Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

The detail is not lost, however. You're talking about the white pixels in each brick? Notice how unnatural that looks in pixel form. But on a CRT, it's blended in with the surrounding pixels slightly, giving a much better impression of a natural light reflection.

The same goes for Locke's eyes. Look how wrong they look in raw format.

The art was designed to be displayed on a CRT. On a CRT, it looks completely different. It was never meant to be seen in raw form.

People always complain how bad old consoles like the SNES look on an LCD TV. Hint: it's usually not because of the scaling. People then say old consoles actually look pretty decent on a plasma. Know why? Because plasma does not display images (pixel matrixes) in their raw format.

i'm talking about the edges of the towers, not the tops. see the right hand side of the towers in the native shot, compare those to the darker edges in the filtered shot, and you'll see that detail in the dark areas has been lost.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

i'm talking about the edges of the towers, not the tops. see the right hand side of the towers in the native shot, compare those to the darker edges in the filtered shot, and you'll see that detail in the dark areas has been lost.

Check out the ventilators, it's pretty clear the whole spriteart was designed for darker screens and scanlines... well it's clear from the fact that the devices the game ran on had darker image output and scanlines in the first place.
why is this even a discussion lol?
Are you trying to say the game was designed with LCD screens in mind?

 

[Why would you do that?]

I am a huge proponent for pure pixel art.

However, looking at the PS3 homebrew thread the other day, pixel art with a good filter in HD looks nice, too, but it has to be in HD. Almost looks like cardboard cut-outs.

 

[TheExodu5]

i'm talking about the edges of the towers, not the tops. see the right hand side of the towers in the native shot, compare those to the darker edges in the filtered shot, and you'll see that detail in the dark areas has been lost.

My black levels weren't right in the first shot. Check the second shot I posted, on the first post of the last page.

 

[TheExodu5]

Oh, I found the screenshot of the work in progress filter a guy was attempting a while back:

 

[plagiarize]

My black levels weren't right in the first shot. Check the second shot I posted, on the first post of the last page.

ah okay. that does look a lot better, didn't realise you'd done anything other than change the pixel sizes in that second comparison.

 

[TheExodu5]

ah okay. that does look a lot better, didn't realise you'd done anything other than change the pixel sizes in that second comparison.

Yeah, it's the full on NTSC filter, same as the shot with the bad black levels. I just tweaked the brightness setting to match my calibrated monitor.

 

[Seraphinianus]

The new vinyl.

not quite

 

[The Lamp]

yes, this was a key issue in the gamer seriousness quotient and we totally dropped the ball for having a different opinion than you.

Has nothing to do with having a different opinion. I don't care if you like it or don't like it.

Has to do with the irrational reactions, as always.

 

[Kintaro]

Magical? If by "magical" you meant "fucking terrible." I wish people would stop "fixing" what isn't broken.

 

[Sqorgar]

CRT and blurry monitors are definitely how pixel art was designed back then and the best way to hide pixels without ruining art design.

Not even remotely. First of all, pixel art is designed on a COMPUTER, not a tv screen. Computers have had high quality monitors for a very long time. Second, pixel art is done at the pixel level, zoomed in really close, so even in the rare case where someone was doing pixel art on a painfully blurry monitor, it wouldn't matter because each pixel would be about ten times larger. Doing pixel art on a blurry monitor will give you horrible headaches, if not make you go blind.

The way pixel art worked then, and I speak with a modest amount of experience, is that you design the pixel art on the computer. Your chief, if not only concern is the number of colors you have and how many pixels are at your disposal. Then you transfer it to a console and try it on the tv. If it looks like ass - which does happen, because CRTs are notoriously bad with certain color combinations of fine pixel details - then you try again. That's the extent of it. In no way, shape, or form, is the CRT the ultimate design qualifier for pixel art. Nobody was trying to hide pixels.

