Updating my retro rig and I was wondering why everyone always says to use a CRT instead of a modern TV. is this just because of nostalgia or is there a technical reason?
Why you should really do is emulate and use a computer monitor.
did you even bother googling
>>2813476
They're not going to give him useful information.
>>2813470
At this point the only reason to use a CRT is if you like the aesthetic of it for some reason, be it nostalgia or whatever. Otherwise a high quality modern screen is simply better.
Do note though that if you plan on sticking to original hardware and using a modern screen, you'll have to get into upscalers. Emulation is so good now that I see no reason to bother with that myself, but if that's your path it's something to be aware of.
>>2813552
>emulationfag trying to give advice
>>2813470
Better input lag. Scan lines. Nostalgia.
>>2813552
>they're not going to give him useful information because they disagree with my opinion
>>2813610
>Better input lag
Could have rephrased that a lil better.
You should try and play the games on the TV that the system they are on was designed to be played on.
Objective FACTs incoming:
>240p and 480p looks better on CRT
>4:3 looks better on CRT
>720p+ looks better on HDTV
>16:9 looks better on HDTV
Some things I find:
>Colours "pop" more on CRT
More vibrant, "warmer" if you will, where it looks kind of washed out on a HDTV.
>Low res is good for the old games
The blur and general smaller scale of the TV's is better for pixel games since its the appropriate aspect ratio. HDTV's usually have visible pixels.
Input lag -does- exist for SD consoles on HDTV's but it is largely exaggerated by people in the CRT thread. You won't need an upscaler, but for a few games you can have noticeable input lag if you're trying to do things like speedrunning tricks or whatever you're probably better off on a crt.
tldr; Use what you have available.
>>2813665
>progressive image looking better on a CRT
>objective fact
CRTs are objectivity the worse image you can get. Geometry issues, quirks like bloom and convergence issues, and terrible contrast/sharpness.
>>2813552
worst advice
>>2813665
>vibrant, "warmer"
contradicting yourself there m8ey
There is't a good reason because all CRTs are 10-20-30 years old and have shot picture tubes by now. If you're worried about lag, upscalers like this exist.
http://www.vvdeals.com/products/HD-Magic-Box-Upscaler-to-1080P-Converter-to-HDMI_13.html
Input lag has only effected me while speed running mario64
>>2813689
>buying an upscaler for the price of 3 PVMs
>>2813704
Three PVMs that are years old and have screen burn/weak electron guns/leaky caps.
>>2813710
Doesn't matter how awesome your upscaler is, you can't play lightgun games on an HDTV.
>>2813719
you should try 8K oled or led with high dynamic range (dolby atmos), m8. you will never go back m8. i saw god and i cant unsee him
>>2813696
and you gain nothing from it with /vr/-relevant content/devices
>>2813724
Of course you gain something, you silly. you gain more correct color values that a rec.709 HDTV couldn't reproduce. you even get more accurate colors than a CRT and 99,98% correct representation of NTSC outputted colors (NES) - no more every crt looks different since rec.2020 is the one ring to rule them all.
>>2813693
>"objectively the worst" maybe, but NES and SNES games look like shit on an HDTV. You can see the individual pixels.
Use a good scaler.
>>2813696
>>2813736
Colourspace is irrelevant because retro games don't contain colours outside the sRGB gamut.
Only colour accuracy matters, which is better than any LCD on high-end CRTs.
http://www.provideocoalition.com/the_crt_replacement_is_here-_finally
>>2813747
No scalers accurately resemble real pixels running at native resolution.
>>2813552
>only reason to use a CRT is if you like the aesthetic of it
>the aesthetic
>of a tv
So get a CRT. Noted.
>>2813869
>Only colour accuracy matters, which is better than any LCD on high-end CRTs
Back when they were new, not now that they're years old and have dried-out caps and busted electron guns.
>>2813869
>No scalers accurately resemble real pixels running at native resolution.
Show me one CRT with native 240p.
>>2813906
Every resolution a CRT can output is native.
>>2813910
>Every resolution a CRT can output is native.
Sorry champ. At least you tried. Work on your shitposting.
>>2813869
That's wrong. Color space is relevant! NES creates NTSC signal colors. Rec.709 aka HDTVs don't cover the full spectrum of NTSC colors. Rec.2020 covers beyond NTSC colors, thus accurately representing them with 99,98 %.
You can have a gorgeous OLED with perfect colors or contrast but it will never outweigh the color spectrum of a NTSC CRT - only UHDTV rec.2020 TVs surpass NTSC color space and can reproduce the nes ntsc signal more correctly than a CRT.
>>2813921
OLEDs are useless and inferior to CRT when they have only rec-709
>>2813580
>>2813625
>>2813680
I respectfully disagree. The CRT general will tell him he has to get a CRT which is functionally incorrect. The people in that thread have nostalgia for the way CRTs look, but not everyone feels that way.
Unless you specifically feel that nostalgia there is zero reason to use one over a modern screen. Input lag and image blur are a non-issue unless you buy a cheap piece of crap, but a cheap CRT looks equally bad.
For people who like their CRT's, that's all well and good. But the narrative that it's the only acceptable or good looking way to play classic games is quite simply bullshit.
For example,
>>2813665
>Objective FACTs incoming:
>240p and 480p looks better on CRT
>The blur and general smaller scale of the TV's is better for pixel games
I fundamentally and DEEPLY disagree with this. I despise pixels being blurred, either by a CRT or filters. In my opinion games look magnitudes better on a modern screen than any CRT.
And that's my point, we all have opinions. OP is asking for a range of opinions. Sending him to the CRT thread would only get him one skewed perspective on things. This way he can choose for himself.
>>2813925
Just stop.
Question not worry it's own thread; does anyone still manufacture CRT monitors or TVs for niche uses like having or graphic design etc?
Seems like there should be at least one Chinese factory still belting then out somewhere.
I'd love to buy one new one day rather than having to search second hand.
>>2813869
>>2813921
>>2813926
>>2813928
I like you, guy.
You've taken the very words from my mouth.
>>2813943
>guy
>>2813951
Ohh I disagree with the CRT purity squad so now I must be a filthy woman, right? You people are fucked up.
>>2813935
I think there's a few still made for Third World countries but they're shit quality.
>>2813957
Women are not filthy.
>>2813470
Retro games were made with CRTs in mind. They add a natural blur that often was taken into consideration. On other screens games CAN but not always will look worse.
