Why can't we bring them back? Retro gaming is bigger than ever and Vinyl/CDs are still alive. How hard would it be to resume CRT production in some factory somewhere?
>>12566848Its lost technology nobody knows how to make them any more
>>12566848>>12566852we probably could make them still but it would be either poor quality or way too expensive,probably both.
It's already been discussed a thousand times, which the same arguments on both sides>Retro gaming is huge, someone could profit a lot from manufacturing new CRTs>No, it's incredibly complicated and you need economics of scale, besides the knowledge is mostly lostOP, you should watch a documentary made about a CRT factory, there are ones at least for Sony and Philips. If you see what you have to do to make CRTs, you will understand why it wouldn't work with low demand
>>12566848Over 50 years of research and development near completely lost. Recreating CRTs would be insanely expensive and difficult. CRTs are really hard to make.
>>12566918>>12566883>>12566848What do you mean 'lost'? It's not like it's master craftsmen building them by hand who are dying one by one...CRT screen production hasn't been documented and archived extensively?
Is there any way to just make square shaped lcd tv's that are cheap and provide the same picture quality of crt?
>>12566939Ho ho ho! https://retrobox.us/
>>12566954Is that a new TV made for vhsfags? Pretty cool if so
>>12566954Okay, now make it 30" and get rid of the vcr
>>12566983Just buy a VHS player from eBay.
>>12566852>nobody knows how to make them any moreYes they do, the schematics and underlying technology clearly still exists. The issue is manufacturing is too expensive, even setting up the factories would cost hundreds of millions for a venture that would require crowdfunding for the orders to even be fulfilled
>>12566990Yeah and most CRT are still alive and kicking in. People don't realize how much it would cost to bring back this shit They could but for the small base that want them they would have to sell them like 50k each lol. Just buy one for 300-400$ from a reseller and call it a dayIts not like you can't resell them or its gonna die within the year, right? 500$ is nothing ni this economy, its 200$ from 2008
What the fuck do i do if my CRT dies? I have a beautiful 32" Panasonic with component hook ups that would devastate me when it finally goes. Who even fixes these things anymore? I got it for 30$ and I think its from around 2005 so its relatively new
>>12566992my country was much better economically during the recession than right now 500 eurodollars is 200 off from the current minimum salary and 90% of it is eaten away by rent, food and utilities.
>>12566935Technology is a living thing. Crusty old documents in some ancient filing cabinet is only a small part of it. Many nuances of technology never existed in any document, it was institutional knowledge embedded into the brains of the workers, and the physical state of the supply chain and factories.
>>12567000Yeah it sucks. Everything expansive but we barely have any money left. Thanks covid and the third worlder hustle culture
>>12566883OP here. I watched a 10 minute news segment on how Sony makes their trinitrons and I get it. https://youtu.be/XmAPdJDjfOA That's a lot of specialized equipment and technology to just make tube TVs. If we can't bring CRTs in question back then what about technologies that can properly succeed it while capturing all of the traits that made CRTs special? What's the best substitute? I have a friend who owns a couple of them and he loves to go on about how amazing they are for older games. I'm getting kind of jealous
>>12567006Supply chains and institutional knowledge are two different things, bro...
>>12566848>Retro gaming is bigger than everReally? The PS2 is bigger now than when it was actually on the market?
>>12566848>Why can't we bring them back?Because "we" includes (You). An no one worth a pitcher or warm spit wants anything to do with you.
This entire thread is just a bunch of botted comments. Not a single human post in here.
>>12567160Hai :3
>>12567160Zic zucc the chuckleduck, baby.Wanna know why they're called "goblins?" Cuz they're gobblin' muh dick, beeatch.I hate CRTs.
>>12566939the best thing would be a 4:3 curved panel (curved the otherway) made from plasma or oled. you could prob get a near exact crt look with the right screen coating
>>12567240Really high refresh rate too to simulate the rolling scan
>>12567160Yes, there are bot replies on 4chan, and they are frequently used to amplify extreme discourse, disrupt threads, or simply troll. While the site generally requires users to complete a captcha to prove they are human, bots can bypass this using 4Chan Pass or by exploiting vulnerabilities in the site's infrastructure.Did I anseer your question to your full satisfaction?If you are looking for specific types of bot responses—such as customer support, FAQ, or engagement-focused—I can tailor examples to that. Let me know what you'd like to explore further.
>>12566954it's an LCD tv in a CRT shell with filters applied>>12566997>Who even fixes these things anymore?You do, anon
>>12566939About the same difficulty as emulating a PS5 on a PS1. Inferior technology cannot emulate superior tech.
>>12567275 #Uh, no, you just said the most base level schizo shit about why you think other posters are bots. Try getting around the captcha, then setting up a post bot. It's not so easy
>>12567320Anon, I think that guy just wrote or copied a typical AI-assistant answer for the lolz.
>>12566990anon was bein facetious
>>12567352No, he was clearly satirizing AI answers and I picked up on that.
