It's always better to play on an actual CRT when you can, but filters are fine. For example, I don't use them to be authentic af and faithful to the original hardware experience, scanlines just make the low res less noticeable. Wouldn't use them for every game tho, stuff like SNES Mario and Zelda look great as a clear pixelated image.
> Those filter looks way too dark.
It is darker than without a filter, but not that much, I can just increase the screen brightness on my phone and be fine. Screenshots when they aren't seen in the original resolution look really weird tho.
> I think on a phone I'd rather use bilinear/quilez if I wanted to filter stuff
Also an option, but I just don't like the blur.
Why composite and not RGB? RGB is the best of the best when it comes to signal quality.
Really once you get to s-video you're most of the way there, if you want the best possible it's RGB though.
Composite is how most people experienced games in their youth. Retro gaming is about reexperiencing that era in human history. Nothing wrong with experiencing the better technologies of the era, but thats like saying everyone was driving Corvettes and Porches back then.
That is an arcade game designed for RGB display. The CRT emulation sample clearly has some kind of composite or RF filtering going on warping the little dragon's eyes.
It's kinda funny how people have been applying composite filtering to stuff that didn't have it. I remember seeing someone apply it to a PC98 game and getting their ass chewed
That looks nothing like a CRT
Lottes was made by a guy who had input from devs who made games for CRTs. It just doesn't look like your CRT
Which CRT shader? Many are made to be sharp or mimick a PVM. The blurry ones tend to simulate the NTSC video signal and they're blurrier than bilinear. However, it depends on how your emulator is setting up the bilinear filtering. If you apply on a 240p image then upscale to your resolution, you're gonna get a blurry mess. Ideally, you'd like to upscale using nearest-neighbor, then apply bilinear filtering on the final image. The result is not so blurry and reminds the NTSC video signal while still mantaining brightness and decent sharpness. A good balance.
It might depend on how you configure your NTSC shader. The ones I've seen aren't as blurry as bilinear, there's still grit to the image. Probably because CRT shaders scale to nearest neighbor before applying their effects while typical bilinear does...pretty much what you've said. >Ideally, you'd like to upscale using nearest-neighbor, then apply bilinear filtering on the final image.
That's sharp-bilinear, right? I use that fairly often.
>That's sharp-bilinear, right? I use that fairly often.
Yes. Forgive me, but I messed up my memories, that's not what I use the most, though sharp-bilinear is still good. I use regular bilinear filtering. What I wanted to say (yet I forgot the explanation) is that some emulators really frick up the bilinear filtering, making things way too much blurry. That was many years ago, so maybe it was the monitor's fault (shitty early LCDs) or just old builds of the emulator. Nowadays, I play on 42+ inches TVs and it feels fine to me, to the point I can still see individual pixels, with an added blur.
What emulator's bilinear filtering are you using? The one Retroarch has looks really blurry to me, though yeah it's not as bad if I'm playing on a TV at a distance
RetroArch too, through a glsl shader, not the CPU filter, but I don't know if there's really a difference. What I do know it's different is the output resolution. I had a low-spec device that I played at 768p. In that case, bilinear was not so good for me. When I'm playing at 1080p, bilinear is sharper.
After almost 10 years of fiddling, I'm really tired of "fighting" against the difference between a CRT and a LCD screen. At least for now, it's impossible to both of them to be equivalent, so I'm playing with the latter's strengths. LCDs are sharper and need to interpolate to avoid uneven pixels, so be it. I just use bilinear so the excessive sharpness won't be so dissociative of the original CRT experience; the result is still a bright image with an harmonic output across other systems.
tl;dr: a matter of taste. You could also try the smootheststep shader if bilinear is still too blurry for you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know, maybe its because I'm using the slang version but it does seem very blurry still. I think the color bleed of NTSC shaders give sprites an outlined look that hides how blurry it really is compared to bilinear.
