Interesting article on making LCDs look like fuzzy CRTs

[mlalena]

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05/01/git_crt_emulation/

[Kevin Mullins]

"Fuzzy" CRT's ? ..... personally I think this subject is moot by now.

[DJ_Izumi]

OKay, this got ignored as the last thread with this got derailed.

But does anyone else think this looks NOTHING like a CRT effect?  Excluding the 'color variation' where the colors arn't solid and pure, this looks like an LCD effect to me.  Like if someone took a close up picture of their LCD screen with the macro lense but not TOO close?  That's what this looks like to me.

[severdhed]

why are there like 75 threads on this subject?  why the sudden interest in making LCD monitors look like crap?  CRTs look different than LCDs...this is something we all know....as to which is better..that is personal opinion.  it seems as if these threads are created with the purpose of starting another LCD vs CRT fight.    why can't we just move on?

some people prefer the look of CRTs, since they are what the original arcade games had in them.

some people prefer LCDs, because they have a nice clean look, are inexpensive, and more flexible with mounting options.


who cares what anyone else likes....everyone needs to stop shoving their opinions down each other's throats.

and regarding the link in the first post...that is just stupid.  if you want to use an LCD monitor, then fine..but why go to the extra work just to make it look like crap?

[Blanka]

Why does everybody post the reghardware link. I want contact with those STUDENTS who made this crap, and give them some hints to do it right . For now I go into blocky OpenGL scaling again. Wakkawakkawakkawakka.

[Xiaou2]

Look like crap?  Who is the one with the OPINIONS again???


  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

 LCDs  "  CHANGE   "  the way that the picture is displayed for these older games... which
were NEVER meant to be viewed on such high res monitors.

 People want to see the games displayed as close to the Original look as possible.
Many will buy CRTs to do this... but everyone knows that CRTs wont last too much longer.

 
 Nobody but the fools think this is a  LCD  -vs-  CRT  fight.   Because many who use
CRTs also have and love their LCDs.  However, as stated.... these same people do not
like their game to look different than it should look.  Different from their childhood
memories. Different from the artists designs.  Different period.

 A game drawn on a lowres arcade monitor does not look Better when viewed on a
high res LCD monitor.  It looks Different.  In most cases, looks Worse.

[Spacejack]

I think they exaggerated the effect on the driving one, Ridge Racer?  If the Atari looked so blurry that what it thought of as a checkerboard grid of 4x6 blocks blurred together like that, you'd never have been able to recognize the shape of the ship in Asteroids or the fly in Yar's Revenge, or the cows in Stampede, or Pitfall Harry for that matter.  I can see blurring single pixels with neighbors but I played Atari on many TVs and I do not ever remember the level of blurring seen in that still.  Admittedly my experience with it only started around 1981.

[Todd H]

Not again...

[DaveMMR]

  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

I'm agreeing with Xiaou on this one.  LCD's are lighter, easier to work with and as of late, easier to come by - but CRTs are more authentic-looking.  If you're the type to have an LCD in your cab for the "quality", this is a moot topic for you. 

But, the images aren't convincing me...   

[RayB]

I think they exaggerated the effect on the driving one, Ridge Racer?  If the Atari looked so blurry that what it thought of as a checkerboard grid of 4x6 blocks blurred together like that, you'd never have been able to recognize the shape of the ship in Asteroids or the fly in Yar's Revenge, or the cows in Stampede, or Pitfall Harry for that matter.  I can see blurring single pixels with neighbors but I played Atari on many TVs and I do not ever remember the level of blurring seen in that still.  Admittedly my experience with it only started around 1981.

That still is exagerrated, but don't over-estimate that blurring was considered when drawing graphics! Pull out a Sega Genesis emulator and run "Cool Spot". Or look at this screen shot:



See how the bubbles have vertical stripes in them? We drew them like that on purpose because when viewed on a TV (through a real Genesis console of course) the stripes would blend with the adjacent pixels and create the illusion of transparency. For some reason, the Genesis would generate perfect blends if using stripes instead of a checkerboard pattern. (Checkerboard patterns worked too, but you could still see some stippling in the graphics).