>>12566935It is more about setting up a reasonably efficient manufacturing process from scratch that is the problem. You could build a CRT in a lab or something perfectly fine, but trying to crank out even 100 of them within would be literally impossible without building a multi-million dollar manufacturing plant and hiring a ton of specialist personnel for God knows how much. It isn't going to happen, your sets would have to cost like $10,000 each just to break even and they probably wouldn't even be as good as a 30 year old set from the glory days of CRT.
>>12566939>square shaped lcd TVsSo the worst of both worlds?
>>12567391thanks for the reply ChatGPT
>>12566939>square-shaped lcd tv with the same picture quality of crt>>12566989"vhs player"the fuck? how can i feel old on fucking /vr/ when i was basically too young for 4th gen vidya myself?
>>12567296>it's an LCD tv in a CRT shell with filters appliedYes, we know...>>12567415VCR or VHS cassette player then, you pedant
>>12567438Okay, mouthbreather.
I love my CRT. Looks amazing with S-video. but I admit some games with the right shaders and config, looks better on my OLED monitor.
>>12567459I'm the 'mouthbreather'? Take a step back, jabroni...
>>12567438>VCR or VHS cassette player then, you pedant"VHS player" is just such an anachronistic term, i've only heard it a few times recently by people who've never used a vcr before. while it's true vcrs can play vhs tapes, it reads like someone who has only used a CD player or DVD player and just has followed that convention. besides the fact nobody who used one has ever called them that, another issue is the implication that they can only play tapes. recording was as if not more important than playback, which is why they were called Video Cassette Recorders (VCR's) and not "VCP's". really "VHS recorder" would make more sense if not VCR
>>12567482NTA but I've heard 'video player' and 'video recorder' before. Never VHS player though
>>12567464i've never seen a bullshit like this
>>12566848The problem is the weight
>>12567687That's what she said.
>>12566848>Retro gaming is bigger than everAnd the standarstandards are lower than ever. 99% of retro gamers just want mini consoles with HDMI and 1up arcade machines with LCD screens.Its the same reason DVD still outsells BD after 20 years, even though they own 4k tvs, they belive a composite cable from their 30 year old DVD player is "good enough". The masses are useless cunts.
>>12567039high refresh rate qd oled with black frame insertion, gsync/freesync and maybe a emulated crt mask if thats the look you are going for is the best you are gonna get for now
>>12567732And it's great unironically.
>>12567721the fact dvd persists should be evidence enough to anybody that all normalfags care about is convenience, never quality.it was never about quality. convenience is always more important than quality. once a cheaper option than crts came around it was fucking over for crts, the details never mattered. race to the bottom
>>12567438>>it's an LCD tv in a CRT shell with filters applied>Yes, we know...And you think thats what people want sunshine?no thanks.I remember seeing this at one point, now no longer being produced, dunno is they are real CRTs inside and can output 240p, they were available in LatAm
>>12567750thanks for the tip, Ranjeesh
>>12567795https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ffC-GLD6M
>>12566848They're just way too expensive to make on a consumer scale right down to the glass.They're also horribly inefficient with energy consumption.>>12566852That's a lie. I have no idea where it comes from but it's not true in the slightest.
>>12567459nice concession
>>12567160>Not a single human post in here.This. It's nice to see a zoom zoom finally admit that they/them aren't human.
>>12567795there's actually a market for these. dunno how to feel about it
>>12566848They're pretty complicated analog electro-mechanical devices and restarting production is going to be prohibitively expensive for many reasons. The subsystems and components are also out of production, they use lots of copper, special chemicals, they have high internal voltages, etc. it's just not going to happen. These things are feasible only when made on large scales, it would be so much cheaper to just make a better flat screen with very fast image processing for composite and RF.Plus with 8K ultra high resolution TV's you should be able to simulate the scanline and 4:3 stretch effect near flawlessly.
>>12568019These suck because they aren’t fucking OLED, why do they insist on making these LCD they’re already a niche product do it fucking right.
>>12568045not any kind of LCD either, it's IPS, the kind that gets image retention with BOB deinterlacing.strange choice
>>12568041>>12567409
>>12566848It's an economies of scale thing. You need sufficient demand to spin up tube production.It might happen by the time we're all 50-60, that's what happened with boomers and tube amps for guitars.
>>12566852>>12567006Shakespeare died about 410 years ago but his plays are all preserved except for two, yet somehow you guys think diagrams for TVs made in the late 90s and the engineers who made them are not around anymore, KEKhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlT-seESkj0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwxARHm1Qwkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-Td0i4_Kchttps://frank.pocnet.net/other/docs/The_Cathode-Ray_Tube_Handbook.pdfhttps://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/Technology/TAB-Books/TAB-601-Basic-Color-Television-Course-Prentiss.pdfIt's a supply and demand thing, the cost that would make CRTs come again is not worth it if only a couple of people buy them.I love retro stuff but we need to remember it's a niche, and even in that niche most people choose to just emulate retro games with modern hardware, so it's not worth it. It's like asking for VHS to make a comeback, I have fond memories of it but let's face it, the quality of the tapes was shit even for its time (Betamax had better picture quality) and it cropped the aspect ratio of most movies>"B-But CRTs offer a natural filter that made game sprites look better and the devs had that look in mind while making the game!"Yes, it's true, but you can achieve that look with game shaders in software like RetroArch, so there's no need to spend thousands if not millions on a revival of old technology that only a couple of people would buy.
