Was the blurring of old snes models like a crude form of anti-aliasing? Do you think it was effective?
>Was the blurring of old snes models like a crude form of anti-aliasing?
No. At least not intended as such.
It's just noise over an analog signal. The SFC Jr. has less, and better components that had less noise.
Thats all.
>>4160960
i'm sure I'd read it was intentional, and the later models that lacked it were a result of cutting production costs
>>4162208
More likely it's the result of nobody cared, including the people buying it.
In America, later Genesis models had better sound. Also unintentional, most likely.
>>4160948
Umm you arent supposed to zoom in that close to the TV
>>4160948
>comparison
>uses different images
this shit angers me
>>4160948
>Was the blurring of old snes models like a crude form of anti-aliasing?
yes
>Do you think it was effective?
yes
thanks for the great thread, anon. really made me think
>>4162293
This.
The companies producing this hardware aren't prioritizing quality above all else. They will go with the cheapest option acceptable.
>>4162293
>later Genesis models had better sound.
What is this, opposite day?
This is how I describe the benefits of CRTs to people, that their inherent fuzziness compared to modern LCD displays results in the picture looking "better" even though it is worse from a technical standpoint.
>>4162679
>he doesn't know about VA4 model 2s
>>4163331
>results in the picture looking "better" even though it is worse from a technical standpoint.
It's so funny how literal autists can't comprehend this effect and start rambling about loss of information and so on.
It has that effect. Also tones down the highlights in the image.
But there's nothing magical about the process. It's literally just blur + noise.
>>4163481
in this case the image on the right looks better