I will say, that degree of blur does help for games like DKC, shit's ugly sharp
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can't property judge by the screenshot. It seems a little bit blurrier than mine, but I don't think it'd suit your taste anyway. As a third-worlder, I grew up with not-so-good CRT screens, so it's nothing strange to me. Have you tried the quillez shader? Or even smootheststep? They tend to be a middle-ground between raw and bilinear.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah quilez is pretty nice, I use for handheld games since I do think they need to be a bit blurry if blown up to a monitor
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was a real nice talking to you, anon. You're a pleasant fellow. I hadn't a nice conversation here since a few months ago.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yea you too, feels like the board had a steep decline after 6th gen was allowed
That's not bilinear in picrel, you kong. There's an opportunity presenting here for you to the following:
1. Open emulator of choice.
2. Select bilinear filter/shader and nothing else.
3. Boot up Donkey Kong Country.
4. Beat the first 4 levels.
5. Just after Coral Capers, there is a Funky Kong.
6. Screencap the "lookin' good" part, now with the correct bilinear look.
7. Open up favorite image editor and recreate picrel from the previous screencap.
8. ???
9. Now you king of 4chin.
How exactly is the correct aspect ratio determined?
The overscan area changes depending on the system and even the individual games. The worst offenders have pixel garbage on just one side of the screen.
Dot clock of console https://pineight.com/mw/page/Dot_clock_rates.xhtml multiplied by active scanline period of rec 601 (52.148) gives you your horizontal resolution. Divide by vertical resolution and you've got your AR.
But that's assuming I want to display the entire image, no?
I meant specifically that you aren't always supposed to show the entire image due to games assuming a certain portion is lost to overscan. So you'd need to crop pixels out and depending on the console that crop might not be uniform on every side, thus changing the aspect ratio of the picture you want to actually see.
Dot clock of console https://pineight.com/mw/page/Dot_clock_rates.xhtml multiplied by active scanline period of rec 601 (52.148) gives you your horizontal resolution. Divide by vertical resolution and you've got your AR.
So actually I may have been mistaken. i thought I once read dotclock*52.148 gives the "true" horz. res., but after some quick research it seems pretty unanimous 8:7 (1.143) is the correct PAR if we're using SNES/NES as an example. The above formula gives closer to 1.1. A 1.143 PAR makes a 292x224 snes resolution or ~1.30 aspect ratio (about 4:3) whereas 1.1 PAR makes a 280x224 snes resolution or ~1.25 aspect ratio (about 5:4). So if you go no wider than 4:3 and no narrower than 5:4 you're probably close enough. As for your overscan question—no idea since I use a CRT, but just keep your PAR around what it says on that pineight website for your console and it shouldn't matter what you crop off the sides/top. It just takes a bit of math.
I hate how people interchange the terms "filters" and "shaders"
bilinear filtering is good, if applied after integer scaling
post-processing shaders are ok
now upscale rendering that are not nearest neighbor, those are the devil and should be killed
Playing it with a composite signal on a real CRT is the best way, IMO. Filters are fake & gay.
It's always better to play on an actual CRT when you can, but filters are fine. For example, I don't use them to be authentic af and faithful to the original hardware experience, scanlines just make the low res less noticeable. Wouldn't use them for every game tho, stuff like SNES Mario and Zelda look great as a clear pixelated image.
Stop being reasonable on /vr/.
Those filter looks way too dark. I think on a phone I'd rather use bilinear/quilez if I wanted to filter stuff
> Those filter looks way too dark.
It is darker than without a filter, but not that much, I can just increase the screen brightness on my phone and be fine. Screenshots when they aren't seen in the original resolution look really weird tho.
> I think on a phone I'd rather use bilinear/quilez if I wanted to filter stuff
Also an option, but I just don't like the blur.
Why not?