 

[Princess Skittles]

Not even remotely. First of all, pixel art is designed on a COMPUTER, not a tv screen. Computers have had high quality monitors for a very long time. Second, pixel art is done at the pixel level, zoomed in really close, so even in the rare case where someone was doing pixel art on a painfully blurry monitor, it wouldn't matter because each pixel would be about ten times larger. Doing pixel art on a blurry monitor will give you horrible headaches, if not make you go blind.

The way pixel art worked then, and I speak with a modest amount of experience, is that you design the pixel art on the computer. Your chief, if not only concern is the number of colors you have and how many pixels are at your disposal. Then you transfer it to a console and try it on the tv. If it looks like ass - which does happen, because CRTs are notoriously bad with certain color combinations of fine pixel details - then you try again. That's the extent of it. In no way, shape, or form, is the CRT the ultimate design qualifier for pixel art. Nobody was trying to hide pixels.

I love you.

 

[Tain]

"Hiding pixels" is the wrong way to put it, absolutely.

This doesn't mean that, say, CPS2 games were designed with an ideal of perfectly square razor-sharp pixels in mind. The target was an RGB monitor, through and through. I have a hard time believing that Capcom's artists never put much care into how their sprites and backgrounds looked on the final display versus their workstation displays.

 

[Gagaman]

I hate sprite filters for the most part (never seen one that doesn't lose some detail from the original pixel art), but I also don't really see the point in scanlines or screen curvature filters. I find the scanlines distracting honesty and make the picture look too dark, and the curvature just seems like tech nostalgia taken a bit too far.

 

[Sqorgar]

This doesn't mean that, say, CPS2 games were designed with an ideal of perfectly square razor-sharp pixels in mind. The target was an RGB monitor, through and through. I have a hard time believing that Capcom's artists never put much care into how their sprites and backgrounds looked on the final display versus their workstation displays.

There's a wide variety of qualities for different CRT monitors. Being that arcade hardware was controlled by the manufacturer, I think Capcom had plenty of control over the quality of display used. I doubt they were using cheap $30 Zenith Shitboxes with heavy overscan and thick scanlines. But I can't say for sure. There aren't any arcades within 30 miles of me.

 

[TheExodu5]

Not even remotely. First of all, pixel art is designed on a COMPUTER, not a tv screen. Computers have had high quality monitors for a very long time. Second, pixel art is done at the pixel level, zoomed in really close, so even in the rare case where someone was doing pixel art on a painfully blurry monitor, it wouldn't matter because each pixel would be about ten times larger. Doing pixel art on a blurry monitor will give you horrible headaches, if not make you go blind.

The way pixel art worked then, and I speak with a modest amount of experience, is that you design the pixel art on the computer. Your chief, if not only concern is the number of colors you have and how many pixels are at your disposal. Then you transfer it to a console and try it on the tv. If it looks like ass - which does happen, because CRTs are notoriously bad with certain color combinations of fine pixel details - then you try again. That's the extent of it. In no way, shape, or form, is the CRT the ultimate design qualifier for pixel art. Nobody was trying to hide pixels.

Pixel art was designed ON a computer mointor FOR a CRT.

There's an important distinction there. 360 games may be programmed on a PC, but they're not meant to be played on a PC, they're meant to be played on a 360. You code it on the PC and see how it runs on the 360. You design it to run well on the 360, not the PC.

I've said it before: there's a reason people say LCD monitors make old consoles look bad. And it's not because of the scaling. Similarly, the same people will tell you that old consoles look significantly better on Plasmas than they do on LCDs, and again, it's not because of the scaling.

 

[Princess Skittles]

I hate sprite filters for the most part (never seen one that doesn't lose some detail from the original pixel art), but I also don't really see the point in scanlines or screen curvature filters. I find the scanlines distracting honesty and make the picture look too dark, and the curvature just seems like tech nostalgia taken a bit too far.

The curvature things is just.. silly.

I don't mind scanlines but they have to be soft.. on emulators that support different levels, 25% actually looks pretty good, all things considered.