>>2813970
>has never lived with one
>>2813984
>>2813984
>They add a natural blur that often was taken into consideration.
I have yet to see this actually be confirmed by any game developer. But regardless, even if some of them did intend for the blur of a CRT monitor to add to the aesthetic somehow, I have never ever seen a game that I think looks better that way.
Which to re-iterate is my opinion. I know there are those who feel the opposite and genuinely like the look of a CRT screen. But that is also just an opinion and by no means universal.
>>2813984
>They add a natural blur that often was taken into consideration
No. You're thinking of the COMPOSITE blur which is a signal, not a display.
>>2814000
I still don't understand how people can rationalize CRT being better and mentioning features that honestly sound like disadvantages, especially when they pull that "how the developers intended" shit. If the devs had known about LCD they'd be overjoyed about it and would be trying to create finer images to play with the tech.
>>2814039
Low resolution blurry screen that flickers is a feature I tell you! A feature! Everything has to look exactly like it did in 1987 or I can't get into the nostalgia zone and forget how much I hate my life...
>>2814039
LCDs existed back then but ghosting made them pretty useless beyond portables.
Some games also didn't work on notebooks due to refresh rate or other issues.
>>2814048
Have you ever actually been to the general thread? If they actually wanted to live in 1987, they'd be playing their games on a shitty RCA Colortrak with a woodgrain case, not masturbating to a PVM.
>>2814052
Well, you know what I mean. Modern LCDs that solve those issues would have been their wet dream.
I want /v/ to leave.
>>2813960
What a shame, but for third world? I would have thought led would be way to go. Cheaper to make, cheaper to ship etc..
I thought there might be some high end ones being made for medical imaging and enthusiasts. I winner if there would be any money in it (or if it's even feasible anymore, manufacturing might be really hard)
>>2814021
>I have yet to see this actually be confirmed by any game developer.
They had an interview with Louis Castle who did Lion King for the 16bit machine, and he mentioned that the game looks different since the interviewer was running it with a RGB connection on a modern TV, and less pretty since it was missing the dithering.
/vr/ Is more and more turning into /v/ these days. Really sad to see. Lcds have a fixed resolution and so are inferior for low-res games. Upscalers are fucking overpriced. Search for a good consumer crt that has low hours and you are good to go... only negatives Is the power consuption and weight.
>>2814103
Okay, but we're on 4chan anyway. Not to excuse this kind of behaviour, but it should be expected. /vr/ isn't a bastion of intelligent discussion, and it never was.
If you don't like it, leave. Go to hotwheels or something, at least it'd speed up that board somewhat.
>>2813887
Well, it's not my goddamn fault I can't buy a new one. The damn Jews at Sony fucked us good.
I like CRTs for everything up to 6th generation, because that's what everything comes out looking just about right on, although it might take some tweaking to get everything right. 7th is where modern thin screens became the obvious standard, so I'll play those consoles on those TVs.
Its all about your individual set up. Its not like anyone can tell you what you're going to find more aesthetically pleasing no matter how much they try and justify shit it with words and pictures.
I'd argue the the principal reason to avoid a CRT is to just avoid having to lug a big box around for moving or storing the thing.
>>2814114
Yeah I know. But it was so cozy the first few months and now it feels like it gets worse everyday. And no I will not go anywhere else even if I dont like it... I have every right to complain as much as every /v/shitposter has the right to post here.
![1447574967033[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xyq71TR.jpg "1447574967033[1].jpg")
>>2814103
>tfw I'm a madman who's been experimenting with 640x480 native LCD displays
If you ask me, CRT TVs give a sense of depth that I have yet to see any modern TV recreate.
I'd gladly take an HD CRT over a modern TV, but the overall market favors flat ones for good reason.
But that has nothing to do with /vr/.
Huh.
To answer the OP's question, it's all opinion.
There's not really any wrong way to play, except with SAI or SuperEagle applied.
>>2813710
>Three PVMs that are years old and have screen burn/weak electron guns/leaky caps.
PVM's and BVM's are meant to have a life of several decades of constant use before issues start to show up. And its not like you can't get relatively recently made monitors with low hours on them. Mine is from 2004 and was only used for ~4 hours a day, once a week in a church. And at $60 (with a rack mount and several cards that I've since sold at a profit), I still paid far less than an upscaler.
>>2813935
Yes, there are a handfull of places still making new CRT's. The company I know of that still produces CRT PVM and BVM's is in Korea. However you're going to have to make the choice between a TV, or paying upfront for a brand new sports car.
>>2813887
Go back to shitfeed you hipster
>all these CRT's are having their caps blow and shit
>tfw my dads CRT, our "old" family TV literally survived for 40 fucking years with zero maintenance and an absolute shitload of use
>Only reason we got rid of it was because parents moved and they bought an HDTV and they didn't want to deal with the thing.
>hurr durr TV's go bad after 5 years
>>2814567
Dude no one makes PVMs and BVMs other than Sony.
>>2814637
CRTs used to always get worse after 5-7 years when I was growing up. The picture would just keep getting darker and more washed out so we'd move the old set(s) into the basement for video games and kept the good shit upstairs.
The tech must have gotten better over time though, because I'm still using a JVC TV from 1999 and the colors are still bright, the picture is clear... but there's some ghosting now.
>>2814693
>We leave our set on 24/7
>>2813470
No real reason. Just poor faggots in hoarder houses.
>>2813470
In my experience with HDTVs and retro vidya. They seem to work for the most part except with Rail Shooters where it's impossible to calibrate the light gun. I've had problems with this not only with Area 51 on the Sega Saturn but also with Duck Hunt, Lethal Enforcers, and even though it's not retro Time Crisis for the PSX and among a handful of others. So unless you're really heavy into the light gun games you can typically go without the hassle of hauling around a CRT. I only do it because I can never stop playing Virtua Cop 2.I've got a 50 inch CRT my parents didn't want anymore, it's big, it's heavy, but god damn it I can play all the rail shooters I want.
>>2814729
A light gun wouldn't work on a modern tv...
>>2814689
I'm warning you, not cheap.
http://www.ikegami.com/br/products/hdtv/hdtv_monitor_frame1.html
>>2814730
They don't and it makes me sad. But it then made sense to me why the Guncon 4 for the PS3 was such a bulky piece of work because the tech for light guns at the time was outdated and I guess they couldn't be assed with updating the tech. But then again this was before the PS Eye came out with the dildo control and whatnot.
