Nintendo Classic Mini announced

[MaximRecoil]

I never said CRTs were blurry.

 

Yes, you did. You mentioned "blur" as being an intrinsic quality of CRTs:

 

"The blur, moire, bloom, artifact colors, scanlines, and other intrinsic qualities of CRT displays were a product of the time."

 

 

 

However there are effects which are similar to blur, especially in the horizontal domain, such as RF bleed when colored swatches extend slightly to the right of a pixel area due to the modulator's lack of a pre-emphais filter.

 

RF is the lowest quality input. Issues associated with it aren't the CRT's fault.

 

 

 

I rather like the stock RF picture on my stock 4-switch Atari. The bleed persists about half a pixel width. Also scanline intensity on 240p sources can vary from one CRT display to the next based on the focus of the beam. My mom's bedroom CRT has almost not scanlines (and is ever so slightly fuzzy at the edges of the screen) but the Zenith I have stockpiled in the garage has gorgeous scanlines. It is too big to fit in my current game room however.

 

The biggest issue I have with the Atari 2600's RF output is the interference patterns. The best RF I've seen is from an original front-loader NES. Interference patterns are virtually non-existent, and the picture is almost as good as with its composite output, and better than the composite output from most other consoles. For example, the RF output of an NES is better than the composite output of a Sega Genesis.

 

 

 

And yes, if that Mario screenshot you posted were actually the way the NES Mini displayed games, people would cry foul, and have reason too.

 

Why? It's the "purest form" of the graphics. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

 

 

 

The main issue here is that you can't accept that some people may like seeing razor sharp pixels on HD displays. If display technology existed in the 80s such that people could have seen razor sharp pixels in arcades and home devices, I am sure they would have been employed.

 

If they had, it would have made everything look worse. By the mid-80's, the graphics were up to the point of looking almost like hand-drawn animation when viewed on a CRT, i.e., the outlines looked fairly smooth even when curved or angled, and the shading looked like fairly realistic cartoon-style shading. How is that not a good thing? How is blatantly revealing that the outlines and shading effects are actually discreet, perfect squares aligned to a grid? Do you also think it is better to view traditional artwork under a microscope so you can see how flawed it really is?

 

 

 

Look at the "Black Box" artwork for early NES games. The sprite art is right there on the box, no gimmicks or fantasy artwork. And the art displays razor sharp pixels!

 

I vividly remember when I saw that for the first time, about 2 weeks after the NES was widely released in the U.S. in '86 (i.e., when my cousin bought one). When I saw it I said, "That sucks. I thought the Nintendo was supposed to have good graphics." But once we started playing the games, I was impressed, because on a CRT, it looks nothing like that made-with-floor-tiles look. The way I described the appearance of the onscreen graphics to other people at the time was, "It looks almost like a cartoon."

 

 

 

Somehow I think the developers would have wanted you to see the actual pixels if display tech allowed themto do so. Otherwise the character art on the box would have filters applied to obfuscate the pixels...

 

I don't. That was just a cheap, unimaginative, and safe way of representing the graphics. Activision did the same thing on its Atari cartridge labels, but at least they had the good sense to put stylized artwork on the front of the box. Note that none of the art on any Nintendo arcade machine was drawn as pixels on a grid; they used stylized comic book / cartoon style art. Also, they quickly abandoned that early black box look for their NES cartridges as well, and the Famicom versions of those same titles had stylized cartoon style artwork too. For example - link.

Edited November 5, 2016 by MaximRecoil

[exo]

Holy shit, just lay it to rest, will you?

[Keatah]

Graph paper was all those early graphics designers had to work with, and quite frankly those guys were masters at pulling off believable characters with so pew pixels.

 

Today's artists and designers would be equally adept if they weren't spoiled by modern tools and smartphones and internet-everything. The same talent which gives you a good game is the same talent that allows one to work with tools that don't get in the way.

[Osgeld]

Holy shit, just lay it to rest, will you?

 

yea I just put him on my ignore list, tween the never ending holy war, and the stench of wanna be intellectual douche... its just easier to not see his existence

 

I also have Keatah there cause 9 out 10 of his post are just grouchy old bitch whining about how them kids do it

 

that list is the best feature of this forum software

Edited November 5, 2016 by Osgeld

[Keatah]

Somehow I think the developers would have wanted you to see the actual pixels if display tech allowed themto do so. Otherwise the character art on the box would have filters applied to obfuscate the pixels...

I don't. That was just a cheap, unimaginative, and safe way of representing the graphics. Activision did the same thing on its Atari cartridge labels, but at least they had the good sense to put stylized artwork on the front of the box. Note that none of the art on any Nintendo arcade machine was drawn as pixels on a grid; they used stylized comic book / cartoon style art. Also, they quickly abandoned that early black box look for their NES cartridges as well, and the Famicom versions of those same titles had stylized cartoon style artwork too. For example - link.

 

That's right. But it depends on the style and taste of the developer. They *might* have wanted you to see each and every pixel. Others may have wanted to use extra pixels/clarity to precisely shade and hide imperfections.

