I find another case that still has the problem or https://files.catbox.moe/qzu24k.mp4
1 Like
New Release Version (2025-11-16-r1):
Notable changes:
- Preserve Fonts options is out of Beta (NTSC), should work better, works very nice with preserving Checkerboard dithering, use lower values with Bar dithering situations.
- New NTSC filtering option added, which doesn’t affect Chroma mod. frequency. Can be useful.
Download link:
https://mega.nz/file/lsYVgYKA#qhBViGxer3SPzIfYlU6MvNw5orJgOykA95uFG_w-yWU
12 Likes
I ended up using ntsc_rainbow1 = “3.000000” which dont flickered like 1 and 2
1 Like
A good choice for some resolutions indeed. I deliberately added more options, since 1&2 are heuristics based.
I would also like to explain a bit, how the new Font Preserving functionality is to be tweaked. Some logic is contrast based and most games work nicely with parameter setting like 0.30. It’s “safe” to play Sonic Waterfalls like with below 0.36, since both waterfall and fonts are both “non-checkerboards”.
Checkerboard patterns are quite safe not to be re-dithered…
Overall, I’m quite happy with the results, still I didn’t make it a default setting, since it’s a bit resource consuming with higher resolutions. Also NTSC Adaptive Sharpness is needed to be active.
Normal:
Font Preservation:
11 Likes
mode 4
mode 5
mode 3
I think it also worth adding mode 5 with mode 3 motion, since mode 5 is kinda do nice anti-aliasing in PS1 games
2 Likes
Greetings @Guest.r Thanks for your hard work and dedication as always but there seems to be some sort of regression in the latest version. I think I was able to finally get the “m” resolved, while having Merge fields off and with NTSC Artifacts down to about 0.80 there is no more flickering/dot crawl in dithered areas (or fonts on fonts which might resemble vertical line dithering patterns. I could be wrong but I think I was able to crank Artifacts all the way up to 1.30 to 1.40 with very little noticeable temporal artifacts for a relatively sharper and clearer rendition of that infamous “m”.
Now, with the latest version, that seems to have fallen apart. At settings which give me a proper " m" with full blending of dithering, (Artifacts 0.80), There is some strange dot flickering occurring mosty near the edges of the very narrow parts of the scanlines that is very noticeable on white fonts. I could remember it clearly on the right and left hand edges of the “e” in the same Turbo Duo startup screen for example.
What is it about that screen that makes it so difficult to render clearly, while at the same time having all checkerboard dithering blended perfectly without having artifacts in the blended areas?
I appreciate that the diagonal artifacts are now gone though but there still seems to be some challenges with useability of the NTSC Artifacting and Fringing features.
To be more specific, after trying many combinations of settings including your recommendations, I ended up with situations where there is a horizontal “bridge/branch” being formed near the base of the legs of the “m”. Turning Artifacts and Preserve Fonts up either very high makes it disappear with the font appearing clear but with massive flickering/noise/dot crawl in blended dithered areas, while turning those settings down result in the “m” becoming less vertically defined and clear but flickering and dithering being blended with less flickering.
Maybe I haven’t tried every setting combination possible but I’ve almost given up. I know the potential for more font clarity and sharpness might be there in the newer implementation but it seems to be at great cost, at least to the PC-Engine.
In the previous version, I think I managed to find a tiny sweetspot where the “m” was legible enough and not flickering, all of the dithering was blended with no noticeable flickering and I could dial the Artifacts up slightly more for some nice chroma NTSC Artifacts.
The new implementation seems a bit more ambitious in its use of heuristics and other detection algorithms but there’s some cost in the temporal realm and introduction of strange never before seen artifacts flickering dot artifacts that seem a bit out of place.
The more conservative approach in the Beta seemed to work better for my corner case but of course you would know what’s the best course of action going forward.
I can easily revert my presets to use the previous version if necessary.
Sorry for the lack of new screenshots but I’ve been extremely busy lately so I couldn’t compile a proper post but I did want to get this off of my chest but not before giving it the type of testing and experimenting it deserved.
Great idea and concept though. You devs come up with some amazing solutions to problems which benefit us so much.
Thanks again and keep up the great work as usual.
2 Likes
It’s a bit hard to test these situations without a preset and most importantly - a low resolution screenshot (gpu screenshots disabled) of a relevant scene.
Posting a low res original image and ntsc parameter values would help a lot!
2 Likes
Yeah, my apologies. I know a picture paints a thousand words, I just really haven’t had the time to properly document the setup and the issue, hence the thousand words. I’m also aware that I use a non-standard CRT- Guest-CRT-Advanced-NTSC shader stack so it’s quite possible that I’m experiencing things which may not be applicable to the main, official iteration.