>>2814738
>dildo control?
You have my attention.
>>2814731
Hmm, they have a couple for sale in the 'outlet' part of the site for between $1499 and $1999.
Thanks for the link, I might even keep an eye on eBay/auction sites for this brand too.
>>2814751
It's not an actual dildo it's just the best way I can describe it
>>2814765
Zura not Katsura...
>>2814729
>and even though it's not retro Time Crisis for the PSX
The playstation is very much within the pre 99' rule. Also, you might be interested in this:
http://www.ultimarc.com/aimtrak.html
Its perfect for mame setups.
Since I can't be arsed to make another thread about it I'll just ask this here: How are projectors for retro games compared to CRTs and HDTVs?
>>2814826
Same advantages/disadvantages as using them for films
>room must be dark
>needs a lot of space
>bulbs burn out occasionally
>might get image burn on the lenses
>can never quite seem to get the image to be sharp enough
Computer monitor CRTs are objectively the best display for emulation
>>2814826
You have to be in a dark room to really get much out of a projector, which is bad for your eyes. Not a big deal if you're watching a movie occasionally but terrible for things like video games that require eye focus for long time periods. You're basically looking straight into the sun.
That alone means they have no value to me.
>>2814067
>Modern LCDs that solve those issues would have been their wet dream.
Except they still haven't solved every issue. Motion quality on sample and hold displays will always be worse than a raster scan CRT, only a display that scans backlight like a CRT would come close. No LCD has totally eliminated input lag, CRT is still the only way to have zero display lag guaranteed. CRT's can display many refresh rates and resolutions with no need for scaling or interpolation. CRTs are able to display low resolution graphics naturally with no upscaling, which is why 240p graphics look best on a CRT, and why they only look acceptable on LCDs when you use shaders to imitate CRTs.
>>2814817
Oh my god it's beautiful thank you anon.
>>2814875
>Motion quality on sample and hold displays will always be worse than a raster scan CRT, only a display that scans backlight like a CRT would come close.
A simple strobing backlight can give *better* motion quality than CRT (remember CRT phosphor decay isn't instant). But the cost is increased latency, because the entire frame must be transfered before the strobe can be turned on. A scanning backlight is only needed if you want low persistence without the latency penalty.
>>2814826
>>2814860
>>2814860
>>2814872
I used to have my PS3/360 hooked up to a projector.
Its not very good straight up.
You basically need it to be pitch black, or at the very least very dark. Having normal blinds won't work, you need black out curtains essentially. You also need a screen of some kind to project onto. A wall -works- but it basically has to be white and has to be flat (most walls are actually not even close to flat, often being very wavy and bumpy) . We used a bedsheet a lot of the time because it worked better, but it looks retarded when you have a bedsheet taped to the wall. The other option is to get a screen, but that has to be wall mounted, and at that point for the price, you may as well just get an HDTV since screens aren't cheap.
The picture will never be perfect. It always has a bit of distortion . The gimmick of playing on a wall wears off really fucking fast when you need ideal conditions just to play. Our bulb also burnt out and we couldn't be assed to pay the insane cost of replacing it. Projectors are good for playing a movie every so often, but they are definitely not good for long term gaming sessions.
Bought a 55" TV, wall mounted it and its better in literally every way -except- screen size, and a 55" is big enough. Sure bigger would be nice, but I'm very happy with my TV and setup now.
I can only imagine an SD console on the wall looking even worse.
>>2813928
>image blur are a non-issue unless you buy a cheap piece of crap
>Sample and hold
>no blur
Are you blind?
>>2814729
Please post a picture of your 50"cock, I mean CRT
>>2814793
>>2813928
The problem with HDTV LCDs many times though is that the built-in scaler is kinda crap for 240p games, so you need to buy an expensive scaler. Every-other field effects for instance look wierd when they go through a de-interlacer.
I use my HDTV plasma for gaming retro on but I probably wouldn't if I didn't have a scaler.
>>2813470
Get either a CRT or a HDTV LCD/LED/OLED + separate scaler.
A HDTV without a scaler is going to give you a shit picture, but with a scaler you can get quite a nice picture. If you particularly like the CRT aesthetic you can get one with a scanline filter, but they can also be set up for perfectly sharp pixels if that is what you like.
>>2814875
> Motion quality on sample and hold displays will always be worse than a raster scan CRT, only a display that scans backlight like a CRT would come close.
Even still, it's already good enough that the difference is virtually imperceptible to humans.
>No LCD has totally eliminated input lag
Same thing here. While technically true, the input lag on modern decent LCDs and LEDs is usually between 1 and 5 milliseconds. Human perception and reaction time is in hundreds of milliseconds. Any difference in input lag is completely imperceptible unless you have Flash-like super powers.
>CRT's can display many refresh rates and resolutions with no need for scaling or interpolation
Yet they can't come anywhere near the resolution of a modern screen.
>CRTs are able to display low resolution graphics naturally with no upscaling, which is why 240p graphics look best on a CRT
This is opinion and preference. Even though a CRT can display an image without the need for upscaling, the screen technology itself will make it look like a CRT. Which while some people like, just looks blurry and ugly to others.
>they only look acceptable on LCDs when you use shaders to imitate CRTs.
This is 100% opinion. I disagree very strongly. Shaders used to imitate the look of CRTs just distort the image and make it look worse.
I get that some people like the low resolution and scanlined look of a CRT monitor, but for those of us who like modern screens, that's precisely what we're trying to get away from. I don't want to throw filters and shaders to mask what the pixels actually look at. My goal is to see those pixels as clearly and sharply as possible. People using shaders feels like grain filters and lens flares to me. It's not adding detail, it's just adding meaningless noise.
>>2815285
I use one with a D-sub port so I just hook it right up to my laptop so that's a non-issue. But I also don't use original hardware anymore either. That would be a different situation.
>>2815558
Why wouldn't you use a digital video signal instead of stupid D->A->D conversions?
>>2815554
>it's already good enough that the difference is virtually imperceptible to humans.
Completely wrong. The difference is extremely obvious when comparing a 60Hz CRT and 60Hz LCD side by side.
>>2814567
I believe Sony has one Trinitron plant still running in Indonesia dedicated to producing studio CRT monitors. The high markup on them allows the business to remain profitable.
>>2815569
And what of a 60hz CRT compared to a 144hz LED?
