Thread 11940642

Do you like filters? I used to hate them but modern ones look pretty good

I call them shaders

>>11940642 (OP)
Idk, I have a CRT for my n64/psx and play a lot of psx through HD on my ps3. I grew up with CRT and never really cared one way or another. I almost always ignore shaders.

>>11940664
beyond help, start over

>>11940673
I was just a wee bit of shitposting

Here's my slot mask preset for 1080p

>>11940664
bro i think you gotta give your screen a smack

>>11940642 (OP)
No I have a CRT and original hardware. I guess this is ok if you can't get the real thing.

>>11940642 (OP)
No I have a CRT and original hardware. I guess this is ok if you can't get the real thing.

>>11940739
Looks like shit compared to a real CRT

If you're over the age of 30, you probably remember the time when filters like SuperSAI were used by the norm. Nowadays everyone pretends like they never used it.

In 10 years it will be the same for those "CRT filters".

>>11940739
Why does your TV have AI generated button labels?

>>11940642 (OP)
Even when I downloaded my first emulator, I switched to linear interpolation, because it's just closer to what a consumer CRT TV-set gives you.

>>11940642 (OP)
All filters are garbage. Thank you for your time.

>>11940664
>filtered by filters

>>11940909
True, modern shaders are the good stuff. This guy gets it

>>11940664

lookin' good!!!

>>11940739

lol, who the fuck would play with a tv on a rug surrounded by potted plants

>>11940664
>filename
lol

>>11940664
I don't understand why people feel it's an effective "disagreement" to just be an obvious disingenuous ass.

How does that in any way make your "argument" not look retarded?

>>11940739
I had the "real thing" growing up. I had 20 of the real things. I moved on. Now I have a family and kids and I don't want to waste table space on an irrelevant old piece of hardware. There's nothing about that that makes you special or morally superior in your entertainment hobby.

>>11941150
>retard cant spot an obvious ai generated image
go back

>>11941175
Why do I care about what's in the image? I'm responding to the text the anon posted.

How is that an argument?

>>11940806
SuperSai was never the norm. It was a common installed filter but almost no one used them over just basic Bi-linear and scanlines in comparison, except if it was defaulted and some zoomie was like "I don't know what anything is!" Even then they were just as likely to sit on raw pixels like dimwits too.

>>11941097
I dunno... who the fuck would play in a god damn cellar dungeon on a milk crate? Or on a wooden plank or a the worst color sickly blue desk 50% of us all had? Like anyone. You didn't bitch about the aesthetics of where you stuck that shit, you just did and played. If someone had a room with plants and wanted to play, that'd be fine. Besides plants make a room cooler especially when cared for and the air fresher and a rug could help slide it around if it's not non-slip and save the hardwood from scratching - so yeah not a terrible setup. Fake image still viable.

>>11941334
>SuperSai was never the norm.

Riiiight, just as I said, everyone's pretending like they never seen/used it

>>11941334
I never liked SuperSAI or Eagle. I did kind of like xBRZ in some games that already had cartoonish art, though. That one came a little later.

>>11941340
Really pointless, bizarre post. What are you even trying to say beyond just projecting what you apparently did? You don't know what "everyone" did. That's just insane. "You" and "everyone" are two different concepts, are you not able to separate that?

>>11941475
The idea of xBRZ and even Sai had problems with some transparencies and UIs and shit and made things look ugly. It was basically the retro equivalent of AI slop artifacts all over the screen.
Some games handled it better than others. Punch out on the NES is a good example of a game that's almost passable with it.

>>11941334
>so yeah not a terrible setup. Fake image still viable.
The issue isn't whether it's a "viable," or pleasant setup it's that it's hyper-idealistic and ""aesthetic,"" thus giving away the fact it's AI generated.
I'm not moving my CRT in and out of my sunroom every time I want to play.

>>11941475
Img sauce ?

