Who wears it better?

>>4181794
Eye of the beholder.

Left looks 100 times better to me.

>>4181794
Maybe I'm just seeing things but the colors on the CRT look a tad washed out.

File: IMG_0790.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>4181807

>>4181807
Maybe because it's harder to photograph a CRT

Which one has less input lag?

>>4181839

Hard as hell with my shitty android camera

>>4181845

Same amount oddly enough

Does that LCD have a backlight strobing (motion blur reduction) option? (It'll need to be turned on manually.)
Alternatively, if it's 120Hz+ monitor, you may be able to set the emulator to insert blank frames.
If neither of those is an option, the CRT will destroy the LCD in motion clarity.
The difference is immediately obvious if you look at the background when its scrolling. (Rather than focusing on Megaman himself.)

>>4181794
LCD, no doubt.

>>4181794
CRT masterrace

The colors look more natural on the CRT, look at the details on the floor under Megaman. Some color nuances seem to be lost on the LCD, it's weird, while the floor looks like it's almost too bright, the sky and the other colors on the background look more opaque than on the CRT.
But it doesn't look bat either. Both look pretty good.

>>4181794
You need to run it through composite to get a good NES image.

>>4181794
Since it's emulation the left is obviously how the developers originally intended.

File: ncv20xEgZc1rjrs7po1500.gif (332KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 500x375px

Don't HDTVs have lag? i don't care how it looks as long it doesn't have lag

>>4182392
Both are roughly the same.

>>4181794
The lcd isn't integer scaled, you notice it on megaman health bar how some of the black stripes are thicker than others. Simply unacceptable.

>>4181794
Neat.

>>4182594
This form of autism is simply unacceptable.

>>4181794
Left looks like shit. it would look even worse in motion.

>>4182713
Having standards is autism now?

This isn't debatable senpai

Is the Wii the best thing for Retro emulation?

>>4182392
hdtv's have significant lag. it's rare to have a model with less than 30ms of input lag, and I don't believe there are any with less than 20ms of input lag. that's 1 frame of total lag, you will notice the difference when you hook up a console via an upscaler like the xrgb mini, which adds yet another frame of lag. you will 100% notice it if you're coming from playing on a crt, if not, then you're just used to the lag from playing on an emulator for so long. say good bye to playing fighting games, and rythm games, and certain platformers like super mario world, super metroid, and super ghouls n ghosts play completely different with 45+ ms of input lag. anyone who doesnt agree has either a. never played on a crt and hasn't compared, and/or b. used to the shitty lag.

>>4182573

false.

>>4182796
>>4182392
OP is using a monitor, not a HDTV. A good monitor doesn't have as much lag as a flatscreen TV and if the emulator itself and the OS it's running on don't add too much input delay it's close to unrecognizable.

Greetings, someone who uses both CRT+console and PC+emulator.

>>4182753
No it just outputs 240p easily because nintendo stayed SD

crt looks better but they're both playable but the I don't use my crt too much because wears it out and they are pretty hard to find now

>>4182808
you do know monitor's have the same if not more input lag than hdtv's right? especially older ones, from the early 2010s, which is what op's monitor looks like. you are confusing greyscale shift latency with actual input lag.

and greetings? from someone who has a multiformat rgb crt, and oled 4k tv and ossc and all original hardware, flash carts + modchips

>>4182909
You also have an excess of possessive apostrophes...

>>4182909

I did manual lag tests on both. Wii emulators have slightly more lag than PC emulators, so Wii + crt can still have more lag than PC + LCD. Also, the LCD monitor itself has less than a frame of lag

>>4183010
>i bullshitted on the intarwebz
Cool story, pics or it didn't happen.

>>4182909
>you do know monitor's have the same if not more input lag than hdtv's right?
Are you fucking retarded?

>>4183563

Spoken like someone who has no personal experience of the topic.

Have you even retro gamed on these setups before or are you just shitposting?

>>4181794
Warm glow of a CRT beats the cold crispness of a LCD every time for me

>>4182796
>I don't believe there are any with less than 20ms of input lag

You're behind the times. Most modern Sonys are <20ms. My Sony in particular has 14ms input lag in game mode.

>>4183884
>Muh blur

>>4184008
?

