3 ms·

I have an eMac with a CRT screen, and it seems to be missing nearly all of the artifacts people associate with a CRT screen. I'm guessing vintage TVs were worse

I have an eMac with a CRT screen, and it seems to be missing nearly all of the artifacts people associate with a CRT screen. I'm guessing vintage TVs were worse than the eMac.

thaeli 4y ago
Some of it was NTSC and composite video's limited bandwidth smearing stuff together, but quite a bit of it was the less capable beam shaping and less precise phosphor masks on TV-grade CRTs. Basically, yes, vintage TVs were terrible and made up for it by being very blurry.
Sakos 4y ago
Most pseudo-CRT effects just suck and have little to nothing in common with actual CRT's from back then. There are great CRT shaders though, some of which are shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cAhQl0TSdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cAhQl0TSdc (CRT lottes is fairly decent)
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The appearance of a high quality CRT cannot be accurately reproduced on most commonly available flatscreens. Specifically, most flatscreens have much more motion blur; this becomes apparent when you drag a window back and forth across the screen and try to track the text in that window with your eyes. The text all blurs. Then, try moving the screen itself back and forth the same way, again tracking the text with your eyes. Even though the screen is sideways back and forth, your eyes should be able to track the text which remains crisp.
crazygringo 4y ago
Computer monitors were much higher quality than TV's (and even higher if a Trinitron CRT, as many Mac monitors used), and a 2002 CRT was higher quality than a 1985 one. The CRT shaders seem to really try to recreate what it looked like when an NES was running on an average department store TV in 1985. And to my eye and memory, the strength of the effect is pretty spot-on -- Super Mario Bros was definitely quite blurry and color-fringed when I played it back then.

I have an eMac with a CRT screen, and it seems to be missing nearly all of the artifacts people associate with a CRT screen. I'm guessing vintage TVs were worse than the eMac.

thaeli 4y ago

Some of it was NTSC and composite video's limited bandwidth smearing stuff together, but quite a bit of it was the less capable beam shaping and less precise phosphor masks on TV-grade CRTs. Basically, yes, vintage TVs were terrible and made up for it by being very blurry.

Sakos 4y ago

Most pseudo-CRT effects just suck and have little to nothing in common with actual CRT's from back then. There are great CRT shaders though, some of which are shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cAhQl0TSdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cAhQl0TSdc (CRT lottes is fairly decent)

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The appearance of a high quality CRT cannot be accurately reproduced on most commonly available flatscreens. Specifically, most flatscreens have much more motion blur; this becomes apparent when you drag a window back and forth across the screen and try to track the text in that window with your eyes. The text all blurs. Then, try moving the screen itself back and forth the same way, again tracking the text with your eyes. Even though the screen is sideways back and forth, your eyes should be able to track the text which remains crisp.

crazygringo 4y ago

Computer monitors were much higher quality than TV's (and even higher if a Trinitron CRT, as many Mac monitors used), and a 2002 CRT was higher quality than a 1985 one. The CRT shaders seem to really try to recreate what it looked like when an NES was running on an average department store TV in 1985. And to my eye and memory, the strength of the effect is pretty spot-on -- Super Mario Bros was definitely quite blurry and color-fringed when I played it back then.