In general though, you are right, the effect is done too heavily in some wacky attempt to recreate some busted old TV set.

 

[TheExodu5]

The curvature things is just.. silly.

I don't mind scanlines but they have to be soft.. on emulators that support different levels, 25% actually looks pretty good, all things considered.

In general though, you are right, the effect is done too heavily in some wacky attempt to recreate some busted old TV set.

I'm not really a fan of curvature or scalines. I like the FF VI shot I posted on the last page...I fiddled around for a while and that was the settings I liked. It reproduced the shape of CRT pixels, with the color that I expected from the game, but without the flaws I deemed undesirable from CRTs (scanlines, curvature). Some flaws I do desire, such as just a teeny tiny bit of color bleeding. It serves to create a far more organic image.

Going back to plasmas, if you look at them, they can't really display square pixels well at all. People in stores will always tell you how LCDs look sharper. But really...this is not necessarily a good thing. The lack of very defined pixels is one of the big reasons plasmas do very well with low resolution content, or even HD content. It serves to create a far more natural looking picture.

 

[Tellaerin]

Not even remotely. First of all, pixel art is designed on a COMPUTER, not a tv screen. Computers have had high quality monitors for a very long time. Second, pixel art is done at the pixel level, zoomed in really close, so even in the rare case where someone was doing pixel art on a painfully blurry monitor, it wouldn't matter because each pixel would be about ten times larger. Doing pixel art on a blurry monitor will give you horrible headaches, if not make you go blind.

The way pixel art worked then, and I speak with a modest amount of experience, is that you design the pixel art on the computer. Your chief, if not only concern is the number of colors you have and how many pixels are at your disposal. Then you transfer it to a console and try it on the tv. If it looks like ass - which does happen, because CRTs are notoriously bad with certain color combinations of fine pixel details - then you try again. That's the extent of it. In no way, shape, or form, is the CRT the ultimate design qualifier for pixel art. Nobody was trying to hide pixels.

Yes, you'd design your graphics on a computer, then check how they would look on a typical TV, and adjust your work accordingly. You just said as much yourself. So how can you turn around in the next breath and argue that oldschool pixel art wasn't designed with those CRT's in mind?

 

[Tain]

There's a wide variety of qualities for different CRT monitors. Being that arcade hardware was controlled by the manufacturer, I think Capcom had plenty of control over the quality of display used. I doubt they were using cheap $30 Zenith Shitboxes with heavy overscan and thick scanlines. But I can't say for sure. There aren't any arcades within 30 miles of me.

The degrees of variation are there, definitely, and that's why these better filters are customizable, but you simply won't find a low res RGB monitor that's perfectly crisp with no visible scanlines. Whatever display they were targeting, these imperfections were present. On a tangible level, that's how you get fake transparencies in CPS2 or Saturn games. On a much less tangible level, the imperfections affected the art creation, consciously or not.

 

[TheExodu5]

To clarify here: LCD input responses can be near linear. Aside from color variations, they can basically produce a 1:1 image. This makes them great for certain things (especially as PC monitors, where pixel accuracy is a must), but it comes with significant downsides. Of course, many LCD TVs use post processing to break the linearity in the response by apply filters to make the image look better.

Plasmas and CRTs do not have a linear input response. It is inherrent to their display methods. These non linear input responses can be reproduced with filters. A filter is simply a matrix multiplication table which serves to approximate a physical input response.

 

[Sqorgar]

There's an important distinction there. 360 games may be programmed on a PC, but they're not meant to be played on a PC, they're meant to be played on a 360. You code it on the PC and see how it runs on the 360. You design it to run well on the 360, not the PC.

You can NOT design pixel art for a CRT monitor. It doesn't work that way. You can't put a pixel at 400% zoom on a nice monitor and think, "hmm, the blurry shittiness of the average tv screen will turn this singular black eyeball pixel into a glorious round-shaped piece of art". You put a pixel down because you are working at 16x16 resolution and every single pixel is 1/16th the height and width of the entire image, so every pixel has a huge impact on the quality of the work.