>>11941507
There's pluses and minuses. HUDs tended to suffer, but sometimes the visual effect on the sprites was neat.

I don't know why people fly into spittle-flecked red-faced table-pounding rages over things like this on 4chan. You'd think after 139847124 hours playing video games they wouldn't scream like infants over the idea of playing a game slightly differently once.

>>11941525
I used to play on a 7 inch black and white television in my sunroom. It had a tile floor with scorch marks on it from where I experimented making "homemade fireworks" as a kid by unwrapping other fireworks and pouring the powder into plastic coin machine capsules, which didn't explode, just melted, which is good because if they had exploded they probably would have taken out my hand. Why are we fetishizing CRTs again?

>>11941538
Legend of Zelda instruction manual

>>11941560
>Why are we fetishizing CRTs again?
What?
Good for you, you played in your sunroom, the point is the image is overly idealistic, it's like a professionally made picture, you even have the glorious ray of light coming in.
It's not about "fetishizing," CRTs, it's about being able to sniff out a fake image from it's production quality. It's like an image you'd see on a stock images website.

Dot shader for all systems
learned it from an anon on here
(not my screen shot)

>>11942006
Cringe

>>11941909
>>11941914
Damn, that's crazy

>>11940642 (OP)
I love them, they make pixel art look better while also adding a nostalgic feel, it's a win win for me.

Shaders are great. I guess I'd prefer original hardware generally but when that's not available I'm pretty satisfied with whatever CRT shader happens to look nice to me in the moment. Nearest-neighbor filtering is unacceptable in all cases.

>>11942515
See, told ya making pictures instead of screenshots was better

>>11942547
It really is, I still appreciate your advice very much, anon! It looks 10x better than the dark screenshots I used to go for.

>>11940642 (OP)
am I the only one who doesn't really give a fuck about shaders or filters? i would rather have a nice looking 4k oled screen than trying to emulate the exact look of the piece of shit Amstrad tv I had when I was a kid.

>>11943563
Your 4k Oled is not going to make 2D graphics look nice, or have prerendered backgrounds mesh with the characters. I don't know why people keep trying to push this line of thought as if oled magically cured every flaw nearest-neighbor has.

Not to mention that with a 4k oled, you can get full use of certain shaders like megatron.

>>11943568
>Your 4k Oled is not going to make 2D graphics look nice, or have prerendered backgrounds mesh with the characters
I know, I wasn't arguing that. I was just saying that I don't really care. Also subjective on that first part because there is a noticeable improvement on color range which is more important on newer stuff than it is on retro games but I use my monitor for both.

>>11941340
SuperSai is like 16:9 stretch. It's there, but nobody but subhumans ever uses it.

>>11943576
>Also subjective on that first part because there is a noticeable improvement on color range
Color range has no bearing in this discussion; it's an added qualifier. Of course visuals will look better with extra color range, but that's not what people mean by making "2D look nice" and you know it. And if you don't, you've never understood 2D graphics.

>>11943659
Because you seem to want to turn this into a circular conversation we are at an impasse here. I like how the colors look so it makes 2d games look nicer to me and I don't really care about the stuff that a crt shader adds so I don't bother using them. I basically already said that twice. Are you also going to repeat yourself one more time?

>>11943659
2D games look nice with sharp pixels.

>>11943702
Nearest neighbor is vomitive in many cases (prerendered games for example), and also fucks up the pixel scaling. No need to call your friends for backup >>11943670 you guys grew up with emulators clearly.

>>11943716
>fucks up the pixel scaling
Use sharp bilinear or similar dumbass. This has been a solved problem for ages.
Top looks nicer btw.

>>11943743
I like shaders. I don't like the narrative that they're absolutely necessary to make the games look right and that sharp pixels are objectively bad.

>>11943743
The main issue there are NO shader threads, only troll threads. Pictures arent shaders cant play pictures there are no shaders posted anywhere. So all this argument threads are pure degenerate shit posting, nothing more.

