17 pointsby tmendez7 hours ago2 comments

EvanAnderson6 hours ago
I regret taking all my old tube monitors to Goodwill back in the mid-2000s. I saved a Commodore 1942, at least, but I sent all the rest away to die.
I appreciate the CRT modeling in emulators, but a hardware device that passes thru a display signal and provided sub-frame CRT artifacting and phosphor modeling (particularly if it supported 240P) would be bitchin'.
trenchpilgrim7 hours ago
Some images to demonstrate how retro games look on CRT vs unfiltered on a modern display:
https://x.com/ruuupu1
https://old.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/comments/owdtpu/thats_why...
https://old.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/anwgxf/here_is_an_e...
Modern emulators have post-processing filters to simulate the look, which is great. But it's not quite the same as the real thing.
- dangson3 hours ago
  This helps validate my memories of SNES and PS1 games looking so much better when I was a kid than on an emulator today.
- nomel6 hours ago
  > But it's not quite the same as the real thing.
  To be fair, with modern "retina" HDR displays, it should be very very close.
  - mrob5 hours ago
    The most important element of the CRT look is the fast phosphor decay. This is why CRTs have so little sample-and-hold blur. No other hardware can simulate it perfectly, but a 480Hz OLED display comes close:
    https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks...