Why do people (pejoratively) call Nintendo 64 "blurry", when this was a purposeful and considerate choice? Anti-aliasing has been employed in this console because it gives the world a natural sense of depth and focus to the eyes. Sensory perception in real-life does not create "sharp" images everywhere. The weighed look is normal. This is not difficult to understand.
It's the tiny textures
Graphic prostitutes are not retro gamers
>Sensory perception in real-life does not create "sharp" images everywhere.
Sure it does, my eyes focus on the thing I'm placing right in the center of my focus. Its always sharp.
Also OP, people are talking about the heavily bilinear filtered tiny textures that are part of most N64 games. You're confusing what people are getting at.
>people are referring to the textures
no, they aren't
>people are referring to the dithering
no, they aren't
Holy frick, how are you posting confidently what other people mean, when you haven't got a clue?
people didn't go and design and build a special board to replace the method of video signal generation in the N64 implementing fricking hardware vi-deblur because of 'small textures' you dipshits
In the post you’re replying to it explicitly mentions the dither blurring that is being disabled. It also doesn’t need a board to be disabled either, just a change in program code which can be done with a gameshark, dipshit. Try reading before flailing your tard rage.
People say it looked blurry because it used dithering and then averaged the colors to hide it, giving it a ‘smeared’ look. This in combination with textures that were often at most 32x32, stretched across very large polygons, without mip-mapping, are why it looks blurry. I personally adore the N64’s consequential visual aesthetic, but to say it makes no sense why people consider it “blurry” is being either willfully obtuse solely to stoke arguments, or you simply have no artistic sensibilities whatsoever. I’m guessing it’s a bit of both.
It felt stunted, IMO, compared to the Playstation.
>Sensory perception in real-life does not create "sharp" images everywhere
Go get your eyes checked anon, it's supposed to be.
Unironically console wars.
It's been exaggerated but I think that adding anti-aliasing like they did at the resolutions they did and making it mandatory in the console, is what led to the blurry look and reputation.
the 64 blur is its characteristic trait, when you see it, even in the good games (like a single low res texture stretched to fill an entire room) it can look really unappealing. Sort of like how sometimes saturn's waffle transparencies are too poor a fit for a scene, or ps1's texture warping looks especially rough. Most games mitigate it, but there's extreme examples here and there, 64 just happens to have those examples a little more because there's a smaller library so it stands out more. The worst PS1 3D is in something like sim city 2000's drive around mode which is a sub feature of a big game that most people don't play on PS1, especially these days.
That game would look alright with additive blending effects to mask the poor textures and visuals, unfortunately the N64 has too many issues on top each other, not even emulation makes it look better.
>Why do people (pejoratively) call Nintendo 64 "blurry"
Because it looks blurry when you play on a 27 inch monitor that's only 1ft away from your eyes
Some people don't like it but to me it's part of the N64 feel
Soul.
It was even blurrier on a CRT.
no it wasn't
A CRT will turn a single pixel into multiple
They make lower resolution images better
>CRTrannies have deluded themselves this much
>he doesn't know
concede to what?
CRTs don't display pixels, you underage moron.
CRT's do display game pixels
The screen itself doesn't have pixels
Do you like to just repeat random tidbits you hear
>A CRT will turn a single pixel into multiple
>>>CRTs don't display pixels
>UH HUH!
What a sad show.
>n-no you! x2
I accept your concession.
He's not lying tho. Depending on the original resolution of the image, the current location of the beam, the shape of the mask, etc, a single pixel may be displayed under multiple phosphors and blend itself with others.
>A CRT will turn a single pixel into multiple
>They make lower resolution images better
That's the most moronic way you could have ever entered the discussion at hand, showing a completely innacurate understanding of both what the guy you're quoting is trying to say, and how CRT's work. Stop sperging all over the thread, it's unredeemable.
Wrong
The claim was maid it was “even blurrier than that image on a CRT”
It wasn’t and what a said isn’t wrong
The only ones sperging are those responding
Do people always have to double down on posts they disagree with all the time now?
>claim was maid
>what a said
>sperging
First off, when anon said it was "unredeemable", it wasn't a pajeet call to action.
Second, it absolutely is wrong to say a CRT "turns one pixel into multiple" because CRTs continue to not use pixels.
Third, the image would be "blurrier" on CRT than the raw image shown. "Blurry" may not be the word that I'd use, but it is objectively less sharp because it's been interpolated.
I never claimed a CRT has pixels only that it breaks up the pixels produced by the console which absolutely does
You even said it yourself like it’s a form of interpolation
The implication on a blurrier image was that it would look worse, I just said it would look better
what practically no one knew then was the N64 supported s video but they never told anyone or made its own cables for it. even the American N64 manual says that it only supports rf and composite. it's so strange that they didn't tell anyone because it makes such a huge difference.
it was the same s-video cable as the SNES though, it wasn't hard to put two and two together
if you just bought an N64 and unboxed it, why wouldn't you hook it up with the composite cables that it comes with? you would have to consciously notice that the SNES and N64 share the same av out. I mean how often are you consciously thinking that? you plug the s video cables in once and never think about it again.