Even if the CRT did look slightly better, my point is this is all opinions and that for my preferences all the other benefits of a good LED vastly outweigh those of a CRT.
I'm not saying that you have to agree with me. If you like your CRTs that's perfectly fine, but your opinion is far from universal.
>>2815554
>the input lag on modern decent LCDs and LEDs is usually between 1 and 5 milliseconds
Response time =! Lag
The absolute lowest lag LCDs are 9ms, more than half a frame, with many LCDs being much higher than that.
Back in 2004, HDTVs were ass at displaying 480i but the technology has come a long way and the only practical advantage of a CRT now would be playing Duck Hunt.
>>2815587
>And what of a 60hz CRT compared to a 144hz LED?
Close to the same if using lightboost or black frame insertion. But a CRT that displays at 100Hz or more would destroy it.
>>2815592
I have pretty damn good eyes and play a lot of twitchy games like shmups and fighters. I notice no lag of any kind, there's no perceptible blur or flicker and the image I get is always crisp bright and and literal magnitudes more clear than any CRT.
The whole point of all this is that people have preferences. The "benefits" CRT enthusiasts put forth are virtually imperceptible. Where as the benefits I see from a nice HD screen are amazing.
Use your CRTs if you want, but they're not the only choice and for many, many of us they're not a choice we want to make. I truly despise the glare and just plain look of those screens and will never use one again if I can help it.
>>2815593
And Gumshoe, and Shooting Range, and Barker Bill's Trick Shooting, and Hogan's Alley, and Operation Wolf, and Rambo III, and Safari Hunt, and Lethal Enforcers, and Snatcher, and Time Crisis, and Virtua Cop, and Area 51, and The House of the Dead, and Scud the Disposable Assassin, and Die Hard Trilogy, and Confidential Mission.
Yup. Waste of space. Uh huh. Totally.
>>2814542
TV studios also often get their CRTs rebuilt. There's maybe only 1-2 such outfits in the world that rebuild picture tubes, I think one of them was French. That's because the monitors are so expensive that you want to use them as long as possible.
>>2814681
Why would you use a 4k resolution monitor for a device that only outputs native 240p?
What do you get from it?
>>2815630
Not him, but I have a thing for big chunky pixels. I think games can look pretty cool when blown up like that.
>>2815639
Does it make a difference to you whether a pixel is scaled by a factor of 4 or by a factor of 8?
>>2815651
Not really, ultimately. The more important thing for me is how large the screen is and how far away I am from it.
I wouldn't want to play a game with pixels as big as my thumb if I was right up close to the screen. But if I'm across my livingroom, then I might.
>>2815656
Then why don't you just get a 2k HDTV with a huge dpi?
>>2815660
>not getting a massive CRT instead
>>2815664
That would be his ideal solution for SD content and nothing else, unless he wants to give up true 240p for doubled 480p by getting an HD CRT.
>>2813470
Some newer hdtvs don't support 240p, so a crt works for that.
so theres that
>>2815667
It's 2015, he probably already has some form of HDTV that works fine.
>Buying CRTs
People give them away. Look around and you'll find one that suits your needs.
>>2815668
No offence, but that looks retarded. Who would waste their time making a 426x240 array just to play retro when I can get a CRT for free?
>>2814048
>is a feature I tell you!
It literally is. That's how the Megadrive simulates transparencies and did that one trick to show more colors. Just compare the waterfall from Sonic the Hedgehog's first level on both tvs.
>>2815604
You're pretty badly in denial if you think all the advantages are imperceptable. You have an obvious bias towards LCDs, given that you dislike CRTs this much.
Anyone who is being rational realizes that CRTs and LCDs have different advantages for different usecases. CRTs excel at displaying low resolutions, high motion content, and latency sensitive games, while LCDs are better suited to high resolution games, HD video, and still images.
FYI, high resolution PC CRTs and BVMs are extremely sharp when displaying low res RGB content. The highest quality ones remain sharp until above 1200p where the pixels start becoming too small for the dot pitch to resolve. This is plenty sharp enough for any game resolution below 1200p.
>>2815684
Because a CRT has a tiny screen.
>>2815690
>Being this ignorant
Luh-mao. If size is more important than picture just get a rear-projection TV. Those are also dirt cheap.
>>2815689
> You have an obvious bias towards LCDs, given that you dislike CRTs this much.
Yes, I think I've been pretty clear about my bias. I think CRTs are absolutely hideous. 10 years ago when LCD screens were still pretty shitty was different, but these days I think HD screens are hands down better.
If someone feels the opposite and has a bias for CRTs, that's cool for them. But it's not mine.
>CRTs excel at displaying low resolutions, high motion content, and latency sensitive games
I still think HD screens are better at displaying low resolution games. A low res game nicely upscaled blows any CRT image out of the water. In my personal aesthetic preference.
Also as noted, I play a lot of games with high motion content and sensitive to latency like fighters and shmups and my screen is more than capable of handling them.
PC CRTs are better, that's for sure, but I still find them glaring and ugly. I'm super, super picky about aesthetics though and ever since a kid never liked the way tube screens looked.
>>2815696
>It's my personal aesthetic preference and you can't do anything about it
Okay, just expect to be criticized. I would argue you didn't like them because you had a cheap-y set that solidified your personal bias, but that's just an assumption.
>>2815696
>I still think HD screens are better at displaying low resolution games.
Some games were designed with a CRT in mind to pull graphical tricks off, that's an effect HD screens will never be able to replicate so it's not a matter of tastes.
>>2815704
It's true that I never had high quality sets personally, but over the years I've had friends and whatnot who have. I even have a very good close friend who's a CRT enthusiast and he likes to try and show them off to me. It's cool and I'm not a dick to him over it, but give me a good HD gaming screen any day.
Also just because I know folks here will get a chuckle out of it, he has a Retron literally because of his wife. His daughter plays a lot of Super Mario World on it though. Pretty cute.
>>2815706
>Some games were designed with a CRT in mind to pull graphical tricks off
Such as?
>>2815706
You mean like mentioned here >>2815686 because I still think games look far better on an HD screen. I get that the blur of the screen is supposed to make things blend together better, but all I could ever see is blur and I can't stand it. I far rather just accept that the MD can't pull off real transparency and what they do to simulate it is as good as it will get.
I like the way the Sonic waterfall looks far, far better in HD for example.