Here's a Commodore 64 example:

I drew this with a checkboard pattern because the C64's composite output when viewed on a Commodore monitor blended the pixels enough that, although there was still some "checkerboard" visible, it blended enough to give the illusion of being another color (a mix of the two colors used in the pattern). When viewed on a TV with RF output, this effect was even more convincing, but you lost sharpness.

If the monitor/tv sharpness back then was equal to a multisync PC monitor or LCD, where you can see very square pixels with no bleed, I can assure you I (and other artists) would NOT have used techniques like I point out above. We used those because we knew most people's TVs would have a certain degree of pixel bleed/blend!

 

[DJ_Izumi]

If the monitor/tv sharpness back then was equal to a multisync PC monitor or LCD, where you can see very square pixels with no bleed, I can assure you I (and other artists) would NOT have used techniques like I point out above. We used those because we knew most people's TVs would have a certain degree of pixel bleed/blend!

Lots of PC games used gradiants like that back in the 16, 64 and 256 color days, even though they ran on CGA and VGA monitors.

http://linuxdevcenter.com/linux/2003/02/03/graphics/hq1-0.original.png

[RandyT]

To disagree a bit with RayB, they still would have used this method.  What choice did they really have?  They would have and did use the same technique, but with much less success.

On systems with more available colors, it can be used to greater effect.  VGA screens (EGA, CGA) still had very coarse dot pitches at that time, which meant that that some blending was still possible.  Dithering can work extremely well on an analog VGA display because the color changes can be so much more subtle.  Just keep in mind also that the importance of blending goes down as the number of simultaneous colors that can be displayed is increased.

But those old displays, even with cleaner inputs, still shared much more in common with standard TV's than do the more recent hi-resolution tube displays.  And as different as the old tubes are to the new tubes, they are still a hell of a lot more similar than tubes vs LCD panels.  With the perfect, sharp-edged pixel representation of LCD's, the only real option is to have enough of these perfect pixels (or advanced algorithms) to decently simulate the interaction between adjacent pixels as would have occurred on the old analog displays.

I haven't really been all that impressed with most of the attempts so far.  I don't think the resolution of most LCD panels can yet match what will be required to do this really well.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 Ray is correct... and being a game artists,  he has more weight to his argument than
NON ARTISTS.

 While some designers decided to leave their graphics more blocky and cartoony...
there were many who did utilize the faults of old CRT arcade monitors to create special
effects such as color blending, edge smoothing, texture, transparency and more.

[severdhed]

Look like crap?  Who is the one with the OPINIONS again???


  People who set out to make LCDs look like CRTs, do not seek to make LCDs look
like crap.   They set out to REPLICATE the actual INTENDED DISPLAY IMAGES.

 LCDs  "  CHANGE   "  the way that the picture is displayed for these older games... which
were NEVER meant to be viewed on such high res monitors.

 People want to see the games displayed as close to the Original look as possible.
Many will buy CRTs to do this... but everyone knows that CRTs wont last too much longer.

 
 Nobody but the fools think this is a  LCD  -vs-  CRT  fight.   Because many who use
CRTs also have and love their LCDs.  However, as stated.... these same people do not
like their game to look different than it should look.  Different from their childhood
memories. Different from the artists designs.  Different period.

 A game drawn on a lowres arcade monitor does not look Better when viewed on a
high res LCD monitor.  It looks Different.  In most cases, looks Worse.

i never said that i didn't have an opinion...i'm just saying that if using the image from the link..




the right side of that image looks like crap.  i dont understand why anyone would want their games to look blurry and out of focus, simply because that is the way it looked 20 years ago using obsolete technology.

[Xiaou2]

 Well, the article was simulating a primitive home console through a poor composite style
output.   Its a LOT different than Arcade Monitor Simulation.

 One thing to note in that pic,  is that the sky is more blended rather than solid
bands of colors.  Also, The Hills are smoother, rather than sharp blocky edges.

 

[RandyT]

Ray is correct... and being a game artists,  he has more weight to his argument than
NON ARTISTS.