>>11943762
>cant play pictures
Can you play threads about other /vr/ related things?
>PICTURES ON MY IMAGEBOARD? I'M GOING INSANEEEEEEEEE
Fucking tourists.

>>11940642 (OP)
no, because i play at a proper zoom level so things look how they're supposed to, without any unnecessary haze and bullshit. proper vibrant colors.

>>11940642 (OP)
yeah

>>11943563
>>11943728
>>11943747
>>11944343
>Samefagging this hard

>>11944386
It's always funny when one (1) of your own posts is quoted in an attempted samefag callout.

>>11944398
Samefagging or discord raid, it's all the same. There's nothing "natural" about some fags proclaiming the healing benefits of raw all at the same time in a thread intended for the opposite. Like if this were a Nintendo thread and all of a sudden lots of pro-Sega shitposters came in, I'd think the same.

>>11944404
Only two of your quoted posts are doing that though. The other two are simply arguing against what's mentioned here >>11943747

>>11944404
>OP literally asks "Do you like filters?"
>answering no is somehow not the intended topic of the thread
lol
also
>every opinion I don't like is a Discord raid or samefagging

>>11944343
Your waterfalls are not transparent with raw pixels at any zoom level. What are you talking about?

>>11944420
>Do you like Mario?
>NO LOL MARIO IS SHIT SONIC IS THE BEST
I just know you're part of the cancer infecting this board that >>11941138 is complaining about. Constant negativity and contrarianism for the sake of dopamine. You're such fucking trash, lowest of the low, pure scum.

>>11944426
>Constant negativity
The one post that was mine was the one that said I like shaders. I was literally arguing against the negativity coming from CRT-shaderfags shitting on sharp pixel enjoyers. I happen to be able to enjoy both.
You on the other hand sound quite hateful, imagining some grand conspiracy behind every post.

>>11944425
A CRT filter won't make your waterfalls transparent. You need composite/RF for that. S-Video is already too good a signal for dithering transparency effects.

>>11940642 (OP)
my first CRT tv i owned as a kid was a really shitty secondhand model that was old even by the 2000s and had this weird defect where it couldn't display shades of red properly and had a strong green tint

unless that same, unique shittyness can somehow be replicated for max nostalgia i dont see the appeal of shaders

>>11944450
>where it couldn't display shades of red
That's just NeverTheSameColor at work.

>>11942006
based
>>11943716
Top looks better if you upscale the game, the models are much more detailed than that

>>11944492
>models are rendered at the same resolution as the background image
>they look like part of the world when ran through a crt shader
>models are rendered at 4k then superimposed over a low res background image
>characters now look like they don't even belong in the game world they're walking around in

>>11944515
Just upscale the background.

>>11944515
They're really not. The background doesn't have terrible aliasing like the model does. It's obviously dramatically more detailed than the models. up scaling actually makes them fit better.

>>11943716
top pic looks better here

>>11940642 (OP)
Filters are ok if you absolutely CANT find a CRT anywhere. But filters still look like fucking ass compared to the real thing, it's not even fucking close.

>>11944596
nah. they look better.

Fuck it, gonna dump some screenshots.

>>11944524
blends well enough for me,

>>11944913
>blends
yeah with a shitty vasoline filter
looks better if you upscale and then use a less blurry filter like a simple slot mask

>>11944876
this looks like shit

>>11940739
This desperate to troll, and posts AISLOP

I've noticed with PSX cores, you seem to get better results by upscaling ~3x then downsampling back to 240p in a shader than just outputting 240p from the start, weird

guess some kind of convoluted supersampling?

>>11940642 (OP)
I've always thought a vast majority of them looked like shit and nothing like an actual crt. Albeit I haven't tried them in years, maybe some competent autists finally decided to work on them. Some were ok, slightly softening the edges, maybe making the image slightly darker, no weird grids that stick out like a sore thumb.