>>2815718
>>2815719
>>2815723
Did some of you even try retro game consoles, using RGB, on actual 15KHz CRTs? Or as a matter of fact composite on LCDs? Because I don't think anybody of you did.
Pixels are more rough on LCD screens because it's not a display based on analogue technology, but that doesn't strictly mean they are more clear, especially if it's been upscaled up to some non-integer multiplier.
>>2815719
Why, though? I think the straight razor edges makes it look like a sheet of moving plastic, not a waterfall.
>>2815721
>what are scanlines
>what is SCART
Good try
>>2815723
I can see the pixels just fine. Or is it the "razor edge clarity" that gets to you? Because I like the softer edges of a CRT.
That photo is a bit of a bad example anyhow, It looks like he greased up the screen beforehand, though I'm getting the feeling you're posting that to be inflammatory. >>2813225 is a much better example.
>>2815719
It makes transparencies look like transparencies instead of random pixels painted over the background and gradients look like gradients instead of a bunch of dots of different colors. If you like it the other way then it's fine, but the whole "just like the developers intended" isn't a meme.
Megadrive looks almost like a different system.
>>2815735
Yeah, why do you think I'm wasting my time defending it? I know they're not going to agree anyway.
>>2815735
>2815719 and >2815723 here
I was born in '75. I grew up with retro consoles and screens.
>>2815737
Why, though. I think the straight razor edges makes it look like a sheet of moving plastic, not a waterfall.
Clearly we have different opinions. I think it looks like a nice clear image compared to a messy blur. I get that people who like CRTs see the softness as a bonus, I'm just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
And I wasn't posting that to be inflammatory. The first was a picture of my screen, the second is a pic someone else posted. For the record though, I also think mine looks magnitudes better than >>2813225 as well. I really hate scanlines. A lot.
>>2815740
I get what you're saying, but to me everything just looks blurry. I would of course prefer real transparency, but given the choice I vastly prefer a clear image where I can see each pixel in sharp detail.
>Megadrive looks almost like a different system.
I agree completely. That's why I like to see the games this way. It's not a choice you have to agree with. CRTs are right there for you, if you like something else. But to me, a good modern screen makes Mega Drive games look absolutely amazing and far better than they ever did when I played them originally.
>>2813970
have you ever been inside a woman's bathroom? makes the men's room look fucking spotless
>>2815737
>what are scanlines
>what is SCART
What is moving the goalposts? What is ignorance?
>>2815740
Please stop. These were taken from a consumer CRT, left is RGB, right is composite.
>>2815756
>I was born in '75. I grew up with retro consoles and screens.
Using subpar connections I presume. Here's your fabled LCD rendering both RGB and composite. Both pics are rendered using the TV's internal upscaler, but I couldn't really get a properly clear picture because my phone lacks any focus setting.
>>2815756
>compared to a messy blur
Like >>2813336 this?
>>2815767
Granted, I would argue the most common setup was with composite, not RGB. I'm sure there were people that had their set setup to display RGB, but not many. I mean, they even removed native RGB output from the 3rd revision, though that was more of a cost cutting measure. So I feel you proved his point, if anything; the game was made to look like that.
>>2815775
I honestly don't know if that was supposed to be an example of something that looks good. But yes, to me that looks blurry and far too heavily scan lined. Certainly wouldn't be my first choice, if I had something that could just display the pixels cleanly without blur when it moved.
>>2815774
>That looks like a horrible screen.
It's not, it just looks that way because it's upscaling the 720*(576/2) signal the console provides, and it just filters the whole thing so non-integer artifacts are less noticeable. You're getting HDMI signal from your whatever you're using and it's probably scaled using either proper integer multiplying or a better filter.
>>2815780
>if I had something that could just display the pixels cleanly without blur when it moved
>without blur when it moved
That's the literal thing that plagues LCDs, as opposed to CRTs which just blank the whole screen for the bunch of ms it takes the gun to start over, thus tricking your eyes stuff ain't blurring.
>>2815791
>My point was that having a tiled 2 shade pattern generally looks like a garbled mess without scanlines to break it up.
My point is that I disagree with you both fundamentally and very, very strongly. I don't think scanlines make anything look better in any way.
>>2815821
Scanlines don't add actual detail. They're just bars that break up what you're seeing. Visually it's no different than a grain filter. It's just added noise that implies more detail, but doesn't add anything useful. I'm fine that some people like them, but I think they always look bad. I just prefer to see each pixel as cleanly as possible. I think it's the way that makes the games look their best.
And again, I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me. But I equally think that not everyone has to agree with you. We all have personal preferences and that's good.
As for the other guy, I agree with some of what he says, but not his attitude which is fairly trolly at times. Especially there. I think CRT screens are very ugly, but if someone wants to use them then that's great. So long as they don't think it entitles them to tell me what I should prefer.
>>2815842
But some people think of them as a feature. Something to even be emulated if you're not using a screen that has them naturally. I simply feel the polar opposite of that.
>>2815836
Not having scanlines doesn't add any detail either, it just bunches everything together, and unless the sprites are designed without shading it just looks messy. Sure, it can look clean if the sprite itself is clean, but that's not the case most of the time, especially with backgrounds.
What do you mean by "doesn't add anything useful"? I would think creating implied detail is useful, using hardware tricks to present it better.
>>2815846
I feel like artificial scan lines (as in literal row of black pixels) can help games with resolutions such as 512x224 or 640x224 to look good because it partially fixes the aspect ratio without having 1x2 tall pixels. Other than that I don't see use for them unless you really want to feel like you're playing on another display but most shaders aren't very good at it.
That said, I'd rather play retro games on a CRT. But putting scan lines on LCDs is not the smartest of options, nor does it help anything being considerably better.
>>2815867
>I would think creating implied detail is useful, using hardware tricks to present it better.
Implied detail that doesn't relate to the image, and is essentially an overlay the way scanlines are simply makes it look worse to me. It's visual clutter that only detracts from the image.
I don't think we really have anything to talk about because we disagree so fundamentally. When I look at a game like Monster World IV on my screen, at the distance I play each pixel looks like a nice clean block of colour. And in my opinion that is the game looking the absolute best it can. I think scanlines make everything look worse, but if you like them then it's good they're there for you.
>>2815887
So this is a case of white-stripes-on-black vs black-stripes-on-white to you, then. I see the pixels, you see the lines. Can't argue against that, I suppose. The phrase "Implied detail that doesn't relate to the image" doesn't make a lot of sense, though. The detail that is implied is related to the image, isn't it?