Any reason you are using fceux instead of official VC?

File: 1393965182633.gif (1020KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 360x270px

My poor 1080 crt is collecting dust. The rgb flickered from time to time so I opened it up to see if there were loose wires. When I put it back together, it never powered on and I could never figure out why. I really miss that great little monitor.

>>4184027

Well, it's more convenient because I can have every nes rom available at once. Also, I can change resolution and button config fairly easy.

>>4184027
Official VC is darker than it should be.
>Surely you mean on the Wii U
No, the Wii.

File: that makes me hit the desk.png (24KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 240x240px

>>4182308

>>4182594
This is the only legit problem I can see from either side. Non-integered scaling looks especially bad to me on MM games

>>4184290

That's not a problem with LCDs though, just that OP apparently doesn't care

That is one comfy desk setup

>>4183596
>i bullshitted and can't back it up
Got it.

Right looks better. the image is more smooth and not bumpy like the right.

>>4181845
There wouldnt be any input lag from the hdtv side because its an emulator running from the pc.


Lag on modern tvs come from old consoles analog signal being converted to digital then upscaled.

Emulation allows you to scale the image at the cost of it being blocky.

>>4182594
>>4184290
The solution is to upscale 240p to 720p rather than 1080p as it is an even 3x scale. Alternatively a 5x scale may be acceptable if you don't mind cropping 12px from the top and bottom of the image. This is assuming the emulator allows such scaling.

File: 20170812_083417.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>4185071

My Samsung 720p plasma has a dedicated 240p game mode (component & composite only) that simply line triples the image, looks sharp as hell.

Picture is snatcher running on Wii @ 240p via component.

>>4185412

That actually looks way nicer than a crt

>>4181794
Crt

>>4181794
The right looks better. The left just looks like a PC running an emulator.

>>4181794
Right looks better IMO, but why the fuck are you using a gamecube controller?

>>4187548

>> The left just looks like a pc running an emulator

No, it's original hardware on a crt, I swear

>>4185412
what model?

Ive been looking for a dedicated 1280x720p tv for PS3 >games because 1366x768 pisses me off. I hate stretching on flatscreen monitors.

Plasma is great as well.

>>4181807
It does look like the color balance is off more, but I'm gonna say it's because he's using two different emulators on top of two different displays.

File: temp.jpg (771KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 2016x1512px

>>4181794
The right looks objectively better in several areas. The sprite looks blocky and flat on the LCD while it looks appropriately soft and shaded, including a more rounded appearance, on the Amiga. Similar effects in other places.

>>4182308
Underrated post

>>4188271

F4500; Wii and PS2 look incredible on this set, and it does a damn fine job of 240p if you don't mind that sharp pixel look.

Although it's a 768 line set as well, I think all 720p sets are. In fact this one is one of those bizarre 1024x768 widescreen units with rectangular pixels; if you hook up a PC and set it to native resolution, it'll be stretched horizontally.

Probably would be better off with a 1366x768 set for less fucking around.

>>4188486
the corkscrew poles sorely lack definition on the lcd too, appearing far too flat while the CRT treats them with an appropriate amount of contrast in the shading.

>>4189287
Yeah, I think it's because the screw pattern is too compact to use much of the darkest shade of pixels used on the part up top. On the CRT the colors blend as expected so that the corkscrew part appears to be under the same lighting as the round part, while on the LCD it looks too bright.

>>4188486
To me the added noise just makes it look grainy and blurry. I would rather see the clean, flat image. But that's why it's good both exist.

>>4189761
The "grainy" noise on the Amiga screen is a moiré pattern resulting from the camera used to take the picture. It doesn't look that way in real life. The sky would appear flat shaded for instance.

>>4181794
Both are shit

Get yourself a low end consumer CRT television and hook up a real NES over RF.

>>4189776
That's not what I'm talking about. I've seen both kinds of screens.

>>4189860

Tried that, it sucked. Limited to composite and shitty old toaster hardware. That and regular CRT's look like shit compared to an Amiga 1080

File: IMG_20170815_170705403.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

SNES 9x manual lag test

>>4183010
>Wii emulators have slightly more lag than PC emulators

I really doubt that considering Wii homebrew is running on bare metal, with nos OS/drivers/etc compared to PC emulators.