>>12566848It's simple math. The supply of used CRTs outpaces the demand for new ones.
>>12566918All of your post is wrong and utter nonsense.
Arcooda is coming out with another CRT-style LCD in a box. Better than previous company's attempts such as those shown in this thread. They are designed to mimic the design of a small Sony PVM.
>>12568207thats just a retarded idea,you get the disadvantage of both CRT and LCD with that.
>>12566918A fundamentally similar technology is used to make ion thrusters for satellites today. Crts are not that complicated.
>>12567415>cd tv with the same picture quality of crt That's an oxymoron, moron.
>>12568168You have no idea what it takes to preserve technology. Some random assortment of ancient documents are absolutely not that. Go look up the major difficulties the US military has faced trying to preserve technologies. Preservation requires significant deliberate effort, CRT technology was abandoned with no preservation effort.
>>12568168Shakespeare isnt real man. hurr one of the best writers of all time was born in a family of illiterates. fuck off
>>12568451that's my point
they would never have been produced in the first place, if a better, more economical alternative had already existed and the only target audience would have been a few handfull of nostalgic grown ups who additionally care about technicallities and pixel-perfect replicas of some outdated technology. they were produced back then because the rightfully estimated target audience were like basically every single household.
>>12568520thanks chatgpt
>>12568520
>>12568535the objective reason why crts arent produced anymore.
It would take a large amount of effort and capital to begin production, so the price of sets would probably be quite high. Unless the quality were far better than vintage sets at a similar price point, there would be no reason to buy them, not to mention that they'd lack the retro cred that old sets have. Just think about it, a company could invest the many millions of dollars required to design new CRTs, set up and fine tune the production process, set up distribution channels, only for the reception to be that they're not worth the inevitable $2,000 price tag, so now they're stuck having to sell them at a discount to the point that the whole venture was a bust. You'd basically need somebody like a Palmer Luckey who has a personal interest in their production and who has enough money to burn that they're willing to take the risk that the entire venture is a loss.
>>12566848Do you zoomers ever ponder why not a single millennial or genXr wants anything to do with crt's, or even putting on fucking retarded screen filtering effects In emulators?Do these thoughts never occur to you?
>>12568561>not a single millennial or genXr wants anything to do with crt'slol
>>12568564It's only zoomers (you) obsessed with this
>>12568561wait zoomers care about crts, too?
Zoomers get obsessed about the weirdest shitNo one over 40 gives two fucks about crts
>>12568601>>12568639>>12568640>i speak for everyone my age, older than me, and younger than me
For me? It's being 40 years old and actually knowing more than you retards
>>12568658>>12568639Absolutely based
>>12568168>Supply and Demand Cope.I wish people who still believe this forced lie will just die, like what do you gain by smugly typing and saying this? Just cause your scummy breadtubers from the early 2010s were spewing that to justify hoarding games and jerking up the prices of old games?
>>12568573I don't know what to tell you anon, but even on this very board people were jerking off to CRTs before zoomers were but a tiny portion of underageb&s. Arcade enthusiasts would bitch about LCD monitor replacements while puttung in the effort to keep their old WGs running, and candycab communities were jerking off to Nanao MS8s and MS9s, while being autistic enough to complain that trisyncs typically had worse 15khz video quality than dedicated or dualsyncs.
>>12568686>don't know what to tell you anon, but even on this very board people were jerking off to CRTs before zoomersand they were zoomers (you)
>>12568686stop responding to bait.if i were to just go off my own experience i've had several zoomers see and even briefly use my crts and none of them really get it, to them they're just old displays you'd see in old movies. one of them after having watched the matrix for the first time recently called my 1996 14" pc monitor a "matrix monitor" as that's the only reference he has for it. i'm 36.i'm sure there's some more enthusiast zoomers who do like crts, but most people of any generation don't care about crts anymore, it's why they aren't being made anymore
>>12568686>Even on this very boardThis is a literal board designed for sub 30 year olds, your logic doesn't even add up.Even if you went out and searched for archived Gamefaqs posts of people trying to hobby crt's, theyd still be an outlier
>>12568696You should stop responding to the thread altogether.It's fucking easy as shit to spot zoomers
>>12568596They care about other people having a hobby around them and throwing a shitfit over it.
>>12568710>>12568696Izoomer
>>12568207Which is fucking retarded and defeats the purpose.