The only way that crappy tvs factor into it is that A) they mute the colors, B) you can't use dithering for detail, and C) you can't use bright red because it bleeds. CRT is how the art is viewed. It has very little impact in how the art is made.

And for the record, VGA had a resolution of 320x200, which means that it had rectangular pixels. And the art was very much designed for that ratio. However, when viewed with square pixels, the change is almost imperceptible unless they are sitting side by side. Everything looks a tiny bit taller.

If one wanted to accurately represent the brick-pixels of VGA games, I'd understand. But anybody who gave half a shit about game graphics back in the day had a decent tv or monitor they hooked their game systems up to, so you are trying to emulate what cheap, young gamers experiences. You want nostalgia, not a cultured appreciation of the viewing experience. Why don't you go ahead and advocate screens where the top ten scanlines shifted to the right and VCR fuzz when trying to watch 80s tv shows?

 

[Gravijah]

BSNES's NTSC filter. (I think it's blaarg's NTSC filter...I've seen it in ZSNES or SNES9x I think, but it didn't look nearly as nice). I set it to the RGB preset (though you can set RF, Composite, and S-Video as well), and calibrated the brightness to avoid any black crush.

BSNES is so awesome. Sadly, the only thing I can get running on my computer with it is SMW.

 

[Android18a]

Did PAL TVs work very differently to NTSC ones? I always see these scanline filters and whilst they resemble arcade screens, I don't remember my NES, SNES or MD ever having those. Sure the image was... softened by the CRT but I don't ever recall scanlines as such. Just fuzz/blur from the naturally difficult to tune aerial cables. If you got close enough to see anything beyond there you just saw the three colours that made up each pixellything.

I noticed the scanlines immediately when I went to arcades, especially on stuff like Street Fighter.

Oh, I found the screenshot of the work in progress filter a guy was attempting a while back:

This looks closest to any TV I ever had. But I found the SNES always looked washed out and pastelly on my TV.

 

[webrunner]

You can NOT design pixel art for a CRT monitor. It doesn't work that way. You can't put a pixel at 400% zoom on a nice monitor and think, "hmm, the blurry shittiness of the average tv screen will turn this singular black eyeball pixel into a glorious round-shaped piece of art". You put a pixel down because you are working at 16x16 resolution and every single pixel is 1/16th the height and width of the entire image, so every pixel has a huge impact on the quality of the work.

The only way that crappy tvs factor into it is that A) they mute the colors, B) you can't use dithering for detail, and C) you can't use bright red because it bleeds. CRT is how the art is viewed. It has very little impact in how the art is made.

And for the record, VGA had a resolution of 320x200, which means that it had rectangular pixels. And the art was very much designed for that ratio. However, when viewed with square pixels, the change is almost imperceptible unless they are sitting side by side. Everything looks a tiny bit taller.

If one wanted to accurately represent the brick-pixels of VGA games, I'd understand. But anybody who gave half a shit about game graphics back in the day had a decent tv or monitor they hooked their game systems up to, so you are trying to emulate what cheap, young gamers experiences. You want nostalgia, not a cultured appreciation of the viewing experience. Why don't you go ahead and advocate screens where the top ten scanlines shifted to the right and VCR fuzz when trying to watch 80s tv shows?

Example of art being defined by how it's viewed in the case of pixel art: The use of alternating pixels when transparency isn't available looks AWFUL in clear pixels but with CRT bleed works a lot better.

 

[Princess Skittles]

If one wanted to accurately represent the brick-pixels of VGA games, I'd understand. But anybody who gave half a shit about game graphics back in the day had a decent tv or monitor they hooked their game systems up to, so you are trying to emulate what cheap, young gamers experiences. You want nostalgia, not a cultured appreciation of the viewing experience. Why don't you go ahead and advocate screens where the top ten scanlines shifted to the right and VCR fuzz when trying to watch 80s tv shows?