1 Like
Aperture grille masks can look a bit strange sometimes when you reduce the mask strength:
It’s a bit weird how there’s a horizontal glow between phosphors while the scanline gaps are solid.
However, we can somewhat mitigate this by manipulating Magic Glow to add a vertical phosphor glow that extends through the scanline gaps:
This is an improvement. Notice how the green phosphors glow in a cross-shaped way, vertically and horizontally. It’s more natural than the previous shot, but it’s still a bit artificial.
I wonder if there is a way to have a circular/radial glow around individual phosphors? This would be more natural/organic.
1 Like
You can try negative halation also, for something, that would look radial with normal TVL setups the difference between mask first->glow and glow first->mask is in very small margins.
I believe @kokoko3k has made such a glow, you guys sure tried it out a bit.
3 Likes
Small radius, negative halation has been the way to go for me from day one. I profoundly love what it does with the brightest parts of the scene. Bloomy light cutting through deep scanlines… it’s gorgeous.
I exaggerated it here for dramatic effect, but you get the idea. Even the downscaled mame menu font looks cool!
2 Likes
I’m not sure how to achieve the “radial” look with it, mind posting settings?
1 Like
This might look “as intended” with very low TVL (<200), even with 4k. Just add some halation, use “fine bloom sampling” and keep the mask strength. Visual differences between implementation are very small.
1 Like
That’s a low TVL even for me! 
300-400 is about as low as I’ll go.
1 Like
@Nesguy why of course!
gamma_out = "2.200000"
h_sharp = "4.500000"
s_sharp = "1.000000"
SIZEHB = "2.000000"
SIGMA_HB = "1.000000"
SIZEVB = "2.000000"
SIGMA_VB = "1.000000"
warpX = "0.040000"
warpY = "0.050000"
c_shape = "0.200000"
csize = "0.020000"
bsize1 = "0.050000"
glow = "-0.200000"
bloom = "-0.200000"
mask_bloom = "-0.200000"
halation = "-0.300000"
hmask1 = "-0.000000"
brightboost = "3.000000"
brightboost1 = "2.500000"
gsl = "2.000000"
scanline1 = "20.000000"
beam_min = "1.500000"
beam_max = "1.100000"
scans = "0.600000"
shadowMask = "9.000000"
maskstr = "0.600000"
maskboost = "3.000000"
mask_layout = "1.000000"
smoothmask = "0.100000"
mclip = "0.150000"
maskmid = "1.000000"
The effect here will be again pretty heavy and a bit too obvious, for demonstration purposes. I suggest starting with the sampling parameter and the effect amount slider (try positive and negative, to see how they affect the image). When you get the idea of what those do, go for radius/sigma/mask amount etc.
Halation and glow are definitely one of the most difficult things to get right, since they interact with absolutely everything else. You get your gamma/brightness/sharpness/etc (and it’s a long etc) right, proceed to change glow/halation and byebye your earlier settings. It’s not a problem with the shader itself, of course. Just physics. I’m also quite sure that it was pretty hard for @guest.r to implement such a thorough, multipass halation/bloom/glow system. But it paid off, there’s nothing quite like it afaik. Amazing stuff.
3 Likes
Well, it didn’t quite help me achieve what I was going for, but looks nice regardless. Thanks for sharing 
I think I may need to revisit the kokoko3k method. Maybe some additional vertical/horizontal deconvergence could also help?
This is why I tend to avoid it, and prefer relying on an extra bright display 
1 Like
Oh and speaking of halation @guest.r, this is something that I’ve been wanting to ask you about for a whlle.
Starting with nearest neighbour Y axis and interpolated/smoother X axis, I want the effect to be quite visible without affecting sharpness too much, so I configure halation with a very small X radius (for mask glow) and a larger Y radius (for glowy light bleeding into adjacent scanlines). The logic here is basically that the halation/glow radius ought to be in line with the fact that the mask is much smaller than the scanlines, and that X axis sharpness is already being attacked by interpolation.
What do think about this approach? I really like the results, but is it sound/realistic?
Yes I understand, but when you use halation the way I do (negative, small radius), overall brightness is not affected by it as much. The effect is supercool, and quite different from mere increases in brightness!
2 Likes
Don’t forget to add a very subtle amount of base black mask.
2 Likes
Even though it leaves something to be desired in extreme close-ups (wish there was a way to make it more “radial”), I’m liking this “Cross Glow” configuration at appropriate viewing distances. This will probably become a standard feature in my HDR1000 Local Dimming presets. Screenshot looks way darker than in-game, as usual.
2 Likes