Do you recommend buying a CRT monitor for emulating retro gaming? I've read that they consume a lot of electricity.
>>109105644>>>/v/
>>109105644>sloppaI don't recommend anything to swine, swine are for eating not for communication
>>109105644No, not unless you really want a CRT monitor. You can just use filters if you want to emulate the look.Otherwise you're dealing with VGA cable conversion
>>109105644no crts are shitsure if you find one on the curb for garbage pickup and it works use it if you likebut personally I would never spend money on one
>>109105644>I've read that they consume a lot of electricity.what shitholes do you guys live in where this is such a huge concern that you bring this up all the time?you a eurocuck?
You don't need them for retro gaymen. It only makes a difference when you're actually in some sort of competition where every tiniest frame lag makes a difference but even then many are ignorant enough to buy a CRT hooked up via an 15 bucks Amazon specials converter and think they're now lagfree. >they consume a lot of electricity Depends on the size. A 15inch one may pull 60 watts which would be kinda what a modern 24"+ flat monitor would pull on full fucking blast.21" crts and big TV's easily pull 110w+
>>109105644Your desktop probably idles at the same wattage a CRT does
>>109105896Garry's Mod looks pretty great on my 17" CRT
>>109105720You cannot emulate a CRT. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.
>>109105644They don't use much more power than your average LCD monitor. The main issues are size and refresh rate. These things (I use one) are genuinely painful to use at 60Hz, so you want to make sure your GPU can actually drive it faster than that, and even then higher resolutions usually mean lower refresh rates. My monitor can do up 2048 x 1536, but I keep it limited to 1152 x 864 because that's the highest resolution I can display at 100Hz. I could do 1600 x 1200 at 80Hz if I wanted to, but I prefer refresh rate to resolution even when not dealing with flicker.
>>109105720The filters emulate the look of CRT TVs, VGA monitors didn't really look like that. They have a pretty clean, high res picture. What makes them nice is that they can display basically anything with no scaling. That means you can get perfect native resolution for basically any picture. Better motion clarity is also a nice bonus.
>>109105644I'm fairly bored so I did the experiment for you with my power meter thing.My 21" Panasonic CRT TV pulled down 42 watts in dark scenes and 50 in bright ones.My fucking huge 75" TCL C7K sucked down 80 in dark scenes and 110 watts in bright scenes.So, the answer to that question would be no
Got a Gateway monitor last year. Crazy how OoT at 20 FPS feels smooth.
>>109105644if you're playing old pc games at low resolutions (640x480, 800x600), then yeah
>>109106146You have a monitor you could test? They tend to run at higher refresh rates than TVs.
>>109105644I'm currently replaying Deus Ex on an Imac G3.The CRT makes a huge difference if you're into turn of the millennium gaming.
>>109105644>109105644Or, you know, just use ReShade with the CRT_Royale shader.
>>109105644
>>109106815wow
I would suggest if you can get one for free/cheap then go for it. It'll be more authentic and the novelty of the CRT makes things a bit more engaging but if you don't have the money or space then don't bother since the games should stand on their own merit and not the technology.
>>109106145>What makes them nice is that they can display basically anything with no scalingThey still are limited a lot by the shadow mask itself. You won't get anything close to 4K to display without it looking the same as a lower res.
>>109107932I think the VGA cable would stop you from reaching 4k. Anyways, could you elaborate on what kind of limits the shadow mask imposes and how it imposes them?