Except for the one point that was pointed out.  Proof of this can be seen on handhelds like GameBoy Color, which uses an LCD screen (no chance for "blurring") and employs pixel dithering to great extent simply for differentiation due to it's limited color capabilities.

Don't assume you know everyone's backgrounds here, Steve.

RandyT

[Xiaou2]

 There are many games which use very little to no dithering.

 Dithering is an artistic choice...  and one can tell a picture drawn by a Good
artist.. and a person who tries to simulate an effect.


 Dithering when done on an LCD  -vs-  an old CRT are very different situations.
On arcade crts, dithered patterns can appear translucent and or mix colors.   
That is Not true of modern LCD / pc displays.

 And being that we were discussing the reason why people would want to simulate
arcade related displays...  your argument had little place.
 
 The pics that ray has shown show, are good examples of an artist who has designed
his works around a standard res tv.   You could take some of those moden handheld
games, display their images on a tv.. and see that the effects would mess their
image up.  Basically, they are not designed to be viewed on a standard tv, and the
results will be completely different than what you may expect...  which is EXACTLY
why graphics are designed around the display tech they are going to be displayed on.
 

[RandyT]

 There are many games which use very little to no dithering.

 Dithering is an artistic choice...  and one can tell a picture drawn by a Good
artist.. and a person who tries to simulate an effect.


 Dithering when done on an LCD  -vs-  an old CRT are very different situations.
On arcade crts, dithered patterns can appear translucent and or mix colors.   
That is Not true of modern LCD / pc displays.

 And being that we were discussing the reason why people would want to simulate
arcade related displays...  your argument had little place.
 
 The pics that ray has shown show, are good examples of an artist who has designed
his works around a standard res tv.   You could take some of those moden handheld
games, display their images on a tv.. and see that the effects would mess their
image up.  Basically, they are not designed to be viewed on a standard tv, and the
results will be completely different than what you may expect...  which is EXACTLY
why graphics are designed around the display tech they are going to be displayed on.
 

No one is arguing (most of) these things.  Do I really need to upload my C-64 graphics so you feel better?

The point is, that the reasons graphics are dithered are really the same regardless of  the efficacy of the result.  Limited color palettes required the artists to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, even if the attempt was only somewhat successful.  Making a blanket statement like "if so and so displays didn't do X, designers never would have done Y" is patently false, demonstrably even, and therefore indicates a religious zeal which ultimately hurts the position.

I know very well that graphics were designed with the final display in mind and tweaked to better take advantage of the traits inherent to them.  I am not arguing that working to make the way these early programs appear on modern displays, as close as possible to the displays used originally, is a move in the wrong direction.  I am just stating that making weak arguments results in a weak position and should be avoided, especially when there is evidence everywhere to the contrary.

And BTW, if you are going to make statements like "There are many games which use very little to no dithering." it would help to provide examples.  Games for systems with very limited color palettes which do not employ this technique look absolutely horrible and are a sure sign of a rushed port to a less capable system, not an "artistic choice".

RandyT

[Malenko]

Not again...

exactly. You cant argue opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs, from ChadTower to Genesism.

move along, nothing to see here......

[RayB]

Randy, my point was that I as an artist in those days, I made concious choices about things like that based on how the end result would look on a television.  I KNOW some artists still used the technique on games for a variety of other types of displays, but most of the time it still looked like a checkerboard and therefore looked like sh!t. Those were just bad choices on the part of those artists. (For example, you don't dither red with yellow expecting the illusion of "orange". The contrast is just too great and the results don't blend.)

Another good example is that I never used the technique on NES games. At my very first job, coming off of C64 graphics, another artist already experienced with NES showed me what happened if you use checkerboard dithering in NES games. The outputed graphics would do this weird "shimmering" when the graphics scrolled.  Now that doesn't mean some artists at other companies didn't do it anyways, but we made the decision we wouldn't, since it looked like ass due to the way the NES displayed it on a tv.

PS: I'm not arguing for either "side" of the argument but just throwing wrench into things for the sake of "just sayin". 

[genesim]

I am really really trying to understand this.