You keep mentioning how Monster World IV looks great on your screen, but did you ever consider it's because the sprites are large and the backgrounds are well designed, which is what I personally believe is the only graphical style that really works on LCDs? Certain models of CRT have less noticeable scanlines, so as a result you would see the same "block of colour" from a distance. I mean, it's not like CRT owners press their face up to the screen to see every individual pixel and scanline.
I dunno if I mentioned it already, so I'll say it now; I personally don't like LCD displays because the pixels are too crisp, everything looks sharp. The "blocks of colour" look overly simplistic and jagged. But I suppose that's what you like, a sharp image.
>>2815979
>The phrase "Implied detail that doesn't relate to the image" doesn't make a lot of sense, though.
What I mean is that people tend to imply that scanlines add detail, and I'm saying that they don't. The lines do break up the image so it's visually more complex, being blocks of colour with lines underneath vs just blocks of colour. However, there's no more information in an image with scan lines. They break up the blocks of colour, but don't relate to the overall image. It's not more detailed, just more visually cluttered.
The picture here isn't a perfect example. I don't actually use scanlines in anything, and so this was easier to mock up. The effect I'm getting at is the same though. The grain filter adds what looks like detail because there's more visual noise, but the detail doesn't relate to or add anything to define the image more. It's simply visual clutter. Scan lines are essentially the same thing, just with bars instead of grain.
But as you say, we really just have polar opposite opinions of what looks good. I think it's cool we can both have our way.
As for all the Monster World pictures, that's really just because it happened to be the game I was playing that day when I decided to pull my camera out. That or PSP is how I play all my retro games though now and I think it makes everything look great.
>>2816036
Ah, here's where our definition of "implied detail" differs. They don't "add" detail per se, it's more that you yourself are adding this "detail" mentally. It's what smooths over the edges, like seeing a bumpy hill vs a stair case. Your example doesn't really do this, as I can still see all the vertices unless I blur my vision. That aside, we'll just agree to disagree.
>>2816046
>mentally
is this like people who mentally upscale dvds to HD and think it's HD, of course they just think it mentally
>>2816057
No it's not, that doesn't even make any sense. Beat it, shitheel.
>>2816062
where is the difference between added detail from dvd to HD upscales and added detail from retro games with scan lines. there is none. Both are vital delusions.
>>2816071
Because DVD to Blu-ray is from the nature of film, you are spouting meaningless nonsense thinking you have a legitimate point.
Substantiate your thinking.
>>2816046
Yeah, and if people like that and think the game looks better with scanlines then I think that's great. It just irritates me though. I'd rather just see the staircase.
Also, please don't confuse this guy >>2816057 >>2816071 with me. I disagree with you but am cool with your preferences not being the same. He's just trolling and if I had to guess, is also >>2812714
Dudes 4k is ALMOST high enough for CRT_Geom to accurately reproduce apertures and bloom. Soon, God willing and with enough computing power we may be able to get it just perfect.
>>2816087
Stop pretending to be me!
>>2816083
>nature of film
>nature of CRT TV
>mentally added detail
Yeah...
>>2816093
Me be to pretending stop!
>>2816092
>reproduce apertures and bloom
>able to get it just perfect.
Two statements that don't go together in any way.
>>2816102
bloom like in assassin's Creed settings for adding realism to the scenery?
>>2816087
Don't worry, I picked up on the fact that he wasn't capitalizing and had hastily thought out arguments.
>>2816097
You really didn't bother thinking out what I meant, did you? I meant "film created with a lens and light will be way higher resolution than any digital sensor could ever hope to reproduce". Which is why remastering is possible.
>>2816098
Stop! This is not funny!
>>2816109
this doesn't change the fact that dvd is just 720x480 non square pixels which you can't magically make hd by up scaling, just as you can't magically add detail to the NES resolution of 256 lines by adding scan lines over it. It's delusion.
>>2816112
>Ignoring my argument
Good one, let me spell it out for you:
Film =! Computer rendered graphics
Moreover
>Mental detail never physically existed, and it never had to.
Magic!
>>2815716
Punch Out. The game isn't beatable on a non-CRT at all.
>>2816116
you're ignoring my argument. a dvd is encoded in digital pixels. it's already degraded.
>>2815678
No HDTV "supports" 240p because it's a hack, not an official video standard of any kind.
>>2816121
Yes, and that encoding comes from the film it's shot on. You seem to be under the impression that they make HD re-releases by upscaling the DVD version, and you couldn't be more wrong.
Nice try though
Aside from light gun games, I'd recommend a CRT for systems that have RF or composite as their best video output, as they look pretty bad on a HDTV. S-video and better are fine on a HDTV.
Also, certain effects look particularly good on CRTs. One that comes to mind is the 'Trails' option from GTA III and Vice City.
>>2816126
>You seem to be under the impression that they make HD re-releases by upscaling the DVD version
That wasn't what he was talking about though. He meant that an upscaled DVD doesn't look as detailed as a Bluray because all you're doing is upscaling a small image. Where as a blueray starts off with a higher quality image.
>>2816126
wow you're really dumb. we are not even talking about hd releases you stupid fuck. I was talking about people at home buying dvds putting them on their hd screen, claiming it's HD, because it was upscaled. aka mentally added detail. like mental detail you mentioned that scan lines add to smooth aliasing. it's literally the same way of thinking.
>>2816128
>Also, certain effects look particularly good on CRTs. One that comes to mind is the 'Trails' option from GTA III and Vice City.
Systems like the Apple II which rely on NTSC artifacting for color definitely look better on a CRT.
>>2816137
>Systems like the Apple II which rely on NTSC artifacting for color definitely look better on a CRT.
Is it similar to how the NES does color?
>>2816137
No, UHDTVs with rec. 2020 colour space display NTSC colours more correctly since rec. 2020 covers NTSC colour space completely , unlike HDTV rec. 709. I would even claim that rec. 2020 displays NTSC colours more accurately than any CRT since every CRTs colours look different, but rec. 2020 displays the colours correctly, as defined by the standard in the 50s.
>>2816146
The original 50s NTSC spec was never followed to any meaningful extent after the early color TVs like the RCA CTC-1. One reason being that it required rather dark phosphors with long persistence and of course people wanted a brighter, non-smeary picture.
Also Japanese TVs had a habit of fucking with the NTSC spec to make skin tones look more Asian. In fact many Famicom games were actually designed with NTSC-J in mind which has a subtly different appearance than NTSC-M.