>>109107932>>109107945The Sony GDM-F520 is a monitor capable of displaying real 4K, 3840x2160 at *progressive* 60hz, over VGA. You just need to find an adapter capable of outputting such crazy pixel clocks, but they do exist. Picrel is someone doing just that.This particular monitor is also the best shot you have at resolving that res, as it has the sharpest CRT ever made at .22mm pitch. It's an aperture grille too, which only have horizontal segmentation, there is no limit on what these monitors can resolve vertically. The limiting factor however is the slew rate of the video amplifiers these monitors were equipped with. Nothing in the universe could output above 400MHz video back when these monitors were made, and 3840x2160p60hz is 712MHz, almost double what the amps were designed to keep up with. The result is fairly smeared.However, if you run an interlaced 4:3 resolution, such as 2880x2160i85hz, you can keep the pixel clock under 400MHz and judge the limits of the grille itself. This is something I've seen with my own eyes, I ran that res on my own GDM-F520 and it could resolve 12pt bitmap fonts readably, shockingly well. You obviously miss some horizontal details, but infinite vertical resolution makes these monitors scale far beyond what they were designed for.
>>109105686thats not very kosher
If you are ultra autistic about it, yes. If not, and you just wanna play those games again, eh, do you have the cash for it? Sure, if not, just play the game.
>>109106815>that surprise nostalgia kick in the balls when I saw this mid 00s anime with washed out colors on a crt
>>109105727>no crts are shitThat's right, all crts are hecking valid sis!
>>109108023>60hz,You know, I really don't think its worth that, even if it is impressive.Anyways, isn't aperture grille a Sony specific technology? What about other tubes. Like say this Korean made Dell monitor I'm reading your post on. What mechanical limitations might I run into if I tried to push this thing to its limits.
>>109106146richfag
>>109108717>You know, I really don't think its worth that, even if it is impressive.Yeah it's not something you'd ever use, just interesting trivia and a cool party trick>Anyways, isn't aperture grille a Sony specific technology?Until around mid 90s yes, then the patent expired and Mitsubishi also started manufacturing AGs and called them Diamondtrons. But both Trinitrons and Diamondtrons were rebadged to pretty much every monitor brand out there at some point.>What about other tubes.Most other tubes are shadow masks or similar, and they have are segmented vertically as well. They're just plain inferior in every way to AGs unless you specicically are after the textured dotmask look (or *really* can't stand the two stabilization wires). SMs start to look very bad very quickly when exceeding their kell factor.However what prevents pretty much all monitors from even trying 4k60hz is their horizontal scanning frequency. You need a ~140khz monitor to do it, and there's only a few monitor models that can do that. Sony's F520 is the only >130kHz monitor Sony made. The DP2070SB is Mitsubishi's most famous 140khz unit.
>>109105644No, what you really want for emulating 8- and 16-bit consoles is a CRT TV. CRT monitors look way cleaner and don't produce the artifacts that the pixel art was designed to look right with.
>>109108896CRT monitors are good if he wants to play old computer games. Basically every 8 bit micro had an optional RGB monitor you could buy for it. Macs had a lot of games that can all be emulated. And of course IBM PC compatibles have shitloads of games designed to display on just those type of monitors.
>>109108886>nd they have are segmented vertically as well.So what does the segmentation do to the picture? And why do shadow masks exist at all?>unless you specicically are after the textured dotmask lookIt occurs to me that I don't think I've ever seen anything besides the textured dot mask look in person. I have no idea what an AG picture looks like.>(or *really* can't stand the two stabilization wiresWhy would those bother people?>SMs start to look very bad very quickly when exceeding their kell factor.Bad in what way? And what's a Kell factor (in relation to the discussion at hand. You don't have to give a full scientific definition, just how it relates to the picture getting fucked up by high resolutions)?
>>109108944>Basically every 8 bit micro had an optional RGB monitor you could buy for it.Usually ones that were pretty close to the TV standard and just using RGB to avoid RF noise and composite dot crawl and color artifacts. Games on these mostly didn't rely on the monitor being the way it was to get the look they were going for, or when they did, relied on it being a 240p or whatever thing with relatively large dot pitch, and a 2000s SVGA monitor wouldn't do that much more to reproduce the look than a modern OLED would.And when the resolution is high enough that an SVGA CRT would reproduce the look, games aren't relying on the CRT looking how it does to make its art look right. The only real pluses here are much better motion performance, and that it doesn't have a native resolution. So modern high-PPI OLED gets surprisingly close.>muh CGADue to the choice between 2 palettes of 4 ugly colors, lots of games opted to use the high res monochrome mode to produce artifact colors on the composite output instead. Which of course really only looks right on a CRT TV. Or of course using emulation that produces the same artifact colors and then uses a CRT shader.