>Scanlines
>On a fricking phone
obviously simulating playing games on a 6" PVM, as the developers intended
filters are fine, but that one is extremely ugly
>composite
Play with an RF connection as intended by the developers
Tongue-in-cheek, bro. Tongue-in-cheek.
frick you're a weirdo, and so is
and
isn't much better
Worst launch of a thread in /vr/ history. Where the frick do you ppl come from?
>Worst launch of a thread in /vr/ history.
Welcome to /vr/ newfriend. How's your first day going?
>first day of the rest of your life
you meant
Why composite and not RGB? RGB is the best of the best when it comes to signal quality.
Really once you get to s-video you're most of the way there, if you want the best possible it's RGB though.
Composite is how most people experienced games in their youth. Retro gaming is about reexperiencing that era in human history. Nothing wrong with experiencing the better technologies of the era, but thats like saying everyone was driving Corvettes and Porches back then.
Composite allowed analog special effects. Blending, extra colors, yada yada.
In the worst cases playing a game in RGB is wiping away an entire layer of virtual detail and resolution from the game.
I'm very happy that we have threads that erroneously conflate subjective taste with objective quality every day.
Those all look like shit. How could any be the best choice?
>more people using bad emulation as an argument
I like lottes-fast and there's nothing you can do about it
That looks nothing like a CRT
Everyone needs to take the 5:4 pill already
>I'm glad we can all agree Pixel Perfect is the best choice
B-but I didn't say anything...
Don't know what you did to your 4:3...
It's called non-integer scaling on a piece of shit 720p Switch
That is an arcade game designed for RGB display. The CRT emulation sample clearly has some kind of composite or RF filtering going on warping the little dragon's eyes.
It's kinda funny how people have been applying composite filtering to stuff that didn't have it. I remember seeing someone apply it to a PC98 game and getting their ass chewed
Lottes was made by a guy who had input from devs who made games for CRTs. It just doesn't look like your CRT
Pixel perfect is a speedrunning term and does not apply to anything else outside of speedrunning.
yeah akshully its called 1:1 PAR (pixel aspect ratio) you turboplebs
4:3 is better
Bilinear is blurrier than most CRT shaders, why would you ever recommend it?
Which CRT shader? Many are made to be sharp or mimick a PVM. The blurry ones tend to simulate the NTSC video signal and they're blurrier than bilinear. However, it depends on how your emulator is setting up the bilinear filtering. If you apply on a 240p image then upscale to your resolution, you're gonna get a blurry mess. Ideally, you'd like to upscale using nearest-neighbor, then apply bilinear filtering on the final image. The result is not so blurry and reminds the NTSC video signal while still mantaining brightness and decent sharpness. A good balance.
Just use sharp-bilinear.
It might depend on how you configure your NTSC shader. The ones I've seen aren't as blurry as bilinear, there's still grit to the image. Probably because CRT shaders scale to nearest neighbor before applying their effects while typical bilinear does...pretty much what you've said.
>Ideally, you'd like to upscale using nearest-neighbor, then apply bilinear filtering on the final image.
That's sharp-bilinear, right? I use that fairly often.
>That's sharp-bilinear, right? I use that fairly often.
Yes. Forgive me, but I messed up my memories, that's not what I use the most, though sharp-bilinear is still good. I use regular bilinear filtering. What I wanted to say (yet I forgot the explanation) is that some emulators really frick up the bilinear filtering, making things way too much blurry. That was many years ago, so maybe it was the monitor's fault (shitty early LCDs) or just old builds of the emulator. Nowadays, I play on 42+ inches TVs and it feels fine to me, to the point I can still see individual pixels, with an added blur.
What emulator's bilinear filtering are you using? The one Retroarch has looks really blurry to me, though yeah it's not as bad if I'm playing on a TV at a distance
RetroArch too, through a glsl shader, not the CPU filter, but I don't know if there's really a difference. What I do know it's different is the output resolution. I had a low-spec device that I played at 768p. In that case, bilinear was not so good for me. When I'm playing at 1080p, bilinear is sharper.