>>2816140
The Famicom does not use artifact color. Only systems that do it are the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, IBM CGA composite output, and the TRS-80 CoCo.
>>2816140
Since the RGB output for what he's mentioning is just a bunch of monochrome lines, I don't think so.
>>2816186
The Apple II doesn't generate any chroma, just luminance and color burst. Also some TVs dislike its video signal (the dedicated composite monitors for the Apple IIs were specially tuned for them).
>>2816194
Welp, I meant digital output. You can switch to those in emulators I think, it's just black and white.
>>2816146
I mean that the color artifacting is kind of a smeary effect which will look better on an analog display.
>>2816194
It's a problem with many retro systems that HDTVs don't like their video signals as most are designed to only accept by-the-book broadcast NTSC. Whereas a CRT is a dumb analog device similar to a radio.
>>2816131
>>2816132
Okay okay, you don't need to bite my head off.
First, you're conflating "mentally added" with "anti-aliasing", which is close to what I meant, if the anti-aliasing didn't physically exist and was done mentally. Or was that your point, "you're an idiot for thinking scanlines soften pixels"? Because I still believe that (as it's purely a mental trick). By all means, please prove me wrong.
Second, Upscaling and anti-aliasing are two different things. You're just using the "mental trickery" angle to make a false positive.
>>2816220
Ah okay, sorry there buddy. I understand. You are right.
>>2816235
You're right. I stand corrected. It's totally different as upscaling actually changes the picture as scan lines just mask the picture. But they are both filters in the end. They both filter the image from its original form.
>>2816358
>They are both filters
Only the CRT is the analog representation of the original signal, there's no filtering going on at all.
I suppose you could argue that LCDs are a better representation of the original signal, but that really begs the question: What is the true "original form"?
>>2816414
scan lines mask the image as you said yourself and masking is a kind of filtering like bilinear filtering - even though both are completely opposite, it's still filtering.
But you are right m8, what ist the original form? Nobody knows and we will never know. It's up to interpretation what is the purest form. Searching for a correct answer is like searching for the meaning of life. Peace
>>2816647
This isn't instant messaging, you don't have to say when you're leaving. Considering my reply hangs around as long as the thread does, it's pretty likely that you'll still reply anyway. But I digress.
I never said scanlines mask the image, quite the opposite, in fact. Those scanlines are made because the system only needs half of the lines on the screen to display the image, so it evenly spaces out the video creating these lines. You could argue that it "filters" the video because of this, but I still think that because the video itself isn't being altered, it's still the most natural way to display it.
>>2816689
I never said I would leave, that's not what I meant with peace, lol.
>>2816701
...Right. So, not going to comment on the "not masking" thing?
>>2816708
No... I'm listening to https://youtu.be/g8Yoz9Nh21k right now and enjoying a peaceful and quiet moment. Maybe later.
>>2816715
...That's nice...
>>2815257
He can't see black level or blur and he thinks raw pixels are great. So yeah he is.
>>2815554
> all of that
No.
/vr/ games look like shit on modern TVs. Everything is too pixelated, and there's input lag. I don't know how someone could look at a SNES game on a high-quality CRT using RBG cables and say an HD lcd is better.
>>2817047
>input lag meme
>blurring is *better*
>>2816414
Actually there is quite a bit of filtering, especially in consumer TVs made from the mid-90s onward would often dick with the video signal in the interest of improved picture quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most retro consoles designed with the idea that you'd play them on something like this? Like shit anyone had their Colecovision hooked up to a PVM back then.
>>2817308
it's a meme
>>2817313
You're not wrong. 2nd gen consoles just had RF output so a PVM won't do justice to them anyway.
>>2817320
Which is also a legitimate complaint; moreover, it's not an opinion either.
Try harder.
Maybe TVs are another matter, but nobody would ever want to go back to CRT computer monitors. The shit was brutal on your eyes plus screen burn.
>>2817353
CRTs are better for motion, LCDs for static images.
>>2817308
>It's not a meme you sperg, it's a legitimate complaint
Not him, but I honestly think CRT enthusiasts exaggerate it or are remembering early and terrible LCDs. I will grant that when I bought my screen I did research to find one that was made for gaming, but that's something anyone should do if they're buying something like this.
I play a lot of classic games, and fast paced ones like fighters and 2D shooters. There is zero blur on my screen and no noticeable input lag at all. Whatever is there isn't enough that it puts me at a disadvantage playing fighters competitively and I find other arcade games no harder than when I was on a CRT.
I hear CRT people bring this up over and over like playing games on an LCD tv is nigh impossible or will make you vomit from the blur, but my experience is nothing like that at all. It's a complaint for sure, but I honestly wonder how legitimate it is.
And more importantly, for my tastes and visual preferences my screen looks far, far better than any CRT. It's image is sharper, cleaner and the colours are crisp and rich with no glare.
>>2817364
They're probably basing their opinion on HDTVs made in like 2004.
>>2817364
Try and beat Punch Out on a non-CRT. You can't do it.
>>2817364
Most, if not all LCDs have a "gaming" mode to alleviate any amount of input lag that particular set has (and even then some people will notice some regardless unless it's a really high quality set).
Colours are better on CRTs anyhow. More vibrant.
>>2817370
I've never beat Punch Out on a CRT either, I never liked that game a ton so I can't confirm or deny it. But I play a heck of a lot of fighters where precise timing down to individual frames is important and I don't find any difference compared to when I played on a CRT. I'm still equally competitive.
If Punch Out is a special case and genuinely unbeatable that's interesting but still doesn't come close to outweighing every other benefit I see in my screen.
But that's just me, anyone wanting to play Punch Out and use a CRT is more than welcome to if that's what floats their boat. I'm just happy I don't have to look at them anymore.
>>2817376
>Colours are better on CRTs anyhow.
I disagree with this very, very strongly. To me the colours on a CRT are all very glaring. the very light they emit is ugly and actually too vibrant. Colours don't look natural, everything is garish. An LED screen's colors look literal magnitudes better in my opinion, and I am extremely visually oriented and picky.
>>2817376
>Colours are better on CRTs anyhow. More vibrant.
The vast majority of consumer CRT TVs never had that good color/contrast/black. People seem to have this romanticized view of them based on cherry-picked 2000s Trinitrons.