Absolutely. 100%.

With modern monitors, the resolutions are so high, scaling any of the "off" low resolutions to a correct 4:3 ratio creates almost perfect "off" sized pixels visually, even without any of the awful filtering methods applied to it (it will not be 100% perfect, but largely indistinguishable).

I had one of those sexy Commodore 64 monitors as a kid (which, as I understand, are STILL considered beastly). My NES and SNES displayed crisp, beautiful pixels. When I went to friend's house and they had systems hooked up on poor TVs with RF, it made me a little sad. I STILL wish I had one of those monitors, to be honest. I mean, that thing was GLORIOUS.

 

[Tain]

Would you be good with a filter that accurately recreated how that C64 monitor looked? Because that's what a lot of these filters roughly shoot for.

Also, there's absolutely no nostalgia here. I never noticed scanlines as a kid. I never cared about the curvature. I just see a picture of an integer-scaled Captain Commando, compare it to this, and think it's pretty clear that the latter looks better.

 

[Sqorgar]

I had one of those sexy Commodore 64 monitors as a kid (which, as I understand, are STILL considered beastly). My NES and SNES displayed crisp, beautiful pixels. When I went to friend's house and they had systems hooked up on poor TVs with RF, it made me a little sad. I STILL wish I had one of those monitors, to be honest. I mean, that thing was GLORIOUS.

I've still got mine in the closet. The top scanlines shift a little, and it is only mono, but it was a damn good monitor for the better part of 30 years. Finally shelved it once TVs got to a high enough quality, but it was my primary gaming monitor since the NES (technically, since the C64, I guess).

 

[Roto13]

Horrible. Either redraw the sprites or leave them as they are. Automatically filtering them just looks bad.

 

[Game Guru]

To me, almost any sort of filter is akin to colorization or editing the film to have better effects. It just should not be done unless it is to better imitate the intended output which means imitating a CRT. However, I can see the usefulness of this for other applications, but those are not related to gaming.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Of course pixel artists back then factored in how their game will look on a tv or arcade screen and where colors will blend, because that was the fucking hardware they designed it for.
Just like today most games on HD consoles are designed with a HD-tv in mind (see dead rising and unreadable fonts on everything that's not HD).

I can't believe you guys are even discussing this...

 

[Orayn]

Horrible. Either redraw the sprites or leave them as they are. Automatically filtering them just looks bad.

As others have mentioned in this thread, the algorithm could be a good basis for redrawn sprites when there isn't enough time/money to start from scratch. Also, it looks a lot better than some of the fuglier filters out there, like the one used for the re-release of Guardian Heroes.

 

[Princess Skittles]

Would you be good with a filter that accurately recreated how that C64 monitor looked? Because that's what a lot of these filters roughly shoot for.

I wouldn't see the point. Displays are better now, there is no need to degrade the image to match technology from decades ago.

I've still got mine in the closet. The top scanlines shift a little, and it is only mono, but it was a damn good monitor for the better part of 30 years. Finally shelved it once TVs got to a high enough quality, but it was my primary gaming monitor since the NES (technically, since the C64, I guess).

I am fully intent on finding one in good standing once I get the down payment on our house settled. I am unsure how the classic game room is going to be setup, but as a small side display for the extra NES or such would be a nice little addition.

 

[Sqorgar]

Would you be good with a filter that accurately recreated how that C64 monitor looked?

No, because the C64 monitor was the best option we had at the time. Technology has improved to the point where I don't have to put up with screen curvature, overscan, or interlacing. Why would I go back in time? Have you ever seen a Super Robot Taisen game shown in high quality S-video (or higher) on an LCD screen?? It is like an orgasm wrapped in a hug wrapped in an orgasm. Nostalgia isn't so strong that I would intentionally make an effort to obscure, blur, or otherwise tarnish good pixel art.