>>109108964>SMsShadow masks are what enable CRTs to have color. The mask, as the name implies, creates a shadow from the POV of any particular gun in a way that lets it only hit one color of phosphor. The "red" gun can only "see" red phosphors, and so forth. The three electron guns are identical, there's no other way to filter which gun can activate which color phosphor (we ignore the existence of indextrons).>KellWhen mapping one grid to another imprecisely, kell factor is used to refer to the maximum ratio of those two grids before moire patterns and other artifacts start to appear. It's often around 0.7, but it is just a heuristic created from observation.The width of the F520's mask is 388mm, and it's pitch is 0.22mm. 388mm/0.22mm = ~1764, that's how many vertical RGB "pixel" stripes that monitor physically has. Kell factor of 0.7 predicts then, that the maximum horizontal resolution that mask can resolve is 1764*0.7=~1235. Rounded to nearest real resolution, you get 1280x960. That is the resolution the Sony GDM-F520 is able to display with the same pixel-perfect precision as an LCD, even in moire stress test patterns. And that's precisely what I see in practice.Higher resolutions than that then gradually create more and more artifacts and loss of information. If you only have 1764 stripes of any particular color on the monitor, and try to map a 1920px wide image to it, you obviously have to lose some information somewhere. But how exactly those artifacts appear in the image, and if they're even visible to you in 99% of real content, is another far more subjective matter. This kell factor math works beautifully for aperture grilles, but only because their geometry is so simple, only having horizontal structure. Shadow masks have this crazy triangular pattern that does not cleanly map to pixel grids, and the kell factor interactions get very messy very quickly. Most shadow masks are unable to display any resolution without moire patterns somewhere.
>>109109032>and a 2000s SVGA monitor wouldn't do that much more to reproduce the look than a modern OLED would.They can display that resolution natively. Really helpful for non-square pixel resolutions.>muh CGAThere's EGA and VGA too. Both of those (in games at least) were 320x200, which is a non-square resolution, which is going to look wrong on basically any monitor except a CRT, which can actually make its pixels non-square.
>>109105644Just drive a bit around some highway or visit your local e-waste recycling center and ask nicely if you can get one.>NOOO, I DON'T WANT TRASH! I WAN LE EBIN GAMUR CRT!You know that this is exactly where resellers from e-bay get their shit, Stop crying like a fucking pussy and do the dirty job.
>>109109058>Dot phosphor screenWait, how do CRTs have no native resolution or fixed pixel size if the phosphors still have a fixed size?>IndextronI assume this is some rare one off variety of tube.What do moire patterns look like? Do they look different on grilles than they do on masks?
>>109108964Ran out of post length>I have no idea what an AG picture looks like.In the ideal case they're pretty much identical to LCDs/OLEDs. Slightly softer perhaps in a very natural way. Picrel, while this is 480p, it highlights one very cool effect that is very visible on aperture grilles particularly, and it's the beam width's interactions with anti-aliasing creating curves and contours that do not exist in the source image, but absolutely enhance it. Literally analog super resolution, three decades before DLSS nonsense. Notice how the text has sub-pixel curvature the monitor just hallucinated for you.My implication being, CRT picture being "softer" and more "natural" isn't necessary blur, but these crazy picture-enhancing sub-pixel interactions. >Why would those bother people?I keep forgetting they exist myself. But I can understand why some people could find them really annoying. It is a strangely crude blemish on an otherwise such elegant technology. >>109109101>Wait, how do CRTs have no native resolution or fixed pixel size if the phosphors still have a fixed size?It's better to completely forget that the mask of a CRT is a regular lattice, it's easier to think about it like analog photography. Analog film has some sort of maximum "resolution" defined by how fine the grains are that make up the light-sensitive film. But there's no way to map an exact pixel grid to that random film grain perfectly, the film has to be of higher "resolution" than the pixel grid you're trying to "map" to it (kell factor!!). Naturally any pixel grids smaller than whatever that maximum is, will also be resolved cleanly. CRTs work EXACTLY the same way.