The Atari image is untrue to any image I have ever seen on at least 10+ Televisions that I have personally played on.

The lines of the sky on the left were absolutely there, while the "blurred" image is just an after effect that I never saw there.

While the intent may have been on the Atari(and I personally doubt this 99%) to blend the colors, IMHO it didn't happen on what was finally displayed...at least any truly perceptive way.   So if my premise is true(and for me it is because I had nothing but crappy hotel TV's, black and white TV's, better TV's, small Tv's....), then shouldn't it be called for what it is...which is untrue to the original display?

Keeping the original display only is a choice that some people prefer..maybe most people(though Joe public is another story), but perhaps this guy isn't all wrong in that he like me is trying to find an answer for displaying all older games with the least compromise on current hardware...even if one understands that it will always be some degree of compromise.

Case in pont, Randy remember you or was it someone else that was talking about the settings in MAME that would give the desired results for the sensitivity for original spinners.    I like the idea of this.    First I am lazy, second I like consistency.    It all comes down to just enjoying playing the games.

[FrizzleFried]

"Fuzzy" CRT's ? ..... personally I think this subject is mute by now.

mute?

[Kevin Mullins]

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

[Ummon]

I think everyone should check out my posts today on that old other thread:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=89791.msg967067#msg967067

For old-timey 19" goodness, I think they look ---smurfin--- good. Still a tube - and remember OS screen shots are still only the final output signal, not the monitor's image itself - but I tell ya the images shown look exactly like it does in person.

[Malenko]

     

STFU about this already, when you're more annoying then 3 chads, you have a problem.

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

moot?

[Kevin Mullins]

Corrected ...... most people tend to understand it, even as wrong as it may be, to say "mute point".

moot?

Yes, moot.

[pinballwizard79]

Meeeeeeeyooooooow

[Xiaou2]

No Ummon, it does Not look exactly like an arcade monitor.

 For example,  the upper left where there is a checkerboard bar - is supposed to
be displayed as translucent instead of seeing a checkerboard pattern.

 And that is only the beginning of it all. 

 Compare an actual photograph of an arcade monitor, and see for yourself.


 Edit:

 ohh, you are talking about the pics you posted.  Those are even worse.

[genesim]

But...the topic is about the Atari pics.

Why can't anybody adress the pink elephant in the room?

Was my TV special?   Were others seriously blended to the effect that you didn't see the lines?

If anyone seriously claims they were, I would like to see pictures of this.   I sold my Atari 2600 years ago, but I would gladly repurchase one to prove my point, but I know what I saw.   ..on the other hand, why should I do it, when others won't even comment on this blatant fact.

The pic by the guy who fabricated this supposed desired picture is painting a completly false representation.   It would be nice if someone would adress this point.

[Kevin Mullins]

Meeeeeeeyooooooow

Mmmmooooooooo.....T

[Ginsu Victim]

But...the topic is about the Atari pics.

Why can't anybody adress the pink elephant in the room?

Was my TV special?   Were others seriously blended to the effect that you didn't see the lines?

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

[RandyT]

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

Yeah, mine neither.  I think it was a mediocre attempt at best.  Those colors did still blend like they do in the modified image, but the rest is a miss.

RandyT

[genesim]

I had plenty of bad TVs and it never looked like that. Oh it looked bad, but not like that.

Yeah, mine neither.  I think it was a mediocre attempt at best.  Those colors did still blend like they do in the modified image, but the rest is a miss.

RandyT

Does anyone have a true picture of this, because I can tell you I have never seen this phenomenon.

Look at the pixel count quoted by Blanka, how would this be physically possible?   

A NTSC standard television has FAR more lines of resolution.   Sorry Randy but I think the "blending" is not ture.  Not to be disrespectful, but it just doesn't makes sense at all.

If those lines blended then you people's eyes wouldn't be made out on TV programs.   You wouldn't see hair....it makes no sense at all.

[genesim]

Let me state it clearer, if that much blending did occur(which again makes no sense to many years of me playing Atari 2600 and NEVER saw this phenomenon), then how could you see any kind of detail on regular television.

