of the equation are the 00s kids
It's not just kids though, that's what you always seem to forget. Even if it was that's an empty argument, but that it gets brought up every time is ridiculous.

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

157KB, 750x1061px

>>3908159
It doesn't mean they never drempt of seeing them that way, crisp and clean. I did long, long before HD screens existed and clearly many others did too.

>>3908161
I mean, Atari 2600 games have that blocky pixel aesthetic you're looking for.
Later on devs started doing more intricate spritework and used the CRT's effects to fit their art direction (shadows, dithering, round forms, etc)
The american/EU covers of black label NES games were made specifically to show to the public that they weren't selling games based on unrealistic cover art.

>>3908165
>I mean, Atari 2600 games have that blocky pixel aesthetic you're looking for.

With Atari definitely but even when it comes to 16 bit and later. To me this >>3900864 looks magnitudes better than this >>3900858 or this >>3906936


We don't have to agree, but I know I'm far from alone in my preference and it's certainly not just kids who feel this way.

File: sanic.png (968KB, 1196x896px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1196x896px

>>3906936
>it's not necessary to blur the shit out of everything to create the illusion of more colors. Your eyes will do that for you, even with the Sonic waterfall.

Demonstrably false. If your no.1 priority is perfectly sharp pixels, more power to you, but you're too stubborn or ignorant to realize that there's an inherent tradeoff. What you gain and what you lose in that tradeoff is also highly game-dependent.

>>3908283
>but you're too stubborn or ignorant to realize that there's an inherent tradeoff.

I think you mean me, and it's not that I don't see there's a trade off, it's that I think it looks worse.

File: l_57c804ddd482f.jpg (75KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x360px

>>3907016
>"Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will sure become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided." - Brian Eno
why are you posting a quote about hipsterfags like yourself? if you'll look at modern ports(i.e. wild guns reloaded, battle garregga rev 2016) they all have crisp pixels and at best what you get is optional bilinear filtering. there was always a push for crisp, clear picture, only a fucking hipster would apply all this shader shit and intentionally seek outdated technology like crt and vhs.
>omg I love 720p jaggies they're so retro lol!
but that's how xbox360/ps3 looked the last time i saw them(unless you sit way the fuck back), fags like you will cherish 720p in 20 years becouse it "adds depth".

>>3908204
>To me this >>3900864 looks magnitudes better than this >>3900858 or this >>3906936

Well, none of those look like CRT, it's just emu shaders.

>>3908953
They do a good job of making image look like it did on crt.

File: image.jpg (111KB, 635x448px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 635x448px

>people emulate shitty CRTs instead of emulating composite cables

>>3898448
Plebeians: Real hardware on HDTV
Patricians: Emulation on a CRT

>>3909107
>emulating a blur
Is this the new audiophile?

>"This is a beautiful screen. You can actually see every single pixel, which means it looks nothing like it did back in the 90s! [laughs] Because all these kind of crazy edgy pixel things. It's why I'm always kind of baffled by the old 8-bit look that people do, because those hash patterns actually on the televisions of the day would have blurred together into very nice gradients. And so we probably need to create a piece of software that simulates the way they looked back then, because I think people have a mis-impression of how that stuff looked. The art was spectacular, actually." - Louis Castle, co-founder of Westwood Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kILeyo1iv0A

get a load of this hipsterfag. Westwood Studios? Never heard of em. Probably some shitty hipster indie "studio". Pathetic.

>>3909051
They really don't.

>>3908953

That third one was me blurring the image in GIMP and applying a 90s canvas texture to it.

>>3903308
This looks really close to the Trinitron I have on my desk. Like almost all CRT shaders, it's blurrier than the real thing. A properly configured consumer CRT looks anti-aliased and kind of "fuzzy", but not blurry. And then there are PVMs, which are really crisp and not blurry at all.

>>3909883
Nah, they do.

>>3898448
Why would you want to look at that, it looks like such an eyesore. Just deal with a few pixels, is it really that bad?

>>3902919
time to kill myself

>>3900858
instant headache, this does something weird to your eyes

>>3911246
ah, that means its just like the real thing!

seriously though, dont use crt shaders unless youre going to be sitting a few feet away from the screen. they look nasty up close (just like real tvs)

>>3911249
These shaders still look nothing like real CRTs, even at a distance.

>>3911293
Several CRT owners ITT have claimed otherwise. Sorry bud, I think you need to get your eyes checked.

File: DSCF4773.jpg (404KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1500x1125px

>>3908953
>Well, none of those look like CRT, it's just emu shaders.

Obviously, though I don't actually think they look as ugly as a real CRT, it still looks bad. And yes I know this is a shitty picture of a particularly shitty one. I hate them all though.

>>3911795
All retro games look like absolute shit though anything but a CRT

>>3909107
This desu. The blur makes the game look the way it's supposed to look on Sega Genesis games at least.