 

[TheSeks]

BREAKING:
New Magical algorithm developed in Japan:
Input
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wndP2nXVG...tdMctho/s640/battlefield3_08-w800-550x309.jpg

Output:
http://www.azprogramas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/metal-slug-3-big.gif

BAM! HARRY POTTER'D!!

*frysquint.jpg*

I see what you're doing there, but a FPS shooter shot against a 2D third person shot doesn't make it good. You should've went with Blazblue against MS3.

Also filter looks like shit, as does any filter that doesn't see the pixel art and then compensate for it. Just look at the Yoshi one, it takes the black into account even though that was nothing but a border to make sure the character stood out. It isn't needed with shit filters.

 

[Roto13]

As others have mentioned in this thread, the algorithm could be a good basis for redrawn sprites when there isn't enough time/money to start from scratch. Also, it looks a lot better than some of the fuglier filters out there, like the one used for the re-release of Guardian Heroes.

But see, here's the thing. These filters just take existing pixel art and make it look worse. Even if this filter makes it look less bad than other filters, it's still screwing it up. It's like saying "Well I want to make a cake but I can't afford frosting so I'll just shit all over it instead."

You don't need any basis besides the original sprite to really redraw a sprite in this world of beautiful hand drawn HD sprites.

 

[Tain]

I wouldn't see the point. Displays are better now, there is no need to degrade the image to match technology from decades ago.

If you're more interested in the IQ, I guess that's that. Prescaling + bilinear filtering is a much better solution than many out there, at least, and I'll use it when needed.

There's no doubt that it's usually uglier to me than decent 25% scanlines, though, for reasons I haven't spent enough time thinking about. I want to say that there's some illusion of greater detail, that it sometimes helps make the games look less like legos, that maybe some games hit me as overbright without them. I don't know for sure.

 

[Sciz]

The only way that crappy tvs factor into it is that A) they mute the colors, B) you can't use dithering for detail, and C) you can't use bright red because it bleeds. CRT is how the art is viewed. It has very little impact in how the art is made.

Play the classic Sonic games sometime. They're all completely loaded with art that expects that the columns bleed into each other a bit to create transparencies and far more colors than the Genesis could dream of displaying at once.

There's also old CGA stuff that abused TV display artifacts like crazy.

 

[whitehawk]

Oh, I found the screenshot of the work in progress filter a guy was attempting a while back:

Is this a picture of an LCD screen, or a direct capture?

Also this is cool. The added effect is from an emulator.

 

[Lord Error]

I wouldn't see the point. Displays are better now, there is no need to degrade the image to match technology from decades ago.

The problem is, graphics of yesterday looks too blocky on new displays which are simply too good for it. The blurry fuziness and scanlines of old crts were doing a very good job on hiding that blockiness and making the old graphics look more organic and less artificial.

If you look at that metal slug screen posted here, and compare it to a screen that you'd get if you do a nearest neighbor pixel scale to an image that size, it would look horrifically blocky with later.

 

[ninjaurbano]

Did PAL TVs work very differently to NTSC ones? I always see these scanline filters and whilst they resemble arcade screens, I don't remember my NES, SNES or MD ever having those. Sure the image was... softened by the CRT but I don't ever recall scanlines as such. Just fuzz/blur from the naturally difficult to tune aerial cables. If you got close enough to see anything beyond there you just saw the three colours that made up each pixellything.

You can only see the scanlines when the TV is displaying a 240p resolution. But I think the scalines are less visible on PAL TVs. Also, you barely can see the scalines if you are using a RF or composite cable.

Arcade games use 240p and RGB - so that's why you can easily notice the scanlines.

 

[KevinCow]

I really don't understand the fascination with blurriness and scan lines.

The new vinyl.

You know, that's actually a pretty great comparison.

 

[FoxSpirit]

You know, that's actually a pretty great comparison.