How could you make out any detail if TV's blurred images that bad???   Do you realize that we are talking several millimeters.    How would you see hair follicles...eye brows...teeth.

Answering this question opens up alot of what I have been arguing about from day one.   Maybe I need to start taking some pictures and doing some real comparisons.   The fact that this person could doctor images to fit their arguement....like the Ghosts having double images and it not existing on LCD's( ).

Why is noone questioning this?

[RandyT]

One thing people seem to be ignoring is that the 2600 only had RF out, and it wasn't anywhere near as good as the RF converters you see today.  The tuners on TV's were pretty poor back then as well, with a lot of folks still using tube sets with the channel changer that went "clunk, clunk, clunk" when you turned it.  I'm an "old guy" and I was all of 12 when it came out.  Just out of curiosity, genesim, how old were you?  If your first experience with the machine was 10 years after it was introduced, you were likely viewing it on a better display than most had when they played it hours upon hours each day.

As for seeing "hair" on an old TV with an RF broadcast, I'm not so sure one really could.  You could tell it was supposed to be hair, but it certainly didn't have enough definition to see strands.  Hell, Hi-Def is the first time one could really experience that level of detail.  Also keep in mind that moving images, long persistence phosphor coatings and interlaced images tended to hide a lot of the clunky nature of the display.  The first time I saw one of those VCR's or computer cards with the ability to snag and display a raw field of NTSC video, I was flabbergasted.  It looked absolutely terrible.  Blocky, noisy, etc.  But this was very representative of the signal.  The fact that your brain averages everything tends to make things look better than they would if your brain was sensitive to each detail in that tiny moment of time.

You can believe it didn't happen if you want.  But on my very used $150 10" color TV, it most certainly did.  It was a very different world, my friend.

RandyT

[genesim]

UH no.   I experienced it when it debuted.   My father purchased it and actually shared it with me and him both proceded to play it for over 10 years along with my friends.  Quite an assumption.   Don't tell me what I did.    You don't know, but I can tell you this, I too knew about the dissapointment of having the front covers not looking like what you got in the game....oh and for the record I also have one of the original catalogs that came with the game.   But of course that must have been an illusion right?   Something I just picked up later.

Second, the NTSC standard is just that.   Doesn't change resolution my man.  While TV's can be more crappy from one to the next, it doesn't change the fact that a said number of lines are being produced.   That is why it is called a STANDARD.

Third...Atari 2600 whether hooked through RF, Antenna, the resolution doesn't suddenly change.  You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.   

But on my very used $150 10" color TV, it most certainly did

WHOAAA there, so now you are telling me they they specifically designed the resolution for your TV??

I was there, and I was playing it.    Not 10 years after the fact like many on here claim that know better.

You could tell it was supposed to be hair, but it certainly didn't have enough definition to see strands.

BULL.   While it doesn't look like high definition, shall I dig it up my old televisions now?    While the screen is interlaced, you cannot be serious.

Hair can most defintely be seen and it wasn't my eyes just finishing the rest.   This is a weak part of your arguement and if noone steps up to blow the whistle then it shows that people just don't want to know what the truth is.

[genesim]

Oh yeah and for the record I had the "clunk" "clunk" "clunk" as well....UHF and VHF(as I remember) was also a channel.    There were all different kinds.   Hmmmmm must be only you though right.

[RandyT]

I see you dodged the question......how old were you?

[genesim]

I don't like to tell my age.   That isn't a dodge.   Lets say I am 35 to 50 which puts me old enough.   

By the way, your arguement kind of contradicts itself.

You say that your mind finishes the rest with hair....but it somehow blends the rest with the lines?

hmmmmm

So next are you going to say that my mind is different from everyone else's. 

I get it, I must not have the mindset to see the blurred image.   

[RandyT]

I don't like to tell my age.   That isn't a dodge.   Lets say I am 35 to 50 which puts me old enough.   

Uh huh...and your reason for not divulging what might be a very important gauge as to the credibility of the experiences you constantly refer to in this debate is...?

So next are you going to say that my mind is different from everyone else's. 

No, I'm not going to say it....