>>109105644there are a gorillion images of crt monitors on Google and you had to generate AI slop?
>>109109145>In the ideal case they're pretty much identical to LCDs/OLEDsSo straight lines instead of the staggered dots?And what do the "two wires" look like anyways?>Naturally any pixel grids smaller than whatever that maximum is, will also be resolved cleanly.So unlike LCDs, its not a clean cutoff of "this is the real resolution, everything else isn't." and more of fucking with the focus of those three beams in relation to the grill or mask to get different resolutions. So you can go a bit past what ideal resolution is and still get an improved resolution, just with some added artifacting. And I guess the the artifacting would eventually get so bad the picture would be unusable. What about going under the ideal resolution (say like running a monitor meant for 1024X768 at 320x200)
>>109109201>So straight lines instead of the staggered dots?If even that, there's no vertical segmentation so the picture of an AG CRT (picrel) has even less screen door than LCD/OLED. >And what do the "two wires" look like anyways?Two faint lines running and inch or two from top and bottom of the monitor. Visible usually only when viewing fullscreen whites. >So you can go a bit past what ideal resolution is and still get an improved resolution, just with some added artifacting. And I guess the the artifacting would eventually get so bad the picture would be unusable.Yes, precisely. At some point you just don't have enough grains on your film to capture any more information, and something gets lost somewhere. Literally think of it like trying to take a picture of a PNG using an analog film camera.>What about going under the ideal resolutionSharpness stays perfect, but you'll get scanlines!
>>109105644you can remove the 'retro' part.any game will benefit greatly from being played on crt. yes, even elden ring, rdr or whatever you're in.
>>109109238This
Calibrating AOC chassis LG tube Medion CRTThe sharpness at 1200p is surprising for such a low end 19"Very soulfull tubeIdeal for retro vidya
>>109109227why are the lines running vertical here, but horizontal in the other image?Also where'd you learn all this? Did you read it in a book? Work in TV repair?
>>109109248the backlit multisync logo is so cool
>>109109279The first photo ALSO has vertical lines, on top of horizontal. Look closely. The first photo is a .30mm AG at 480p. The second one is the same .30mm AG at 1200p. At 1200p the scanlines merge and all texture that is left is the mask. >>109109289It turns red when the monitor has no signal or is in service mode
>>109109279Also>Also where'd you learn all this? Did you read it in a book? Work in TV repair?Yes.
>>109109309>worked in TV repairHow long ago? You still find work in that field?
>>109109316No I've not worked in the field, I just ended up doing this kind of shit in what was my quest to obtain the mythical GDM-F520
>>109109355I think the closest thing I'll probably ever own to a nice Trinitron is the Sony Wega front projection CRT set I keep in my basement. You know anything about projection TVs?
>>109105644>Do you recommend buying a CRT monitor for emulating retro gaming?If by retro gaming you mean classic console games (maybe up to PS2 generation and everything below, basically 240p/480i games) then I would actually recommend a CRT TV instead of a monitor, plus whatever accessories you need to hook it up to a PC (it's not that hard, depending on what inputs the TV has).If you mean to run old PC games then a PC monitor would be appropriate instead, but for PC stuff you're only going to majorly benefit from the CRT monitor in old DOS games (320x200 res) and early 640x480 stuff. You will get some visible scanlines on a modern-ish monitor and a bit of "CRT magic" image improvement, but at higher res you only really get the motion improvement and not much else, as in you'd be fine playing those games on an LCD or OLED too. Basically CRTs only provide a major visual improvement on very low res signals since those look fucked on modern screens, if the resolution isn't tiny you don't really need to bother. 240p console games are going to benefit the most from being played on a real CRT TV.>I've read that they consume a lot of electricity.No. You're going to be looking at <100W unless you have a particularly huge one or something, more likely it's going to be closer to 50W.