You are probably too young nd don't play enough retro because I can't fathom liking the look stuff like Final Fantasy VI gives off unfiltered.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

When I release my own game console, the first time you boot it up it will ask whether you prefer 2D pixel art filtered to look like vector graphics or unfiltered. If you choose the filtered option, the console punches you.

 

[CamHostage]

But see, here's the thing. These filters just take existing pixel art and make it look worse. Even if this filter makes it look less bad than other filters, it's still screwing it up. It's like saying "Well I want to make a cake but I can't afford frosting so I'll just shit all over it instead."

If you want to be a purist, take the hard line. But if you want to be a capitalist and sell old games to new gamers, having filters that "improve" the game are an advantage to a good number of people. And if you want options for playing games that you enjoyed years ago but that don't look the way you remembered them looking on your new 72" 3D HDTV, it's a good thing that new filtering methods are being explored. (Funny that I never see complaints about how emulators of 3D platforms filter the graphics, lots of people complained when the up-res'ing of PS1 and PS2 games was so subtle and inconsequential. The 3D effect on 3DS Virtual Console is also getting nothing but praise.)

The ability to list "new HD graphic effects" as a bullet point on the box that gets attention can be the difference between a game company publishing a classic game for a HD console or else skipping it until it fits some collection or download initiative. That hard line you're taking about the beauty of pixels may keep some games out of your reach.

So long as you can switch back, there's no great advantage to grumbling that the kids these days don't appreciate the classic approach. The problem with Ted Turner's colorization of old movies was never that they were using this technology, it's that for a while, it was supplanting the availability of the originals. There was no way to get many of these movies without the colorization effects. But in hindsight, the colorization fad was a good thing for the movie industry to go through as it helped give strength to the film preservation movement. The only reason more movies don't offer a colorized alternate version on DVD now is because failed to be popular. Roger Ebert got on his high horse over the matter (and some directors did have beefs with the process, which is fair as the artists to fight this by right of contract if they chose so,) but if it was what the people wanted, it'd still be done today. People hate Star Wars: Special Edition because the new stuff is weak, but most of the complaints are around that only the VHS copies let you see Han shoot first; if given the choice on the Blu-Ray then much would be forgiven. They'll be given the chance to vote again with their dollars when Star Wars 3D hits theaters, and it'd be a bad bet to take that more people would reject this "bastardization" of the movie than would accept whatever compromises in order to see it on the big screen one more time.

 

[LaserBuddha]

So why we still got pink-haired Link?

 

[Lord Error]

I really don't understand the fascination with blurriness and scan lines

What's not to understand? You've seen that Metal Slug RGB filter screen? If you have the option to play it like that, or play it like this:

or this:

Either of these is what your LCD monitor would upscale it to if you just stretch it into full screen, so why wouldn't you want to play it with that RGB filter instead? It makes it look a lot more natural and, less eye searing (or nauseatingly blurry like in second example)

It's not like anyone's saying they hate modern 3D graphics or anything, it's simply wanting to make the old games look less crappy on today's monitors.

 

[Special J]

filters are somewhat trivial wish games would have all the options available.

 

[Stinkles]

Why... would anyone want this?

J-Pron

 

[Drkirby]

What's not to understand? You've seen that Metal Slug RGB filter screen? If you have the option to play it like that, or play it like this:

http://i54.tinypic.com/23kuc3.jpg[/IMG

or this:

[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/jhf2oy.jpg[/IMG

Either of these is what your LCD monitor would upscale it to if you just stretch it into full screen, so why wouldn't you want to play it with that RGB filter instead? It makes it look a lot more natural and, less eye searing (or nauseatingly blurry like in second example)

It's not like anyone's saying they hate modern 3D graphics or anything, it's simply wanting to make the old games look less crappy on today's monitors.[/QUOTE]
This is why I own a CRT:
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3496710/AP/metalslug.png

The colors don't look that washed out in person, but you get the idea.