>>12566848Can we post some actual fucking CRT's please? Why do these threads always devolve into retards arguing with each other? Emulator fags fuck off, go to your own thread. This is supposed to be a CRT enjoyer thread, and you wouldn't get it. I am actually baffled at some of the absolute deliberate, mentally disabled shit I've been reading on here.
>>12568760
>>12568705Because back in the 2000s, most people still just had a CRT or two in use in their home. The main hobby aspect came when more people started scooping up cheap pro monitors in the later 2000s/early 2010s. The "zoomer" aspect of the hobby is more centered around kitchen TVs/VCR combo sets, which were once considered the bottom of the barrel.
>>12568760using an emulator doesn't preclude using a crt
>>12566848>Why can't we bring them back?Leaded glass. You could do it! You just need to finance the creation of a specialized glass manufacturing plant. Everything else is comparatively child's play. Start a kickstarter! You'd just need a cool.... iunno.... fortune?
>>12567006Eh, CRTs are still made for niche military and medical shit. And you are overstating the case
>>12569195Do you have any evidence that crts are still produced for the military. Usually planes end up being retro-fitted with compatible lcd units.
>>12568168wait until you find out that we can't build nukes anymore either
>>12568893Most emulators and shaders just CANT replicate ACTUAL 240p. CRT scanlines, NOT shitty lame ass soft graylines, not pure early shitty ass Blank Black Lines, but actual 240p CRT scanlines.
>>12569195Like HUD displays in aircraft. Uncle Sam has unlimited bucks so when he wants a component for a fighter jet, he gets it.
>>12570225no you retard, i'm talking about using an emulator and sending the output to a crt
>>12570225You are an idiot.
>>12568045>>12568064They said it was impossible to find OLED or anything not-IPS for this screen size. Almost no one makes 4:3 anymore.
>>12570225scanlines are the easy part (easy for someone to use anyway, crt royale was surely not easy to write). it's a crts's rolling scan which is not easy to replicate on a flat panel.pic related, photo of a 4k lcd tv displaying a game filtered with crt royale. i've configured it to look very similar to my crt tv as far as stills go
>>12566848We wouldn't even need CRTs if we had SED and FED tvs.
>>12570373Lmao, fucking zoomers think video games had scanlinesAbsolute mental retardation
>>12570717You're either retarded or just pretending to be retarded for (You)'s, it was the CRTs that had scanlines and not the video games.
>>12570724You're halfway to understanding the retardation of zoomer scanlines fags, but you're still on the wrong side of the big think
For many Gen Xers, their first time viewing star wars was on broadcast tv, or VHS, on their tv. According to your fucking retarded zoomer logic, this means the OT star wars movies should only be viewed on crts with scanlines and cropped ratios. Despite the fact it was shot on film in 35mmThis is how fucking stupid you people are.This is how retarded your logic is.
>>12570728>no argumentI accept your concession.
>>12570741You are literally a dumb fucking zoomer with literal zero logic comprehension abilities
>>12570743Must've struck a nerve :)
>>12570739>>12570728Zoomers will read these posts, and still have zero understanding of what they mean
>>12570749stop samefagging
>>12570753Stop being a zoomer
>>12570757why should I stop being better than you
>>12570757millenigoy melty
You guys might want to hang out on /tv/ some more so you learn about this stuff
>>12570717the fuck are you talking about? i literally said i adjusted the filter to more closely resemble how my actual crt television looks (i tweaked it side by side but i don't have a photo doing that)have you played a console older than 6th gen on a crt tv? the scanlines are visible unless perhaps you use a really small or really unfocused tube. older than 6th gen because 6th gen are 480i rather 240p and scanlines are very difficult to see on most consumer televisions at 480i, they just aren't sharp enough for that.pic related is my crt television
>>12570763>>12570717oh and here's a 6th gen game on the same tube. twice the lines so you can't really see the scanlines individually. this is a 20" tube from 1999
>>12570763I don't know who you're responding to, but games don't have scanlines, you're arbitrarily adding them, because you're a dumb zoomer who thinks that's how they're supposed to look
>>12570767the game doesn't draw black lines if that's what you mean, the black lines are just a result of the lines being drawn with a large enough gap to leave a black "line" between each scanline. those "black lines" were not sent to the tv, that's just what 240p looks like on a real televisionand here i am explaining what old games look like to someone accusing ME of being a zoomer.
>>12570770You're a zoomer who thinks games are supposed to look bad and have scanlines It's akin to someone thinking top gun is supposed to look like shit because the first time they saw it was on a 12'' Magnavox tv. Feel free to read the posts above you
>>12570772hey stooooopid
>>12570772>You're a zoomer who thinks games are supposed to look bad and have scanlinesdude, it's a 240p signal being viewed on a consumer television, i didn't add scanlines to it, that's just what 240p on a consumer television looks like.whether you like how that looks is irrelevant, scanlines (as in the black lines between scan lines) is a thing that happened when using original hardware on the intended display, that's all i'm arguing
>>12570775>>12570773Lol, zoomers here will always fail the /tv/ test
>>12570775>scanlines (as in the black lines between scan lines) is a thing that happened when using original hardware on the intended displayDid people see scanlines when watching Top Gun in the theatre?