Please show these tests.

>>4192359
240p lag test is NOT an accurate way to measure input lag

the only things it tests are your reflexes

even 240p test suite author aknowledged this, yet thi sis still used by clueless people to brag about input lag and make silly hardware comparisons

the only true way is to use the same controller on both sides and a camera that can shoot fast enough to measure the lag between button press and effect on screen

File: potato.png (17KB, 791x251px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 791x251px

>>4193506
>Wii homebrew is running on bare metal, with nos OS/drivers/etc
Not the guy you're replying to. Just a guy who's giggling at how ignorant you are.

File: Zw468as.png (487KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 479x720px

>>4182594
>Simply unacceptable.

>>4193704
Well, sure, he's wrong about the bare metal part. But it's not an OS like Windows or Linux or even Android is an OS. It's more like DOS in that your process gets unfettered access to everything and the OS is ignorable.

File: IMAG0193.jpg (780KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 1440x2560px

>>4193510
Lag test is fine and plenty accurate.

It's the MANUAL lag test which is a load of shit.

CRTs look much better in person, so it's a tough call

>>4193925

Lag test is a reasonable way to decide for yourself which hardware you want to use. I'd pick the option which I consistently score the lowest on. Sure, it won't give an exact repeatable result useful to inform other people, but it will let you know approximately which hardware is best for you personally

>>4194245
If it's not repeatable then it's worthless for any purpose, personal or otherwise.

Science 101.

>>4194352

Perfect for personal

>>4194601
Okay, you can use it to mislead yourself.

Be my guest but it goes against thousands of years of logical thought.

>>4193704
>>4193784
what I meant is that Wii homebrew code runs direcly on the CPU and has direct/full access to GPU and APU through hardware registers and interrupts callbacks.

This means you can render video and audio with minimal buffering and therefore minimal latency (most homebrew use one frame buffering but they could theoretically blit pixels and output audio samples at much finer granularity in sync with A/V hardware) as opposed to code being run in a VM or needing to interface with Windows, DirectX, etc layers that always add processing time overhead and use much larger buffering.

Wii homebrew also has direct access to gamecube controller serial interface and input hardware reports frequency can actually be configured by software (16ms by default i.e one frame).

The only thing that actually ressemble an OS with drivers on Wii is the IOS software running on the starlet coprocessor but it does not to be accessed during homebrew unless you want access to dvd drive, sdcard or the bluetooth for wii remote.

>>4194616

You don't understand how it can work for personal use, that's ok

>>4194629
It doesn't work FULL-STOP because it is not repeatable.

It doesn't work to test controllers, consoles, upscalers, processors or displays. It gives you an extremely rough idea of fuck all and Artemio would be best just removing it from future revisions of 240p Test Suite altogether.

>>4194640
Oh and it doesn't even work to test the player's own reflexes because as I've said it is not repeatable in any way, shape or form.

>>4194645

Lol, pissy much?

It can give you a rough idea of the total lag of your set up. That's all it's there for. I'm glad it's there if it pisses off autists

>>4195373
>So where does the rest of non homebrew Wii code run? Indirectly on the CPU?
What do you mean by "the rest of non homebrew Wii code"? This does not make any sense. When you run Wii homebrew, the only thing that run on the main processor is homebrew code. As mentioned in precious post, here is Nintendo code running on the ARM coprocessor (Starlet) but it has no impact on lag unless you try to access wiimote, dvd or sd.

Again, 'bare metal' was probably not the good term but the point is that emulation code can run as close to the hardware as possible, with no extra layer adding buffering or processing overhead, which are generally the main causes of lag.

>Gotta fucking love these armchair wii wizzards.
Yeah, I love you too, even if you are a nitpicking moron with superiority complex and anger issues ;-)

>>4194772
>It can give you a rough idea of the total lag of your set up

No it doesn't . The simple fact that you obtain results that vary between 0 (!) and 4 frames indicate that this is not a trusty way to measure lag. Making an average value of such different results does not give any 'rough' idea of the lag, it's just the average of inaccurate results that depend on many outside factors like your reflexes, your brain, etc

>>4195978

It doesn't vary from 0 to 4, not even close. Always comes within half a frame at most for me. Lol, is it possible that you're inaccurate/inconsistent and not the test suite?