After almost 10 years of fiddling, I'm really tired of "fighting" against the difference between a CRT and a LCD screen. At least for now, it's impossible to both of them to be equivalent, so I'm playing with the latter's strengths. LCDs are sharper and need to interpolate to avoid uneven pixels, so be it. I just use bilinear so the excessive sharpness won't be so dissociative of the original CRT experience; the result is still a bright image with an harmonic output across other systems.
tl;dr: a matter of taste. You could also try the smootheststep shader if bilinear is still too blurry for you.
I don't know, maybe its because I'm using the slang version but it does seem very blurry still. I think the color bleed of NTSC shaders give sprites an outlined look that hides how blurry it really is compared to bilinear.
I will say, that degree of blur does help for games like DKC, shit's ugly sharp
I can't property judge by the screenshot. It seems a little bit blurrier than mine, but I don't think it'd suit your taste anyway. As a third-worlder, I grew up with not-so-good CRT screens, so it's nothing strange to me. Have you tried the quillez shader? Or even smootheststep? They tend to be a middle-ground between raw and bilinear.
Yeah quilez is pretty nice, I use for handheld games since I do think they need to be a bit blurry if blown up to a monitor
It was a real nice talking to you, anon. You're a pleasant fellow. I hadn't a nice conversation here since a few months ago.
Yea you too, feels like the board had a steep decline after 6th gen was allowed
CRT's don't have pixels and they run at 4:3.
That's the only way that can be considered perfect.
>Ideally, you'd like to upscale using nearest-neighbor, then apply bilinear filtering on the final image.
You should be using an interpolation shader like pixellate or bandlimit-pixel instead, you will get much better results.
>filters
>shaders
>bi-linear
That's not bilinear in picrel, you kong. There's an opportunity presenting here for you to the following:
1. Open emulator of choice.
2. Select bilinear filter/shader and nothing else.
3. Boot up Donkey Kong Country.
4. Beat the first 4 levels.
5. Just after Coral Capers, there is a Funky Kong.
6. Screencap the "lookin' good" part, now with the correct bilinear look.
7. Open up favorite image editor and recreate picrel from the previous screencap.
8. ???
9. Now you king of 4chin.
>arr firters arr the same
moron
Filters make coomlectors seethe because they realize their expensive hobby is worthless
How exactly is the correct aspect ratio determined?
The overscan area changes depending on the system and even the individual games. The worst offenders have pixel garbage on just one side of the screen.
Dot clock of console https://pineight.com/mw/page/Dot_clock_rates.xhtml multiplied by active scanline period of rec 601 (52.148) gives you your horizontal resolution. Divide by vertical resolution and you've got your AR.
But that's assuming I want to display the entire image, no?
I meant specifically that you aren't always supposed to show the entire image due to games assuming a certain portion is lost to overscan. So you'd need to crop pixels out and depending on the console that crop might not be uniform on every side, thus changing the aspect ratio of the picture you want to actually see.
So actually I may have been mistaken. i thought I once read dotclock*52.148 gives the "true" horz. res., but after some quick research it seems pretty unanimous 8:7 (1.143) is the correct PAR if we're using SNES/NES as an example. The above formula gives closer to 1.1. A 1.143 PAR makes a 292x224 snes resolution or ~1.30 aspect ratio (about 4:3) whereas 1.1 PAR makes a 280x224 snes resolution or ~1.25 aspect ratio (about 5:4). So if you go no wider than 4:3 and no narrower than 5:4 you're probably close enough. As for your overscan question—no idea since I use a CRT, but just keep your PAR around what it says on that pineight website for your console and it shouldn't matter what you crop off the sides/top. It just takes a bit of math.
Playing 480 (and above) content should be done on flatscreens only
CRT is fricking awful for clarity
I hate how people interchange the terms "filters" and "shaders"
bilinear filtering is good, if applied after integer scaling
post-processing shaders are ok
now upscale rendering that are not nearest neighbor, those are the devil and should be killed