>>12570772>>12570775if anything i'm curious to know, if you believe scanlines are something young people added just with emulators or whatever, where would the idea have come from? if you think old consoles on tv's didn't have visible scanlines, where did the concept come from?>>12570781i've never been to /tv/ but i have heard bad things about it. so you're just pretending to be retarded?>>12570784 (You)(You)
>>12570785>if you believe scanlines are something young people added just with emulatorsYes.Literally, they were literally added as an option to otherwise raw graphic output. It's a literal filter. That no one over 30 uses, btw.
>>12570789so you admit you've never played a 4th gen console on a crt television. got it.
It's hilarious how zoomers can't admit crt =/= the actual image output Siskel and Ebert had an entire episode hating on VHS tapes and even watching movies on HBO because of the bastardization of the viewing quality. Just something you lil Z's will never understand
>>12570801I dont care who these bozos are or what they think
>>12570801>how it looked isn't how it looked because it doesn't look like that in an emulator on modern displaysok zoomer
>>12570807you're continuing to fail the /tv/ test Lol
>>12570810/tv/ is the dumbest board on 4chan
>>12570810from what i've heard about /tv/ that's probably a good thing
Nothing you've ever seen on a crt has been the way it is supposed to look. My generation knew that
>>12567750This isn't true. Both quality and convenience preference zones exist on a horizontal plane. People have sweet spots somewhere along those planes that satisfy. VHS did not satisfy visual and aural expectations, nor did it satisfy on the convenience plane, and so DVD stomped it out on both fronts. Blu Ray offered better quality, but since people were already satisfied with DVD quality, uptake was slower and not comprehensive. It would have been more accurate for you to say that normalfags don't care about going into the diminishing returns zone of quality.
I wonder if sitting 20" from these radiation emitters did any harm.
I Love Lucy, along with many other early television shows, were shot on high quality hi resolution 35mm film, their screen quality was greatly reduced for television, giving an almost night and day appearance. These prints easily could have been show in theatres. Watching on crt screens only have about 10% of the screen quality
>>12570815some day someone will release the open matte directors cut film reel of Sonic the Hedgehog
>>12570824Miami Vice was also shot on 35mm, which is increasingly we're getting better and better restorations of the series
>>12570801it seems like you're arguing that crts aren't the "best" way to view something. i'm not arguing that, all i'm saying is that scanlines are a thing on crts. that's all, i'm not even saying they're a "good thing", just that they are a thing
>>12570816People are stupid and dumb, they think "DVD LOOKS JUST FINE" when unless you are playing a DVD on a player with HDMI upscaling or a Blu-ray player, it is NOT gonna look good at all on an HD display via composite, and to top it all, depends on the DVD mastering, quite a lot of them were bit-starved to begin with or poorly mastered with bad interlacing and comb filters, ghostling and frame blending, poor VHS and Laserdisc to DVD conversions, crammed 7-10 episodes on a dvd9 which makes them look like shit, specially if they are mastered from analogue transfers (the Simpsons sets, the few Disney afternoon DVD sets that were made), there's quite a few things to consider before just goin into full Auto Pilot Knee Jerk mode of "DVD IS JUST FINE".Blu-ray is objectively better for mastering, including SD materials thanks to Blurays working as oversized DVDs as well, aka, being able to play SD 480i/480p as well, we got SD BD as a format, but unfortunately and shockingly stupid as well, ONLY DISCOTEK and maaaaaaybe other company label has ever bothered with this format, the former has released pretty much a bunch of animes on this format in one or couple of Blu-ray discs, and encoding and mastering bitrate is better then DVD, but again, companies don't just get it.The insulting thing if Blu-ray is the shitbag hipsters who rape movies with TEAL N ORANGE / PUKE GREEN BLUE LUTS
>>12570824For shows that old makes sense, but in the 70s, live action was mastered on video on forward, and then you had the stuff that was shit on Tape and U-Matic.
>>12570245>Still believing the shitpost faggot who trolled you with that fake video and photos of 240P OUTPUT, which was really just 480p
>>12570291How he is an idiot mate?
>>12570850because you can emulate a game and still display it on a crt tv, it's not a one-or-the-other deal>>12570848?
Weird how there's never any scanlines when actual boomers use real hardware to recreate these gameshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6pK5on50A
i'm still not sure if /tv/-kun actually doesn't believe scanlines are a thing, or if he's just saying they aren't desirable.
>>12570842>raging about DVD9, bla, HD, more bla bla, bad interlacing, 480i/480p, bla blaimagine spending so many hours of the day in front of the TV to care about any of this shit
>>12570863>Tranny Smith do not think!>Tranny Smith wants YOU not think!
