CRT shaders are uggo shit for fags, I just use a normal upscaling filters like I always have, even playing retroshit on a good PC CRT. As >>283835 notes though, this argument only applies to abusing crappy CRTs as a primitive AA filter, as opposed to...
>>270060
This. 99% of the shitposting in this thread comes from anons (including OP on an implicit level) thoughtlessly conflating NTSC, SDTV, composite color, interlaced scan, shadowmask, etc., into the term "CRT", even when like the more technically apt posters such as >>270114 >>270217
>>270341 >>270419 they are clearly knowledgable enough to understand the difference.
Almost all of the effects being described do not work at all on a p-scan aperture grille desktop PC HD CRT monitor, and likewise do work perfectly on the humblest NTSC LCDTV over composite. For the same reasons, on the aforementioned desktop CRT or modern LCD/plasma/OLED, shaders will perfectly reproduce all of these effects. Also, most games shown in this thread were multiplats that didn't need nor use these tricks on PC back in the day.
>>270435
>I wonder if we could make lighter CRTs today
Yes, slimness/deflection angle was limited only by the sophistication of drive electronics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Slimmer_CRT
>>270461
>Chromatron
Speaking of difficult designs that might've been trivialized with digital electronics, I wonder why nobody took another swing at the Penetron? Resolution independence of a CRT projector, but in a single direct-view tube.
>>270476
>while I do have CRTs, they are dump rescues and (obviously) old, so they have been knocked around a bit and could use some tuning.
It's worth noting that CRTs are highly repairable. Short of repainting the phosphor or rewinding the absurdly complex flyback (modern benchtop CNC winding machines might be able to do this, though I've never heard of someone attempting it), every single part can be rebuilt or replaced by a mediocre technician in a humbly equipped one-room workshop, as was once ubiquitous in small businesses across the world, and still practiced by hobbyists. The main reason this isn't relevant yet (except for the very rarest high-end tubes) is there's still such tremendous supply of working secondhand displays floating around that fixing them is more expensive than replacement and minor retuning.
>>270485
>simply made their games look good on CRT because it was the only type of display they themselves could afford or use in a practical manner
Even in the 1980s, PCs used totally different CRTs than consoles. For exactly this reason a typical artist's workstation at consoledev gaystudios consisted of normal PC monitors for actually working on, and separate TVs or PVMs designed to replicate the characteristics of consumer TVs, hooked up via a framedumper or console devkit for periodically previewing assets. Picrel.
>>270607
>The realization that you can draw for lower resolutions and upscale and still make a great looking game is the healthiest thing that's happened to 2D gaming in the last decade
No, other anon is on the right track. Good old pixel artists didn't use pixel art as a primary medium, instead redrawing pixel art from masters for multiple target platforms. Modern low-rez pixel art only "works" if it's kept to a single consistent (real or hypothetical) set of self-imposed restrictions, or else you end up with hideous hipster pixelshit (mixels, rixels, depalettized undithered ramp gradients, etc.).
>>270632
>>270648
>they could still use OTHER methods of making cathode ray tubes. Such as using barium-strontium glass.
That too, but there's also the fact that unlike monochrome, color CRTs don't use leaded glass in the screen ("face" panel) to begin with because it yellows way too quickly, and the back of the tube in later model CRTs wasn't even blown as a single glass tube, but a separately bonded part often made of metal/ceramic/plastic instead of glass. The "muh leaded glass" argument is a total red herring.
>>270715
>it's just because of shills for new tech. CRT material makers unavailable because they retired
This is the actual explanation. Even in China/Malaysia, I think all the old factory tooling is scrapped at worst, mothballed at best. The underlying technology is shared with other tech that still uses high-voltage electronics, precision analog synth, vapor deposition, and/or vacuum tubes, like electrical grid, wireless telecom, and industrial applications, all having advanced greatly since 2005 or whenever. But even the relatively small amount of engineering needed to apply that to a modernized CRT might well represent an insurmountable barrier to hobbyists, and some of the tooling needed might also have to be redesigned compared to off-the-shelf in such a way that a larger run of new CRTs must be produced to remain economical.
>>274053
>My honest to god opinion is that CRT at least 60hz to 85hz it feels like it's running beyond 480hz, maybe even 1000hz.
>>274131
>I'm just genuinely confused about why modern high resolution/high refresh rate monitors don't look on the same level of a CRT with a lower refresh rate, or even a higher one.
Peak luminance is the key. Even the dimmest desktop CRTs had peak luminance of 20k cd/m² or higher, whereas typical "SDR" LCD/OLEDs run at 200-500 cd/m² max, and the even brightest consumer HDR FALD LCDs today top out at maybe 4k cd/m². Why does this matter even when displaying SDR that tops out at 100 cd/m² white properly calibrated? Perceived brightness vs. flicker.
If your peak luminance is 20x dimmer, and you want to use flicker, each frame must be displayed 20x longer, which makes motion 20x blurrier. Flicker improves motion clarity linearly the more of each frame's duration is spent black.
>Such techniques like motion interpolation and re-projection to one day hopefully match a CRT. I don't know if it will match but I'd like to hope so.
Not match so much as bypass. Even on a CRT or typical film projector using multi-vaned shutters, displaying 24/30/60 FPS at higher refresh rates will produce "double image" artifacts similar to hold-and-sample motion blur, so it's a binary choice between more flicker or more blur with low-FPS material, though the severity of totally flicker-free sample-and-hold motion blur decreases linearly as framerate approaches ~1kHz. What Blurbusters is talking about with the goal of 1kHz isn't just for display, but also requires (native or synthesized) 1000 FPS source material.
>>274747
Yes, we also had other cringe like "wut is teh measure of a rougeliek" debates in many RL threads.
>>278488
>All you need is a curb TV
This. Barring PC CRT, most of the actual (motion blur/lag/judder) advantages of CRT for consoles are all present on even the lowest e-waste TV. Other advantages of CRT like perfect blacks/whites/grays/colors, viewing angles, and high-refresh pixel response are largely irrelevant for slow blocky console grafix.
>>283864
>the pre-rendered backgrounds of Resident Evil in particular take on a completely different character without filtering
Note many console emulators can now filter/scale/replace these assets separately from other elements like 3D or UI, not to mention for some games like RE...
>I know this game had a contemporary Windows port
Modern PC mods can do the same thing more directly. Though of course that might compromise the autism for you, I dunno.