>doesn't use composite shader
>his sky will never look like this

>>11945424
well yeah, it's composite

I am just lurking but tell me anons how do you get the curvature / convex effect on something like retroarch? Games on flat CRTs look meh but on convex monitors they look pretty awesome.
I was playing Shinobi III and it looks great on the CRT sim inside the Mega Drive collection.
I have been lurking trying to way to get that effect. Same with many side-scrollers, they make the backgrounds feel more alive.

>>11945873
SYSTEMS ONLINE
WEAPONS ONLINE
ALL SYSTEMS NOMINAL

>>11946181
That is really distracting, also Alisia Dragoon is a damn cool game. I wonder why that and Alien Soldier are not mention more. It is weird that the most mentioned Genesis games are often games like Sonic which were pretty bad compared to the rest of the library.

>>11941909
>>11941914
raw looks perfectly fine though

>>11941560
>random story about doing retarded shit in the same room as a CRT
>Ermm sooo like... why do you even like these things??
I swear it's always the most vile type of retards who are this eager to find an intellectual justification to convince other people to stop liking things

>>11946825
Upscaling + shaders has to be the cause of like half the ugly shader setups you see. What is the point of a slotmask if it's this incongruous with the actual pixels

>>11947537
zoomer hipsters can't pretend to enjoy old games without meme lines.

>>11947537
do you think the mask on a real crt is aligned with the "pixels" being sent over an analog signal?

>>11946458
Alisia dragoon has sick ass music, a sick ass theme, sick ass villains, sick ass secrets...

...and really meh memorizer gameplay.

Alien soldier at least lets you dodge things with your op as fuck teleport on your first playthrough.

couldn't get the effect I was looking for no matter how I stacked and configured shaders in retroarch so I decided to make my own, but damn this shit is convoluted

at least there are a million examples since you can just read all the existing shaders...

>>11946825
>"Oh!"

>>11946825
imagine when AI becomes advanced enough to simply read all the data from ff8 and then create the entire game world in hd 3d based on the prerendered backgrounds...

>>11946454
go to quick menu, down to shaders, load preset, then go to the CRT folder. Some will have curvature (like crt_consumer, fakelottes) so try out a bunch to see what you like

>>11940642 (OP)
what is the best shader? I am new to this sort of thing

>>11948967
Guest-advanced-ntsc is a lot of peoples' favorite these days. A lot of these looking good comes down to preference/config though

>>11945525
That's not weird, that's just how (good) antialiasing works, you downsample from an image with more information to get a better lower res image. Cleans up the texture shimmer and edge aliasing that looks so bad on modern screens without giving games that uncanny emulator look of hi res geometry + low res textures.

Shitposters will say this dithered mess looks better raw than with shaders. Bro you can play chess on it

>>11948972
do you have more comparisons like this?

>>11948972
If I have to choose between seeing a weird looking waterfall once in a while, and the game looking blurry as fuck all the fucking time, ill just choose the sharper looking shader.

With 4chan's 4mb limit, it's a bitch to try to upload something, it looses so much information. I'm using Koko's slighty tuned. I had to disable HDR to take the picture so it may look darker than it usually is. With HDR enabled it looks much more vibrant but unfortunately I can't properly show it here.

https://images2.imgbox.com/69/93/i1RlN7VS_o.png

>>11950001
You can just disable the dithering

>>11950082
>wanting banding
Lol

>>11950091
You can just enable full color range.
Have you not used a modern PS1 emulator?

>>11950082
then it's not raw output

>>11950080
Any CRT shader needs you to turn up your brightness more, some people dont know this so i am posting this for them

>>11950091
Use a debanding shader

>>11950112
It is, it's a setting in the emulator itself, not a shader. In a way it's even more raw as the PS1 does render in true color internally, then applies the dithering.