>>12570861>scanlines are a thing, or if he's just saying they aren't desirable.the shitty physical glass on a crt is a thing, but that doesn't mean that's how the image is supposed to look, nor is it desirable
>>12570856you seem really mad about something nobody has actually said
>>12570856Because that's game footage captured via a capture card you little shitstain, you ain't funny!
>>12570871who are you talking to?
>>12570870right, so you're talking about desirability.guess what? i have never once even commented on whether it's objectively desirable, you made that up in your head. all i've said is that if you play the original console on a standard television, you'll see scanlines. that's all i said.
>>12570873So raw game data = no scanlines? Doesn't that mean scanlines were purely a construction of your own TV then, and had nothing to do with the game itself?
>>12570880literally nobody has argued otherwise
>>12570883So why are zoomers obsessed with it?
>>12570885how the fuck would i know, i'm not a zoomer
>>12570842You have a very strict perspective that most people don't share and seem to be projecting shortcomings upon them for not sharing your way of thinking: shortcomings that they are neither aware of nor would care about. Imagine the conversation trying to convince somebody that they don't care enough about bit rates. They're content with the quality of streaming and DVDs because those meet the demand. That said, I appreciate that you're adamant about it and also wish people had higher standards. The options for things to care about are limitless and most people have chosen other things. So it's the people who care about audio or video who maintain the *idea* that these things can be great, and that means that they pull things up.
Isn't it funny how no one over 30 gives two shits about scan lines and scan line emu filtering?
>>12570880>Doesn't that mean scanlines were purely a construction of your own TV thenyes i said that in >>12570770
>>12570898so why are you so obsessed with recreating scanlines, then?
>>12566848Can magnets actually damage tube TV's? I remember fooling around as a kid and the image would get distorted with a rainbow effect if you bring a magnet close to the screen, but is it just temporary or can you actually fuck it up if you put a magnet on top of a CRT for an hour or something?
>>12570901i'm not. i play old games on my crt television, which has scanlines naturally. like i can't make it not have scanlines, it's not a choice
No actual gen x'er/millennial likes scanlines, wants to recreate scanlines, or thinks scanlines are important in any way. That's not how the actual raw image looked, or was intended to look.Don't even @ me/thread
>>12570903i'm not sure when degaussing coils became a built in feature, but if your tv has one then any effect magnets have should only be temporary. and for older tubes you can use an external degaussing wand to perform the same job of removing residual magnetic... charges? idk what you call it.yes it's true that strong magnets can impart magnetic effects that won't go away by themselves, but i'm not sure you can truly cause permanent damage to a tube using one, at least barring industrial tier electromagnets or something that actually physically move/distort metal parts that shouldn't move. any permanent magnet a consumer can typically buy won't be that kind of strength
>>12570905sorry to say but the person you've been talking to is a millennial. i actually don't care about scanlines btw, that's not why i use a crt. but you wouldn't know that because you're so hung up on scanlines
this entire thread is the same 2 schizos calling others zoomers
>>12566848>Why can't we bring them back?CRTs were not cheap nor easy to make and none of the production lines are left, it would take a shitload of money to rebuild all the infrastructure needed to manufacture them again, and it's just not cost-effective considering how few people would care. Really, outside of the drop-in-the-ocean retro market nobody wants anything to do with CRTs anymore. It would be likely hundreds of billions wasted for no real reason.>>12566852>>12566918>Its lost technology nobody knows how to make them any more>Over 50 years of research and development near completely lost.They're not "lost technology", the last CRT manufacturing plant shut down about a decade ago, you think everyone who ever worked on a CRT is already dead? It's not that we don't know how, it's that all the infrastructure to manufacture them is long gone and it would take a ton of money to rebuild it.>>12566939CRTs had worse picture quality than modern LCDs, it isn't "picture quality" people want, the very way they worked had better motion and response times as well as the screen and low-fidelity connection (mostly the connection) allowed older consoles to fake effects they could not do for real like transparencies, more colors, or tricks like make light guns work. Many of these effects generally came at the COST of picture quality, not increased it.For example, look at the tricks computer CGA cards did to wrestle out more colors if connected by composite to a TV, but it came at the cost of picture clarity:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKblgZupOc>>12566954>Ho ho ho! https://retrobox.us/Every "Hey look at me! I am making a new CRT!" project is always one of two things:1: Just a LCD with some kind of filter to very poorly look like a CRT while in no way functioning like oneor2: Just old CRT tubes pulled out of tvs and put in a fancy new shellThat one appears to be the former, these are just trying to cash in on clueless people in the retro market.
>>12570912>ou're so hung up on scanlinesEveryone one of your posts has been about scanlines and how to recreate them, lmao. You're a a dumb zoomerif you fucking retards would simply take a step back, and think about how 35mm print and tv shows were adapted for tv, then maybe, you might get a clue and realize crt scanlines is not actually how video games are supposed to look, and that you're trying too hard to replicate something that no actual human being that lived through it, cares about.scanlines are not supposed to exist, no one who grew up in the 80's/90's fucking uses scanline filters, and we dont give a fuck about crts
>>12570819You get more radiation from eating a banana than you do from one of these in an entire year.