I never used the N64's composite cable. I was also an adult when I bought my N64
no fella you didn't
yeah I did
you mean when you bought the N64 and brought it home, unboxed and looked at the av plug, you had a eureka moment and went " wait this is the same plug from the snes" the plug which you spent 12 seconds plugging into your SNes and never thought about ever again, just so happened to be so vivid in your mind, that you immediately stuck them into your n64.
there's something called false memories, they happen to everyone.
no, knowing myself, I likely researched ahead of time, and as a detail-oriented person I pay attention to pinouts and AV cable plug shapes and stuff
https://web.archive.org/web/20000529232426/http://www.gamesx.com/avpinouts/snesav.htm
s-video doesn't remove the AA blur. Even modern soldered HDMI mods don't remove it because it's part of how the N64 renders stuff
The N64 has 2 AA passes including a horizontal blur
Don't the RGB mods have the capability of removing all AA though?
Apparently there's ways to do it with GameShark codes or patching ROMs, but I've never tried it myself
Someone made a patcher:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/n64noaapatcher-simple-app-for-no-aa-patch-n64-roms.590245/
S-Video doesn't remove blur, it just provides a much cleaner picture compared to composite. As for why the American manual doesn't mention S-Video, 99% of Americans at the time were still using either RF or composite and, due to the recession, they were not about to trade in their Sonys just for a different input type. It's not like now where zoomers willingly throw their iphones out every year, back then a TV was expected to last you at least ten years and the main reason to get it exchanged was purely based on screen size.
> doesn't remove blur
>provides a much cleaner picture.
ok are we just splitting hairs now? at what point to you is it not considered blurry? I'm sure there's a console you enjoy that also has a soft look. the ps2 has a horrendous blur filter and generally bad image quality as well yet sony fans who shit on the N64 for the same faults are completely silent about it. the Xbox also has a soft look to it.
>at what point to you is it not considered blurry?
when the multiple filter passes are turned off (like you can do in some emulators)
2D games look much better with these filters turned off.
PS2 has the worst iQ of its generation and I'll always shit on it for that
I mean from a visual stand point. we can't intellectually sense the blurriness right?
that's just speculation for why they didn't do it, and the anon under your post has an image of an N64 parts list where you can buy N64 s video cables. so why would they have them for sale, yet not say the the system supports them in the manual?
>it's so strange that they didn't tell anyone because it makes such a huge difference.
Lying Black person
so it was like the GameCube, where you had to order them, from their website. I've still never heard of anyone ever ordering them, just reusing their snes cables.
A lot of mediocre third party games did look like a blurry mess though.
Well a lot of the games do look blurry, regardless of if it was intentional or not, regardless of if they looked good or not, they were blurry.
Some games run at and oddball resolution of 360 x 272, there was a terrible analogue scaler in the N64 that would scale up to (nearly) full screen. That caused a lot of the fuzzyness on screen.
The tosh about the 4kb cache was only for single textures, and good developers like Nintendo and rare just split the textures up into pieces to achieve some unbelievable effects for it's time, just look at Sin and Punishment, majoras mask, goldeneye, mario 64, Perfect dark, Banjo and kazooie, Ocarina of time etc......
The problems were mainly caused by the filter's which did give a fuzz,blur, but this was only due to the video output, and colour bleed in video composite. In RGB, the n64 is gorgeous!
One solution if you have one huge polygon and you want to put a detailed texture on it. The easiest way is to repeat what you have in those 4 kb over and over. A good example would be a meadow in Mario 64. That's one huge polygon, but the texture doesn't look blurry. Why? Because the hardware is repeating a four kb texture 30 times over the whole polygon. So already, you've got decent resolution with all the textured pieced together!
>A good example would be a meadow in Mario 64. That's one huge polygon
What about hills?
>A good example would be a meadow in Mario 64. That's one huge polygon, but the texture doesn't look blurry.
What exactly are you referring to?
There was the bowser figure in Lava land either. Banjo Kazooie also did that in a wall
>There was the bowser figure in Lava land either. That's a sliding puzzle. Each segment of the puzzle is at least one polygon. Do you even know what a polygon is?
I'm not gay/pederast but I think Link looks pretty good in this picture
I can't stand the pixelated textures of PS1 and Saturn games.
Pixelated as they are, they have more detail
Generally speaking, CD's can have way way way more textures as a general thing. Textures is what carries PS1 games visually in 95% of instances, whereas the N64 has nothing.
Way more textures at the cost tiny bandwidth with huge latency!
Yea
The N64 RDRAM has one big benefit, it was the cheapest route to getting 500mb/sec of memory bandwidth.
The Playstation by comparison used EDO It's main bus was under 133mb/sec, and the fastest it could read from CD was 300kb/sec.
EDO Memory would have kneecapped the N64 from a memory bandwidth standpoint. The cartridge bus alone is over 200mb/sec
>Sensory perception in real-life does not create "sharp" images everywhere
Ah so you are half blind. As a person with working eyes, I have to inform you that some people actually have sharp vision.
>Why do people
Loaded question, stopped reading there. Prove your assertion first.
I really think it's just a phenomenon where people online seem to be really vocal and hyper critical about it, and most people seem to follow suit. in a lot of games like mission impossible the N64 version is just a little bit softer then the PS1, but the solidity and smoothness of the graphics is so much better because the 64 can push more polygons. https://youtu.be/_V-s1r26-3M?si=MO0dhPm0gCUTPixh
looks like they put the C-team on the PS1 version, there's a lot more different there than just filtering
but if you read the comments it galvanizes my point, people still widely prefer the ps1 version. I mean seriously? it's like 15 percent softer yet there sperging out in comments. is it really that big of a fricking deal?
The PS1 looks a billion times better, a little smoothness? Look at all the reflections, lens flare and other light effects.
>Why do people (pejoratively) call Nintendo 64 "blurry", when this was a purposeful and considerate choice?
who are these people OP?
it's me, I'm people
Nintendo did cost cutting:
They STARTED OUT with 320x240 in 1996, when they should have added memory and started out with 640x480.
>started out with 640x480
Most people weren't even playing 3d pc games at that resolution or a good framerate, what are you smoking?
It was 1996, it was marketed as a cutting edge system. Granted, they did the expansion pack.
It was also 50 dollars cheaper than what the playstation came out at and 150 cheaper than the saturn.
When Quake launched you couldn't even get 60 FPS with the most powerful consumer CPU available at the time (200Mhz Pentium) AT THE LOWEST RESOLUTION (320x200)
480p was out of the question
I know, I posted
Nintendo chose gameplay over hardware. OP is bringing up a legit complaint about N64.
On regular TV CRTs, the perception is very different anyway.
>OP is bringing up a legit complaint about N64.
Except that this complaint is not universal. These days I find the harsh and strongly dithered look of the PS1 unpleasant to look at while the N64 aged much better to me.
you must be new. this board before they allowed sixth gen was fricking obsessed with how bad the N64 image quality is. if you even made a thread about an N64 game there'd be four comments just blurting how shitty it looks. it's like it made them so fricking angry that just had to announce every single time there was a 64 thread.
Those same autists have now evolved to screech and shit their pants whenever the Gamecube or GBA have threads posted, we're at the point now where morons unironically post how they think the SNES was more powerful than a GBA
obviously the GBA is more powerful than the SNES, but they just couldn’t help but hamstring it in chintzy ways
They were all marketed as cutting edge, you think the PS1 wasn't or the Dreamcast or the ps2?
N64 chipset was made by SGI prostitutes who thought more effects = always better
Downsampled PS1 games have that N64 look to them and it's kind of pleasing.
also whoever thought having only 4096 bytes of texture memory was a true galaxy-brain
ironically the n64 could do texture paging like the ps1 (that had 2048 bytes)
and any of the devs could have implemented that in their games because the n64 had a programmable pipeline
only nintendo never released the documentation for it
>Why do people (pejoratively) call Nintendo 64 "blurry"
Do they?
Your eyes naturally blur things in your peripheral vision, the screen doesn't need to do it for you. It does not look normal because when you try and focus on a part of the screen that isn't "in focus" you can't see it.
Being intentional doesn't make it good.
I explained why it's good.
It's mainly because people are scaling up and using modern methods to play these games
So pretty much just ignorance
>implying n64 games didn't look inherently softer than PS1
Larping zoomer detected.
You have to be 18 to post here
>n-no u!
I accept your concession.
>acts like an idiot on purpose
>gets called an idiot
>b-but I’m just acting like an idiot!
Whatever reason they had to make it blurry doesn't negate the fact that it's still blurry.
>Sensory perception in real-life does not create "sharp" images everywhere
You might need glasses, my friend
I dont think people mean the actual image quality is blurry, its just fine especially if you hook it up with s-video or an RGB mod, a touch soft around the edges sometimes but fine.
I think they're more so referring to the absolutely horrific textures most games have. The texture sizes are limited to extremely small sizes, literally a couple dozen pixels sometimes less, and when stretched out across the huge levels N64 games typically have they look like dogshit.
Some games put in the effort to cut up the textures into smaller chunks and stitch them together so it looks better but the memory was still pretty limited so you only really saw that from the more technically proficient devs like Nintendo and Rare(even then those games aren't always the prettiest).
Personally Im fond of the look and usually prefer it to what was on PS1 and Saturn but I can definitely understand hating it too.