[MaximRecoil]

According to this ...

 

 

 

Prior to the NES, the packaging of many video games presented bombastic artwork which exaggerated the graphics of the actual game. In terms of product identity, a single game such as Pac-Man would appear in many versions on many different game consoles and computers, with large variations in graphics, sound, and general quality between the versions. By stark contrast, Nintendo's marketing strategy aimed to regain consumer and retailer confidence, by delivering a singular platform whose technology was not in need of heavy exaggeration and whose qualities were clearly defined.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Release

 

... the conservative/safe box art was part of a marketing strategy due to the climate surrounding video game systems in the United States at the time.

[Flojomojo]

Meanwhile, Capcom subscribed to the DGAF philosophy of marketing

 

http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/37/98/d3dccf401c36c0f9632c23c719eb80f6.jpg

[Keatah]

Never really felt the extravagant art of early videogames was deceitful in any way. We all expected blocky and pixelated graphics. We also joked about future days when games could look like their box art.

[Keatah]

As for this nonsensical CRT vs LCD debate brewing, give it up. LCD and similar addressable technologies are here to stay. The classic game community would be best served by adding effects to the old games and old hardware to make them look closer to CRT. It is the way of things.

 

The switch to addressable matrix displays was one move the industry got right. And everyone loves it!

[MaximRecoil]

As for this nonsensical CRT vs LCD debate brewing, give it up. LCD and similar addressable technologies are here to stay. The classic game community would be best served by adding effects to the old games and old hardware to make them look closer to CRT. It is the way of things.

 

The switch to addressable matrix displays was one move the industry got right. And everyone loves it!

 

No, not everyone, and the supply of CRTs will never run out during the lifetime of anyone here. My main CRT TV, which I bought new in 2006 (I bought it specifically because the writing was on the wall for them at that time, and I wanted to get a new one while I still could), only gets used when I'm in the mood to play old video games, which is maybe a few weeks out of each year. Needless to say, it is still like new. The original video game hardware and software obviously hasn't changed, so why should the type of display?

 

It won't be possible to convincingly emulate the look of a CRT until they can convincingly emulate the look of real life, i.e., when they can make a TV that is indistinguishable from looking out your window, then they can generate video that is indistinguishable from watching video on a CRT. For the time being and for the foreseeable future, CRT effects are for people willing to settle for a poor imitation.

[Flojomojo]

Everyone who counts loves it.

 

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

yea I just put him on my ignore list, tween the never ending holy war, and the stench of wanna be intellectual douche... its just easier to not see his existence

 

I also have Keatah there cause 9 out 10 of his post are just grouchy old bitch whining about how them kids do it

 

that list is the best feature of this forum software

I never put people on block because you'll miss a lot of entertaining forum drama. Then people reply to stuff and you either read it anyway or have no clue what they're talking about.

 

But I think I'm done replying to his rebuttals. I have a CRT and a 1080p LCD gaming monitor. My philosophy is simple as I match the display tech to the output. If it has HDMI, it plugs into the LCD. If it has composite or RF, it goes to the CRT. I have no use for RGB, Component, or S-Video.

[+GoldLeader]

CRT or LCD? The easiest way to look at this is that it's an opinion and a preference...I happen to Like both, admittedly for different reasons.

 

IMO this isn't like an event that can be fact checked or an argument to be won or lost...I would never need to explain that I like the color green better than red; It's just an opinion. Someone can give me 30 reasons why red is better or tell me historically that I should like red better or even show me some graph but my opinion is not going to change....And why would it?

[exo]

I never put people on block because you'll miss a lot of entertaining forum drama. Then people reply to stuff and you either read it anyway or have no clue what they're talking about.

 

But I think I'm done replying to his rebuttals. I have a CRT and a 1080p LCD gaming monitor. My philosophy is simple as I match the display tech to the output. If it has HDMI, it plugs into the LCD. If it has composite or RF, it goes to the CRT. I have no use for RGB, Component, or S-Video.

I agree. I have a decent-sized CRT for most of my gaming needs, a PVM that I use for my SNES mainly, and an LCD TV for modern stuff, and I do personally get pixel snobby when it comes to my personal set-up, but I honestly don't give a flying shit what other people's preference is, and I certainly won't spend 3 goddamn pages going off-topic about it in a thread that's supposed to be about the NES Classic.

 

I was annoyed before, but now I'm just mad. Seriously, let's get back on topic.

[Osgeld]

I never put people on block because you'll miss a lot of entertaining forum drama.

 

oh you can still see it if you choose, its just initially blocked when the usual crap factories are droning on, if there's something you want to see (usually its quoted cause its just that mind blindingly stupid) its only a single click away inline with the thread

 

btw I have a trinatron, but it annoys me cause most classic gaming I do is on computers, and even the best TV is still crap compared to a proper monitor, lcd or crt, which is what the game dev's used in the later days when graphics became an art and not completely dependent on logic gates with tricky timing

 

They didnt use your shitty sears 13 inch black n white portable to design your graphics, or your ultra sharp TV from 20 years in the future, They used a high input bandwidth computer monitor, where you can see every individual pixel, and hoped the hardware budget allowed for arcade cabinets to look half as good

Edited November 6, 2016 by Osgeld

[MaximRecoil]

Everyone who counts loves it.