>>2817387
> If your fragile eyes can't handle it
My eyes are excellent, thank you. What you're saying is simply untrue. Or we will have to agree to disagree, but I'm an artist and my life revolves around colour. You'll never see an art gallery these days doing with displays on CRTs because the colour they emit isn't accurate enough. Modern screens are absolutely better for colour.
His is a terrible photo. >>2799547 is a far better example, rich and deep colours that are vibrant but not glaring.
Daily reminder that if you refer to your LED backlit LCD screen as an "LED" screen you're risking immediately having your opinion discarded
>>2817390
No, that's because they're cumbersome and good sets are expensive. Also, I've never seen an art gallery using screens, period.
>>2817387
UHDTVs with rec.2020 have a wider color space than NTSC and colors look miles better. Older Dolby vision reference screens are LCD so you're argument doesn't count. Besides a photograph can't really capture how screen in reality looks, especially when you messed up with exposure etc. There just as many bad CRTs as LCDs. Still LED and OLEDs are by miles superior than both so you're comparison of old technologies is lacking depth.
>>2817406
Then you haven't been in many galleries.
If you like the colour that comes off CRTs and like using them then more power to you, enjoy. I'm not going to try and convince you your opinion is wrong or anything silly like that. But as someone who is obsessed with visuals and colour, I find them hideous compared to the kind of images modern HD screens can produce.
>>2817390
The problem with CRTs is that they're a twitchy analog device. You have a hard time getting stable color due to innumerable factors. A flat panel display with fixed cells will not have this issue.
>>2817416
I think you missed the
>good sets are expensive
Part. I can agree that chinese off-brand sets will have shitty colour reproduction, but don't tell me that professional sets used for video editing have bad colour reproduction, that is just plain ignorant.
>>2817421
That is a point, but I'm more talking about the actual light they emit and the way they do it. I find just the glare of them garish. But also like I say I have unusually good colour vision and am a little obsessed with this stuff so I got a bit salty when that anon did his bit about fragile eyes.
>>2817424
I will tell you in my 40 plus years of life I've never seen a CRT screen I thought had truly good colour reproduction and that the modern screens of the last five years blow every single one of them I've ever seen out of the water in terms of colour reproduction and image quality.
>>2817351
meme's gonna meme. try harder
>>2817427
>But also like I say I have unusually good colour vision and am a little obsessed with this stuff
>>2817442
I do and I am. Sorry I don't appreciate being told I have fragile eyes when I point out the colour CRTs emit is pretty shitty, but that's the case. No current screen is perfect because they all glow so it's impossible to actually recreate the look reflected light, but modern screens are a hell of a lot better at it than CRTs.
>>2817449
Oh I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just saying you're a jerk-off.
>>2817450
Ohh okay. In that case I agree with you wholeheartedly.
This whole argument seems really stupid. Sure an HDTV can produce equivalent or better color on paper, but at what cost? I got my PVM for $35, my Scart to BNC cable for $30, and the speakers I put with it for $20. I'm not including the prices of individual scart cables since I'd need those for an upscaler anyway. So I paid in total $85 for my setup.
Now I don't know too much about buying a modern TV/Monitor so this is an honest question here. About how much would getting a nice HDTV setup cost?
Does anyone else hear a high-pitched whine coming from CRTs?
It seems like mine never used to, but now it does after owning it for about 10 years. I've noticed this on other CRTs as well. Is it something that happens with age?
>>2817458
My new flatscreen was a couple of hundred dollars, but I'm also at a point in life where that's not a huge cost. It's certainly a fraction of what I spend on gaming overall.
>>2817461
It typically comes from 50 Hz and 60 Hz CRTs. They produce a sound that is right at the upper edge of what humans can hear and some people detect that whine. Children also usually can hear it better as well.
>>2817465
>My new flatscreen was a couple of hundred dollars, but I'm also at a point in life where that's not a huge cost.
Yeah, easy when you live in Mom's basement and she's paying for it. ;)
>>2817476
SICK BURN, DUDE. XD XD XD
>>2817476
I'm in my 40's and my mother is in her 80's dude. Ironically she is staying at my house for a few days this week because she's having eye surgery done.
When you're out of school, working a normal job and dealing with the bullshit of mortgages, cars, groceries, taxes and everything else, the relatively small price of a new screen or the like every now and then kind of slips between the cracks.
>>2817474
Any thoughts on a type of CRT that wouldn't whine?
>>2817485
>and my mother is in her 80's dude
Shit, typo I meant 70's! Sorry mom! She's old, but not that old. Grandmother still kicking it at 103 though so hopefully we all get that old.
>>2817429
Yes, YOU haven't seen one. Have you seen a production quality set? Because colour reproduction is kind of important in that field. I'm not trying to say that _all_ CRTs have better colour reproduction, just the high-end ones.
Image quality doesn't mean anything because we're working with 240p signals.
>>2817434
>I'm a parrot! Caw caw!
>>2817486
They don't exist. Turn up your speakers instead.
>>2817489
Nice save, wouldn't want to offend your mother on 4chan.
>>2817486
Any of them that run at over 60hz will are completely inaudible to humans.
>>2813470
Use the search function you idiots. We have like 4 threads with this stupid topic already.
>>2817489
>actually wanting to live to 103
>not just offing yourself on your 70th birthday
All this can be yours someday. Enjoy. :^)
>>2817491
>Nice save, wouldn't want to offend your mother on 4chan.
Last time she didn't stop trolling me for weeks over it!
As for the CRT, it's the actual light they produce. I will admit I haven't seen every single one made, and maybe there are some extremely high end models that used tricks to mitigate how they look. But I'm talking about the actual light that gets emitted by them, it's too glaring to produce subtle colours with much accuracy.
And again like say, it's all relative because almost all screens we have now glow and that alone fucks things up. All this really boils down to is I think the colours you get on modern screens are far, far better than CRTs. Though CRTs do have a specific look to them, and I won't discount there are some people out there who like that.
>>2817498
I was referring to NTSC sets, I wasn't aware that there were higher hz alternatives.
>>2817502
If that's your attitude you may as well jump in front of a bus today. Save yourself the main of middle age.
>>2813470
>CRT instead of a modern TV
The only one real answer to this is:
You can't use lightguns.
/thread
>>2817507
Well, I'm not wrong.
>>2817504
>missing the point
Turn down the brightness. Problem solved.
Colour reproduction on high-end sets are comparable to modern LCDs, and you get the scanlines too. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
