3 ms·

That's just one example, a game console where the video output was typically via composite video or even an RF modulator to a TV. Not so much with e.g. VGA mode

That's just one example, a game console where the video output was typically via composite video or even an RF modulator to a TV. Not so much with e.g. VGA mode 0x13 PC graphics on a relatively crisp computer display.

kragen 6y ago
VGA mode 13h PC graphics on a relatively crisp computer CRT display still drew each of its 200 "scan lines" as a double fuzzy line, and a single pixel on it as a double fuzzy dot (more or less an isotropic Gaussian, despite what Smith says) or a double fuzzy dash. Superimposed on these fuzzy patterns you had the shadow-mask circular colored dots or the Trinitron colored rectangles. Sometimes you would also get echos or "ghosting", if there was an impedance mismatch or two in the analog signal path. Later graphics cards in the 01990s would sometimes emulate CGA 320×200 and mode 13h by using more scan lines, giving pixels that looked more like little squares. Or, well, rectangles.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  > VGA mode 13h PC graphics on a relatively crisp computer CRT display still drew each of its 200 "scan lines" as a double fuzzy line, and a single pixel on it as a double fuzzy dot (more or less an isotropic Gaussian, despite what Smith says) or a double fuzzy dash. Superimposed on these fuzzy patterns you had the shadow-mask circular colored dots or the Trinitron colored rectangles. Now we're veering back into technical details of its implementation. The question is, is "squares" (well, yes, rectangles) a useful model of what is visible to the viewer? To that end, the fact that each line was traced as twice on the display is trivial. We have to concern ourselves with the visible result to answer that question I have a decent CRT VGA monitor here, connected to a VGA card in an old PC, and at lower resolutions the pixels are crisp and hard. The monitors are made for reading at a higher resolution after all. If I press my face at the screen I can see that yes, the pixels appear on a much more fine-grained grid of apertures, and yes, this and other factors somewhat fuzz their boundaries. But for normal use at an arm's length, rectangles are a very good approximate model for some display types that were in use while VGA was still a thing games used, one that a skilled artist can exploit in an entirely different way than they'd exploit the characteristics of NTSC/PAL displays or an RGB display with a coarser dot pitch.
  - kragen 6y ago
    A rectangle is a pretty reasonable approximation of a fuzzy point. It's an even more reasonable approximation of two fuzzy parallel dashes.
astrange 6y ago
I agree Math Blasters looked pretty rectangular. Are modern pixel artists inspired by PC games, though? I think they mostly played Nintendo games in emulation.

kragen 6y ago

VGA mode 13h PC graphics on a relatively crisp computer CRT display still drew each of its 200 "scan lines" as a double fuzzy line, and a single pixel on it as a double fuzzy dot (more or less an isotropic Gaussian, despite what Smith says) or a double fuzzy dash. Superimposed on these fuzzy patterns you had the shadow-mask circular colored dots or the Trinitron colored rectangles. Sometimes you would also get echos or "ghosting", if there was an impedance mismatch or two in the analog signal path. Later graphics cards in the 01990s would sometimes emulate CGA 320×200 and mode 13h by using more scan lines, giving pixels that looked more like little squares. Or, well, rectangles.

boomlinde 6y ago
> VGA mode 13h PC graphics on a relatively crisp computer CRT display still drew each of its 200 "scan lines" as a double fuzzy line, and a single pixel on it as a double fuzzy dot (more or less an isotropic Gaussian, despite what Smith says) or a double fuzzy dash. Superimposed on these fuzzy patterns you had the shadow-mask circular colored dots or the Trinitron colored rectangles. Now we're veering back into technical details of its implementation. The question is, is "squares" (well, yes, rectangles) a useful model of what is visible to the viewer? To that end, the fact that each line was traced as twice on the display is trivial. We have to concern ourselves with the visible result to answer that question I have a decent CRT VGA monitor here, connected to a VGA card in an old PC, and at lower resolutions the pixels are crisp and hard. The monitors are made for reading at a higher resolution after all. If I press my face at the screen I can see that yes, the pixels appear on a much more fine-grained grid of apertures, and yes, this and other factors somewhat fuzz their boundaries. But for normal use at an arm's length, rectangles are a very good approximate model for some display types that were in use while VGA was still a thing games used, one that a skilled artist can exploit in an entirely different way than they'd exploit the characteristics of NTSC/PAL displays or an RGB display with a coarser dot pitch.
- kragen 6y ago
  A rectangle is a pretty reasonable approximation of a fuzzy point. It's an even more reasonable approximation of two fuzzy parallel dashes.

astrange 6y ago

I agree Math Blasters looked pretty rectangular. Are modern pixel artists inspired by PC games, though? I think they mostly played Nintendo games in emulation.