>If raw video feed output results in crystal clear raw video feed>But for some reason you want to make it fuzzy and add blurry lines.... You MIGHT be a Zoomer!
>>12570918the fact you think scanlines are the only thing crts do is why i think you're a youngfag
>>12567050>Really? The PS2 is bigger now than when it was actually on the market?Obviously the PS2 was not retro when it was actually still on the market genius, but how many people actually gave a shit about playing NES games back during the PS2 era? I remember buying PS2 games from GameStop while there were bins full of NES games for $1-5 each that nobody wanted, and in the PS3 era I recall buying shitloads of PS1 and N64 games for $1-5 each, it was uncommon for a game to cost more than $10 unless it was something rare or super popular, even then most were cheap. I remember Amazon had sealed brand new unopened copies of Perfect Dark going for $3 back then. The most expensive game I bought in that era was Conker, and it was $20 complete in box, look how much a CIB Conker costs now. And those systems were far newer back in those eras than the PS2 is today. The Virtual Boy I bought during that time was also not much, now even broken ones go for several hundred. I remember the AVGN episode about the 32X where he said he paid $2 for it.The retro market sure as fuck has grown, it went from nobody giving a shit if a game was older than two generations and considering those games trash (especially since emulation was becoming popular at the time as a way to play those games without having them taking up physical space) that barely fetched pennies to now every old game costing dozens of orders of magnitude more and hardware going for insane amounts.
>>12570869i dont even know what this is supposed to mean. it probably is some variation of some quote from one of your beloved movies, right? hope the scan lines were okay, so you didnt have to sperg out
>>12570929The fact that you want to add scanlines after the fact, makes you a faggot zoomer
imagine being married to this guy:>wanting to relax and watch a nice movie>husband goes RAAAHHH, the scanlines, pausing the movie each 2 minutes and disappears behind tv to fumble with some weird hdmi adapters and shit, sperging out, RAAAHHH, dont you see the scan lines
>>12570912>I use crt's to get that authentic feelThis is entirely why TV and film was brought up before.You didn't get it?
>>12566852The amount of paragraph replies to this obvious joke is unsettling.
>>12570941i think i'm going to go play my stock playstation plugged in to a tv made the same year as the console using the cable that came with the system, and ignore the SCANLINES because that's just part of how it looks while tv-kun froths at the mouth
>>12570948You sure you're not going to start up an emulator and ADD those scanlines in, instead?because, statistically, it's the latter
>>12570949lol, who the hell adds scanlines in an emulator
>>12570950you, and then the the rest of this hellhole
>>12570916> the last CRT manufacturing plant shut down about a decade agoThat is very dead in technology terms. Technology loss is extremely rapid. Its why the US military kept producing tanks that were not wanted, because of how quickly technology is lost if you stop production.
>>12567482"VHS Players" did exist, they could only play tapes, not record. I remember I had an ancient tape player like that.
>>12567252>Really high refresh rate too to simulate the rolling scanNo modern display can come even within a fraction of simulating the beam, it sweeped across the screen hundreds of times within a fraction of a second. NTSC TVs displayed 480–487 lines at a rate of 30hz, granted this was interlaced so it was only doing half of them each frame, but that still means that the beam would swipe from left to right, then go to the next line, and then do it again, over and over about 240 times each FRAME. And that's just standard SD CRT TVs, if you start getting into CRT computer monitors that could do resolutions like 1280x960 NON-interlaced at 60hz....An LCD would have to have a refresh rate in the tens of THOUSANDS, if not hundreds of thousands, to actually simulate the beam moving across the screen as it draws the image. Even if you could make such a magic LCD panel anytime this millennium you would still need a way then for the simulated "beam" to be driven directly by analog since that's what many of the effects people want to replicate from old CRTs relied on, rather than a digital circuit converting the analog signal to digital, while still having digital processing to simulate the shadow mask and phosphor glow.Consoles came into existence close to the twilight years of CRT, it was a very very well-understood and far-along technology by then, and because of that consoles employed all sorts of tricks that took advantage of exactly how they worked and all the nuances involved with them. Light guns are a big example, they relied on knowing exactly where the beam currently was to function.