>>109109370Not really, I mostly stuck to monitors.
>>109105644No.
Shadow mask is most soulfull for retro
Hauuuu
>>109108023>This particular monitor is also the best shot you have at resolving that res, as it has the sharpest CRT ever made at .22mm pitch.Off by a long shot. it would require a .11 pitch and that's assuming perfect focus, nigh impossible with Snoy's cut corners chassis where everything goes down the gutter if the filter caps drift off just a little
RANNIGGER ALARMABANDON THREAD
>>109109527Thats right, go back to your hidy hole
>>109106815she deserved better
depends what type of retro gaming a pc crt is pointless for old consoles they hardly look any different to lcd monitors you want a crt tv
>>109109355That CRO looks awesome. Did you finish your quest?
>>109110396Yes I did
>>109110234Nice MonitorNo OSD I assume?
>>109106815mad thad?
>>109113226nice and no its all controlled with just the buttons its a bit annoying you cant see exact numbers for the brightness / contrast but it works well. also i havent managed to get above 60hz in decent resolutions so drop to 720p to get 90hz in some games otherwise 1440x1080 works well at 60hz. idk if this is a limitation of my vga adapter or the monitor itself
>>109113418I cant find exact specs for your monitor, but the higher res you go the lower hz you have to use for CRTs
Calibrate to D65 or D93 for old VNs?
D93 looks good
>>109105644No, just climp into your attic and dust of your old Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454.
>>109105644I remember CRTs.The very few that weren't total shit were physically large (taking a lot of desk space by comparison with any modern monitor), very expensive, very power hungry (and hot), and incredibly heavy. Like "get two burly furniture movers to install it" heavy. You needed reinforced tables for them.Unless you really really want one, don't bother.
>>109106089You can emulate anything on a retina screen.
>>109113714Only the static picture. Half the reason to use CRTs is their motion clarity, and that mere shaders cannot emulate (software BFI is ass and doesn't count).
>>109105644Computer monitors in particular are a bit shite.You have to either go over 60hz and have a lot of stutter with 60hz content or handle the flickering that is WAY worse than CRT TVs.
>>109113677:D
>>109106146how do i become a richfag like you
>>109112946Looks great!
>>109114639NTA, but>REEEEEEEE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MEEEEEEE!!!God, I fucking wish. Nice monitor though, anon. Awesome specs. Got any pics or vids of gameplay?
>>109116586Couldnt find anything, but I have a pic of it turned on in the place where I put the F56 now
>>109116716Very cool, thanks for sharing.
>>109113480d65, maybe even 54.i like my screens warm, added bonus is that blue crt is the fastest to wear out (at least on crt projectors) so total longevity increases.
>>109106246> just buy a monitor brotv's fine if you're not a sweatlord
>>109105644you want a tv not a monitor
>>109114639>femboy physique in reflection
>>109105644they use more power relative to their size, but your modern lcd is probably much larger than an average crt monitor. my 32" lcd monitor uses more electricity than my 15" crt monitor
>>109106802> muh reshade crt royalejust play on a real crt if you care that much, fake scanlines look like shit
>>109106089you can, but it requires a very high refresh ratehttps://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/
Love it when you can only get Capacitors as snap ins and you have to do this
>>109109238Negative, the 4:3 ratio aspect absolutely kills it. UIs of games made since 2010s onto now are tailored for 16:9 and 16:10. You are hard-stuck on 1600x1200 at best. The visual quality is just inferior.CRTs are products of their era. They are museum pieces they are obsolete for 99% of use case (yes, even silly gayming)
>>109117070You realize you don't have to use them for absolutely everything, right? And this is really comparing two completely different types of technology
>>109117080Yes, but they are functionally obsolete. The only reason to us them is pure nostalgia. They are like classic cars that pull out for nice Sunday rides.>Acutal CRT-fag back in their era
>>109117107I suppose the only benefit some people cite is motion clarity. but I don't know how important or relevant that actually is
>>109117070Depends on the gameCP 2077 looks great on a CRTHelldivers 2 too, really good since it gives you back a bit of AA without the TAA smear filterOn 21" CRTs you can also go to 1920X1440P resolution for some extra detail and AA>>109117107Which is nice enoughWatching 4:3 anime, older games and some newer games that just fit wellIn static image quality they have been surpassed in every metric for quite a while
I did not care for Elden Ring
>>109105644You can force native scanlines by using a custom ultrawide resolution in retroarch and you also get the crystal clear motion clarity from the strobbing display, but other than that it's not going to be the same experience as a low res TV with a composite video connection. Which is what these games were made for. It's still cool but having a bulky and dusty X-Ray box taking space is quite inconvenient when modern glsl shader can give you literally any kind of look you want.