>>11950126
>it's a setting in the emulator itself
Let me guess, PGXP correction is also raw in your opinion

>Raw is better
>Except you need a de-dithering shader, a debanding shader, PGXP, a pixel scaling shader, a denoiser shader, a palette shader and contrast correction

>>11950128
no clue what that is, but disabling the dithering and color depth crunch is literally just removing a step in the PS1's graphics pipeline.

>>11950126
unc that looks like ass

>>11950140
That's not what I'm arguing here. It's neither a dithered mess nor does it have color banding with the right settings.

>>11950147
you removed the soul

>>11950165
That's not what I'm arguing here. It's neither a dithered mess nor does it have color banding with the right settings.

>>11950137
that other anon is implying that emulator users are some kind of purists who want RAW pixels.
He cant fathom that someone might not be elitist about it because he is a realhardware elitist himself
The average emulator chad doesnt care, and just does whatever he thinks looks best.

>>11950131
you dont even need a dedither shader most of the time if you just use the 'true color' setting in Duckstation

>>11950069
Or you could just prepend a dedither shader like sgenpt-mix.

CRT shaders hurt my eyes, for some reason.

>>11950581
Dedither shaders change too much shit that they shouldn't imo. Also your screenshot is blurry.

>>11950596
sgenpt-mix-multipass is a lot less destructive
https://i.postimg.cc/4JwkWy0s/shinobi.webp

I'm trying to get my trintiron to look like the pics in this thread, how many layers of pic related should I apply to the screen?

>>11951008
Here you go buddy. You want the authentic experience, right?

>Shaders are too sharp!
>Shaders are too blurry!
In every single thread

The nearest-neighbor approach was never going to look good because of the un-natural high frequencies added by its discontinuities (a visual equivalent to some 'shrill' audio interference). But why does a CRT filter look better than say, bilinear? I made my own filter to learn why that visual improvement works and its obvious now. Filter recipe: blur, add any kind of grille, then turn contrast up. Reason: A simple 'blur' effect, either in physics or recreated on the computer, is what they call 'anisotropic'. It's equal in whatever direction (in contrast to bilinear which has strict 'up/down' and 'left-right' directions only). That means an extremely blurred pixel where the blur 'radius' was much larger than the pixel size, would essentially be a circle. The squareness of the tiny pixel would become irrelevant as, at the scale of the blur, the pixel effectively becomes a point. A CRT screen or filter doesn't go that far, but the radius of the blur is enough that the resultant visual pixel is some way between a square and a circle. The roundness is very visually preferable but a blur alone looks horrible, misty, but after the 'grille over and up contrast' stage, you get something round that's not smeary or smudgy.

>>11952391
and with text for example, the result of 'blur then contrast up' is a phenomenon which if you do it deliberately is called the 'morphological operations' of dilation and erosion. Basically if you have a craggy shape and you puff it out a bit and then trim it back, you get the same shape but with the crags filled in.
So if you see the top of the 't' here, it becomes a nice diagonal line instead of that pixel staircase that I don't believe was ever expected to be seen

>>11952397
(but this only happens because the 'blur' that I'm referring to, real-world blur like being out of focus, is circular. Bilinear "blur" would not do this).
The reason they used to put bilinear as an option in emulators instead of something like I'm talking about, is because bilinear is very cheap to compute whereas simulating the round blur ironically requires much heftier calculations.

>>11940642 (OP)
I use them all the time for emulators, but it's difficult to find really good ones that match the CRTs I used as a kid. Most of them are either too blurry or lack the correct CRT glow effect and end up too glowy or too sharp. I think it comes down to shitty NA composite as opposed to the SCART I was used to. That, and differing quality levels of CRT TVs and monitors.

>>11952432
All of the good CRT shaders come with a shitton of options so you can tweak them to be just right with enough autism.