 

Yes, the lowest common denominator loves it, and from the perspective of cheap glorified calculator screen manufacturers, they are the ones who count.

[exo]

 

Yes, the lowest common denominator loves it, and from the perspective of cheap glorified calculator screen manufacturers, they are the ones who count.

I could make a picture with text that says "Hey, shut up" and feed it to my CRT, and take a high-definition photo of it to show off all the beautiful scanlines, and then post it here, but I'd rather talk about how there's a serious risk that the NES Classic might get a really low print run, since Nintendo is notorious for that. In fact, I mentioned it three pages ago, but your flaming is taking center stage. Thanks.

[MaximRecoil]

I could make a picture with text that says "Hey, shut up" and feed it to my CRT, and take a high-definition photo of it to show off all the beautiful scanlines, and then post it here, but I'd rather talk about how there's a serious risk that the NES Classic might get a really low print run, since Nintendo is notorious for that. In fact, I mentioned it three pages ago, but your flaming is taking center stage. Thanks.

 

I'm not arguing with myself here. Every one of my posts has been a reply to, and relevant to, someone else's post on this thread. Also, you don't get to redefine the word "flaming", and your entire post is a non sequitur. No one is preventing you from "talking about how there's a serious risk that the NES Classic might get a really low print run".

[Andromeda Stardust]

Get a room, you two...

[Gamemoose]

:takes sledgehammer and slams it against the side of the thread:

 

I watched a couple videos of gameplay and I can't quite detect any real difference in sound. Of course this is being compared to memory but so far no raised flags. Visually the games look great.

[+GoldLeader]

I used to think we were just being paranoid about the "low print run" idea...

 

But now I'm starting to get worried, too...

[godslabrat]

:takes sledgehammer and slams it against the side of the thread:

 

I watched a couple videos of gameplay and I can't quite detect any real difference in sound. Of course this is being compared to memory but so far no raised flags. Visually the games look great.

Also, it's not like the original hardware was always 100% consistent. There were revisions that could have altered the sound output even BITD. It remains to be seen if this is more or less of a variance.

[Keatah]

I never put people on block because you'll miss a lot of entertaining forum drama. Then people reply to stuff and you either read it anyway or have no clue what they're talking about.

 

I never put people on block, following the old adage - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[Keatah]

I have a CRT and a 1080p LCD gaming monitor. My philosophy is simple as I match the display tech to the output. If it has HDMI, it plugs into the LCD. If it has composite or RF, it goes to the CRT. I have no use for RGB, Component, or S-Video.

 

This is a most sensible line of reasoning. I also follow it. I don't fret or mess around with converters or manhandling one type of signal into another. The most complex thing I got going is an Apple II into my VIVO graphics board so that I may have real hardware side-by-side with an emulator window on the same monitor. Picture-in-picture. You know. Lucky for me it worked right off the bat.

 

Look. When they upgraded the Space Shuttle from tape and steam to glass they also redid a huge portion of the flight computer and its software. So as to be matched and compatible from one end to the other.

 

When a modern 1080p or 4K monitor is connected to the VCS, you essentially didn't match the display to its source. See. It's like trying to modify an AM radio to pick up FM broadcasts or patching in a cassette/CD adapter.

 

This mismatch creates all sorts of visual anomalies in the final picture. This even happens with those cheap-o half-assed S-Video and Component RGB mods. Half the time they don't work, or make new and interesting interference patterns aside from what you had with the original RF. Modern matrix displays were (and are) not intended for any exotic sports like racing the beam.

 

My preferred classic gaming rig is a rather simple set-top-box style PC running emulators and going to matrix display. Here time is spent generating a compatible signal for modern displays.

 

Blargg and other TV effects in addition to new GPU routines I'm developing bring CRT styled images another step closer. And the first thing to go is that stupid bi-linear filtering and anything that's subtractive. That's so dot-com. You have to build the image with algorithms that understand how emitted light behaves and interacts with itself and the display's surface. Only then can you get a nice glow or softer rounded edges that melt into each other. MAME's shading is a good start. I'm going further. And, yup, it's GPU hogging alright.

 

I hope to roll out a package in conjunction with the industry releasing emissive QLED displays. Not the "fake" LED passive sets we have today.

[Keatah]

Also, it's not like the original hardware was always 100% consistent. There were revisions that could have altered the sound output even BITD. It remains to be seen if this is more or less of a variance.

 

I think the inconsistencies in original 70's and 80's hardware had more to do with tolerances of components and even slight substitutions & differences between suppliers, or revisions of PCB.

 

Inconsistencies here in the NES-mini are going be (I believe) related to software revisions rather than any hardware variances.