>>109117250The issue with the 240p Monitor approach is, apart from hurting to look at, you need to do 120hz 240p since PC CRTs cant accept 15khz, which will ruin motion for 60hz gamesJust get a PVM if you want thick scanlines for retro games
Filling your home with e waste is very based/cringe [delete as applicable]
>>109117285You can fix that by using vsync or Black Frame Insertion which brings things back at the cost of a little brightness (which is nothing for a CRT that can shine like the moon)
>>109117296not sure if this is ironic or not, crt monitors are dimm as hellbut you dont want high brightness 240p anyways or it will be burn out your eyesI dont think you want monitor 240p at all unless its a really low end small tube, on a 19 or 21 inch tube its unusable
>>109117346>crt monitors are dimm as hellMaybe the shitty cheap ones. The one I have is almost as birght as my lcd.
>>109117356which one and did you actually measure
>>109117070true, but you can run 16:9 resolution on 4:3/5:4 just fine. I run my crt 'made for 1280x1024' at 1600x900 just fine.
>>109105644ShaderGlass does just fine unless you are super autistic
>meanwhile in brazil
>>109113459>I cant find exact specs for your monitor,yeah its annoying theres no info about it online and i do know that but also wondering if i can go higher with different vga adapter
>>109105644>I've read that they consume a lot of electricity.The generic 17-19" ones consume like 50-60W it's honestly not that big a deal.
I love tubes
>>109117234> Watching 4:3 anime, older games and some newer games that just fit wellIn static image quality they have been surpassed in every metric for quite a whileI've always thought animation does make more sense in 4:3 desu
>>109106146The caveat is that LCDs have worse dark level and way worse color rendering than CRTCRT and Plasma have better color rendering than LCD and OLEDhttps://www.avsforum.com/threads/the-real-reason-why-colors-looks-better-on-plasma-and-crt-tvs-compared-to-led-tvs-of-today.3322381/
>>109116780>fake scanlines look like shitNo, they don'tStop lying you stupid coping trannyPicrel is literally a ShaderYou should bring up real points like current tech not being able to match CRT when it comes to color rendering or the fact that current displays are not bright enough to do BFI to clean up motion that remain as bright as CRTI am sick of you niggertrannies shitting on shadersJUST SHUT THE FUCK UPThe shaders aren't the problem, it's literally that our displays still aren't good enough to replicate CRT perfectlyA CRT literally gets 30000 nits bright for a very period of time
>>1091170704:3 is absolute soul and 16:9 was a gigantic mistake
>>109120989>I've always thought animation does>make more sense in 4:3 desuEverything doesGo back and watch old 4:3 movies or maybe music videos like Michael Jackson Thriller or Bad or whateverThey look amazing4:3 is the most comfortable aspect ratio to human eyesWidescreen was a gimmick by cinemas to compete with TV16:9 is awful for anything artisticIt's almost completely useless because of how short and unbalanced the ratio isFraming is shit 99% of the time on 16:9