>>4196019
>It doesn't vary from 0 to 4,

>>4192359

Even if you are not samefag, it shows how much inconsistent the results can be.

I like CRT better but it's kind of messy. My room feels cluttered with the 21 inch CRT I have, no kidding.

I mean the input lag is hella noticeable but I think that's a product of the OS/adaptor I'm using with my psone controller, compared to using it with my PSTwo/Wii on that CRT.

And another issue with CRT, no matter how much I love it, is that I can't just plug my PC to it like it's no big deal. It requires both certain software and hardware. I have a collection of +200 PS1 games sitting there on a hard drive that, if I wanted to play and save, would require countless memory cards and discs. Oh and disc swapping, fuck that one too.

>>4197732
> i am incapable to explain people why I think they are wrong so I call them stupid and use sarcasm instead to feel myself better

Thanks for confirming. Please keep enlightening us with your unvaluable knowledge

left, i don't see why people consider right better, maybe thats because i live in the third world and i still have 4 crt tvs and 5 monitors in the attic

>>4185060
>There wouldnt be any input lag from the hdtv side because its an emulator running from the pc.
>Lag on modern tvs come from old consoles analog signal being converted to digital then upscaled.
>Emulation allows you to scale the image at the cost of it being b

This is wrong in like... 5 ways...

Emulation itself causes input lag and so do HD monitors. On top of that, the analog to digital input is barely any different at all since all LCD monitors/TVs require digital processing per frame regardless of what is thrown at it.

Here:

https://byuu.org/articles/latency/


Byuu details it up pretty well there.

>>4199057

Emulation doesn't cause lag, if you are using a half modern pc with a decent emulator

>>4199091
That is literally impossible and you clearly didn't even read any of the article that anon posted. Way to make yourself look like an idiot.

>>4199096

Lick my dirty dick, emulation isn't laggy. you've just got yourself convinced because you spent all your sheckles on old hardware and are pissed that free and superior options exist

>>4199889
emulation runs one frame at a time while previous frame is being displayed so it relies on frame buffering which adds one or two frame of latency compared to real console processing. Similarly, inputs are buffered and usually only refreshed once per frame and depending when polling is done compared to when input result is being used by emulated game to update upcoming screen, it can add up to one extra frame of latency as well.

Actually, any buffering adds some latency and by definition can cause lag. Software emulators add between 1 and 3 frames of latency deoenfing how they are coded, but this is indeed quite neglectable compared to latency caused by hardware or OS, drivers, etc overhead.

>>4188486
>>4189287
One is a glass screen and one is a flat panel, both will photograph differently and what you see in the photograph will not necessarily appear the same to the naked eye. Don't read too much in to it.

>>4193925
That's either an absolute dogshit LCD or it has been set up with as many processing filters as possible to rig the results to look worse. Three fucking seconds of lag? Come off it.

>>4181794
Looks about the same to me.

>>4181794
Left wins. CRT is a meme.

>>4200429
Three frames. 48 milliseconds.

>>4200373

There's no way that playing emulators on an LCD are going to give you 3 frames of emulator lag and then another frame or two for the LCD. That would be getting into 5+ frames and there just isn't that much lag

>>4200429
>LCD
It's a plasma actually and >>4200495
is correct.

Learn to read before shooting your mouth off.

>>4200581
80 ms is REALLY fast (much more that you seem to think, just try with a chronometer and see how fast you can start/stop it, it's way beyond that even if you are really really fast) so lag is not that much really noticeable.

when people say they can feel it, it's generally above 100 ms of latency

>>4202632
That's not strictly true. Don't underestimate people.
My friend and I both have reaction times of around 160ms in testing and can notice around 50ms and up in most games. It just doesn't tend to matter in a lot of things.

>>4203072
>Don't underestimate people.
ALl I know is some people like to think they are hardcore gamers with super powa and can feel things 10x faster than an eye blink . Does not mean that's true.

>My friend and I both have reaction times of around 160ms in testing and can notice around 50ms and up in most games
And how do you know what you noticed is exactly 50 ms or 160 ms? You measured it?

Brain is also a strange thing: once it knows 'something' is there, it will start looking for it and suddenly 'feeling' it.