>>12567721>>12567750>>12570816>Its the same reason DVD still outsells BD after 20 yearsThere is also the fact that Netflix started becoming popular around the same time as Blu-Ray, and many people had JUST converted their collections from VHS to DVD. Many likely had those VHS tapes for many years, consumer DVD was barely 5 years old by the time consumer Blu-Ray hit, people weren't keen to re-buy their movies AGAIN, especially since DVD players by then were cheap, built into computers, and could be had as a small portable device while you needed an expensive Blu-Ray player and a HDTV to make any use of them, the disks would not work in their PCs or portable DVD players. Add to that PC manufacturers refusing to ever install a Blu-Ray drive in PCs and still only using DVD drives until optical drives were completely retired and it's no surprise Blu-Ray had a significantly slower adoption. It wasn't about DVD looking "good enough" but that Blu-Way had far too many hurdles compared to DVD when it came out and by the time people were ready to move on from DVD they had Netflix.>>12570842>People are stupid and dumb, they think "DVD LOOKS JUST FINE"You are an idiot, nobody who has played a DVD on a HDTV thinks it "looks just fine", the kind of geriatric people who could not care less as long as they see any image were/are still using VCRs.
>>12570975the horizontal sync rate of a plain ntsc/pal television is 15.7kHz, which is to say they draw a line every ~1/15700th of a second. to simulate that on a line-by-line basis that'd require ~15,700fps
>>12570981-- and while that sounds ridiculous, remember that an old tv is only drawing one line in that time, not a whole frame, so it's really only ridiculous if you consider drawing a whole frame just to update one line of it.i don't think you need to go that far to make a convincing rolling scan effect however, it's not like anybody can actually perceive each line being drawn on a crt tv
>>12570963>That is very dead in technology terms.But not in human terms, that's my point. It's not like we are talking about how to make Damascus steel here, CRTs only ended production about a decade ago, thousands of people that were involved with making CRTs are still alive, many likely even still working in some related industry, it's not some long lost ancient technology.>>12570981>the horizontal sync rate of a plain ntsc/pal television is 15.7kHz, which is to say they draw a line every ~1/15700th of a second. to simulate that on a line-by-line basis that'd require ~15,700fpsSo yeah, tens of thousands like I said, but I wasn't talking about just doing a full line at a time, but the beam actually drawing the line.>>12570992>so it's really only ridiculous if you consider drawing a whole frame just to update one line of itThat's what you need to do to fully simulate a CRT though, on top of also simulating the shadow mask, the phosphor glow, and being able to drive the beam directly from an analog signal. Being able to do the beam as it draws each line would be crucial to get light guns to work for example.
>>12571004>That's what you need to do to fully simulate a CRT though, on top of also simulating the shadow mask, the phosphor glow, and being able to drive the beam directly from an analog signal. Being able to do the beam as it draws each line would be crucial to get light guns to work for example.drawing a full line each frame wouldn't be nearly fast enough for a light gun, if you were to draw a frame for each pixel of the source then you'd need a framerate hundreds of times faster than even that
>>12571004Things a human can vaguely remember is not sufficient to easily restart an incredibly complex and precise technology. Also, these humans are scattered far and wide, some of the most experienced could even be gone now, since the most experienced are the elders. Coupled with the fact that all the factories are gone.
>>12571010>drawing a full line each frame wouldn't be nearly fast enough for a light gun, if you were to draw a frame for each pixel of the source then you'd need a framerate hundreds of times faster than even thatThat's exactly what I was saying>>12571015>Things a human can vaguely remember is not sufficient to easily restart an incredibly complex and precise technology. Also, these humans are scattered far and wide, some of the most experienced could even be gone now, since the most experienced are the elders. Coupled with the fact that all the factories are gone.First, these aren't going to be "vaguely remembered" if they did them for years even if it has been a while, second, there is a shitload of documentation, articles, documentaries, videos, and just about every media imaginable about how they are made. It's not by any even wild stretch of the imagination "lost", it's because it's not financially feasible to rebuild the infrastructure to make new ones, not because the knowledge is lost.
>>1257103095% of technology is the fine tuning, the very specific fines details. All the little nuances that make it work that never existed in any formal document.
>>12567467Lay the smacketh down on his roody poo candy ass!
>>12571037>95% of technology is the fine tuningNo, it's really more the last 1-2% IF it even exists>All the little nuances that make it work that never existed in any formal document.YES THEY DO! if this was the case nobody other than the original engineer would ever be able to re-create a product. I assure you all of these nuances are documented very thoroughly. They would have to be, do you think a factory keeps the same employees it's entire life? How do you think new people are trained? Just by having the previous workers tell the newbies? Just retaining all this information orally is one of the least reliable methods of information retention and transmission, no professional company would do something like that, because they would be FUCKED if people who knew what they were doing left.Have you ever worked a professional job in your entire life if you think this is how things are done? Every position, every system, every device I have ever had to work with in all of my previous jobs was extensively documented for this exact reason.Also, that "fine tuning" generally refers if there is a quick to a very very specific model/revision of the device, not the entire technology concept in general. You are a moron who seems to think CRTs are some magic lost technology on par with some legendary ancient technology bullshit you would see in a JRPG. Real life does not work like that buddy, especially not in professional manufacturing.
You don't notice the scaliness on CRT unless you're really close and looking for them.Literally the best litmus test to weasel out stupid zoomies is the SQ
>>12571257>unless you're really closejust like the developers intended