>>3911293
Anon's shader mimics an aperture grille Trinitron, so if you're used to shadow mask CRTs, it won't look right.

>>3898448
wtf rightie doesn't even look like linear. too blurry

>>3911816
We'll just have to disagree then. To me, anything hooked up to a CRT looks like absolute shit. To each their own...

>>3911335
And several other CRT owners have also claimed these look nothing like a real CRT (they are right, by the way).

Anyway, play whatever the fuck you want. Like to play SD games stretched to HD resolutions? Nobody gives a fuck. Just don't try to convince other people that CRTs look like shaders on emulators on HD screens.

>>3911874
>And several other CRT owners have also claimed these look nothing like a real CRT (they are right, by the way).

This is true. Filters can't replicate CRT glare.

>Anyway, play whatever the fuck you want

Also this.

>>3911874
>these look nothing like a real CRT (they are right, by the way)
how so? I'm genuinely curious.

>>3911938
It's just the kind of light that is part of what causes the blur these filters try to imitate. Like taking a photo of a tungsten light, it will look bright but never really the same.

>>3911860
Well now I feel bad. Everyone has their own taste, sorry anon.

File: [Gay Silence].jpg (14KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x480px

>>3898448
Eh, it really depends on the game desu.

For some games filtering works wonders or even gives the game an interesting new look.
In alot of cases though it just looks like shit.

>>3912006
yeah, I guess we'd need HDR displays to reproduce that convincingly. Although, there are some CRT shaders already that try to imitate halation/glow effects.

One thing you always have to keep in mind is that there was no one single type of CRT. The basic technology is over a century old, and CRT TVs changed significantly over the decades. A wood-panel TV from the 70s hooked up via RF cable looks nothing like a late 90s Trinitron over an RGB connection.

One thing I've learned from playing with all the CRT shaders is this: some people had some godawful TVs.

File: 1.jpg (54KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 852x480px

>>3912052
You can't base your opinion on CRT through emulator shades.
It can't be emulated. No matter the model, it's the technology and physical electronic components that make it different from an LCD or any other HD screen.

>>3909835
>This is a beautiful screen
sounds like he admits it's still very good looking. something tells me given a choice most people would prefer sharp picture and le cool retro pixels have nothing to do with it, nobody likes soap in their eyes and dull colors.

>>3911217

Tell me how it went, I'm considering that option aswell

>>3911217

Tell me how it went, I'm considering that option aswell

>>3913110
>industry veteran spends first 5 words being polite to the interviewer
>industry veteran spends next 100 words disagreeing with everything I've said
>something tells me everyone still agrees with me anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AeehAP01SA

just let it go, dude. it should be obvious by now that there are multiple people on both sides of this argument, each with their own good reasons. Take your pick: fuzzy glass tube, or jaggy screen door. End of story.

>>3898510
>crt
>shader

pick one

>>3912040
lol no reason to feel bad, who gives a shit? Just saying, not everyone likes them or their games to look distorted and blurry.

>>3912052
>One thing I've learned from playing with all the CRT shaders is this: some people had some godawful TVs.

Some people think their godawful TV was just how it was supposed to look so that's what they emulate...

Definitely off, but I'd much rather throw some fake scanlines on there than go naked.

>>3913657
What? Are you telling me that games were being developed on computers and not on shit blurry CRTs, and pixel art was supposed to work the same way it does on modern displays? Heresy! Next you're gonna tell me there are GameBoy games that use dithering. </sarcasm>

>>3915810
Not every TV looks the same was more his point.

>>3915810
>games were being developed on computers and not on shit blurry CRTs
Computer displays in those days were also CRTs, genius. Sharper than your average TV set, but still a CRT.

And if you've ever seen old game dev photos, you'd know that they usually had a little TV set up next to the computer so they could see what the pixel output would look like, and adjust accordingly.

>>3915810
></sarcasm>
You have to go back.

>>3903957
This.

>>3903952
Are you saying that performing a Gaussian kernel is the same as a noise overlaid sum?

>>3906939
Using PS1 as a cd player is a trend now?

>>3918227
It was a few years ago. Probably because the PS1 uses a $5 Japanese DAC instead of a $1 Chinese DAC like in their $2000 snake-oil hifi gear. That and the placebo effect.

>>3918213
>Are you saying that performing a Gaussian kernel is the same as a noise overlaid sum?

Holy shit you're dense.

>>3898698
You can scale 2x with simple dobling and then upscale or downscale with bilinear filtering. Pixel edges will not cut your eyes but pixels will still remain in their true form.

>>3907016
>CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video
What the fuck is he talking about? Some audiophile memes?

>>3920043
yeah, exactly that

>>3919463
>Holy shit you're dense.
Pot calling the kettle.

>>3920340
Nice try, but not even close.

>>3921502
Whatever you say, Pot.

>>3911874
>>3912006
>>3912067
Lel holy fuck you're retarded.