>>11952378
I mean, it’s correct
They can’t seem to get it right

Settings: CRT-Royale + NTSC-adaptive; ntsc fringing and artifacting, diffusion weight, bloom underestimate levels, mask type, and border darkness all set to 0; ntsc chroma scaling set to 2; contrast set to .3; simulated crt gamma set to 3.5; min sigma set to .1; triad size set to 6 (or 8 for 256px shit like (S)NES)
HDR works great with it despite everything on the internet saying otherwise last time I checked

>>11952414
>bilinear is very cheap to compute
bilinear is literally free on gpus

>>11940642 (OP)
my eyesight is very poor so i dont ever need anything more than raw

How are PC-98 and X68000 supposed to look? I would assume more like a VGA display than an RGB monitor?
pic unrelated

>>11953418
Is that a shader or a photo?

>>11953465
shader

>>11953391
Slot masks are so hideous, I don't know why people try to recreate that level of detail in shaders when it just detracts from the image.

Filters are for zoomers. Use a real CRT or gtfo.

>>11946181
>Not playing at 4:3

>>11953992
If you can see the mask, you're sitting too close to your TV.

>>11954017
You can see the mask from 10ft away if you look for it, when the content of the screen is steady. It's only your mind that removes it

>>11954098
No you can't.
CRTs put out so much light that the mask is obscured further away than just a couple feet. That's the point.

>>11940664
saw an arcade monitor that looked like this once

>>11944372
what 2010s indie game is this

>>11952269
you joke but you realize no dev targeted RGB outputs on production monitors when they were doing the graphics, right? MD devs have even talked about it outright bc of how shitty the video signal was on mega drive. They were selling to people who had, on the high end, a 24" TV or a giant, washed out rear projection big-screen TV. And they knew they were going to be used with composite at best, more likely RF. It can be nice to have a TV with a really great look and geometry but it pays to stay grounded in reality.

>>11953457
look up what they were intended to be used with. I would guess a VGA monitor.

>>11950069
Then use a composite shader and no blending/blur? You are the type of person I was alluding to when I implied that most complaints about these are user-error. Probably also unaware that there are like 150 parameters for the "blurry" shader you are referencing

>>11954113
Yes, I know this is what people think, but isn't true. I just went to the living room and made sure to test on our TV before posting. I had checked this in a room full of commodore and mid-late 90's pc monitors that I went to last month, but I just double checked that it's also with big tvs. In both a lit and dark room, the mask is fully visible from 10ft away when you look for it. There's nothing happening like 'that much light that it blooms over the mask'. It's 100% your mind eliding it from your perception the same way that - it does your nose (without moving your eyes you should be able to see your nose if you start wanting to and aren't moving around.)

>>11954339
You're wrong, sorry.
Under normal use, the mask is not visible from 10 feet away. You're either squinting or turning down the brightness to cut down on perceptible light output.

>>11952391
>>11952397
now
what's a shader that does this

>>11954354
>You're either squinting
I'm afraid that you've lost here, because conceding that 'squinting' will make it visible means the reason you personally can't see it is, you need glasses.

>>11954367
>what's a shader that does this
The one you used I guess?

>>11954147
>you joke
No, I don't. The reason most of these shaders are quite blurry is because they already emulate composite.

>>11954379
Yes, squinting limits the amount of light that enters your eyes.
Thanks for confirming that you don't know how light works. It was obvious, but thanks anyway.

>>11954383
it does not

>>11954437
and neither does blurry mc blurrenstein

>>11954437
I don't understand what you're asking or saying

>>11954451
The roundness seen here >>11952397
Puffing it out and trimming it back I guess

>>11954473
Oh - you said what's a shader that 'does this' with a picture attached, but it seems the picture was unrelated? That was confusing. In the end, I can't actually help because my thing models what I think all CRT shaders are attempting to do, so the question just becomes 'which ones are good'.
The ones you showed with the Mario Bros pics do look very bad or at least with incorrect settings, so, "any other ones than those" would be a start, but the recs from other anons above should help. If their screenshot looks good, then I'd say the phenomenon described is arguably happening there, notwithstanding that signal phenomena also play a role, outside the scope of this model.