The Guest-Advanced, 100% mask strength thread

I think that’s a side effect of the camera’s dynamic range rather than an actual behavior. That is, I believe it’s just bloom/flare-out in the photo.


Well, maybe the crt brightness is leaking over the mask, if that’s possible.


You could probably mimic the effect by modifying the mask strength by the inverse of the luminance, but this monkeys with the black level in a way that I don’t love:

OTOH, this also happens with luma-linked beam width, but you and guest have handled that admirably, so maybe this isn’t that big of a deal :slight_smile:


We need to make sure we’re comparing apples to apples, I think.

For the comparison to be useful, we need a photo of the aperture grille CRT with the individual phosphors in-focus (ie., able to see the RGB strips). Same thing with the shader, it should be a photo of the actual LCD screen (preferably a 4K one), with the emulated phosphors in-focus. Check out the Megatron shader thread for some excellent side-by-side comparisons.


Crt displays imo had different chromatics/lighting properties. A good example is that you need at least 2x more nits with a flat display combined with a full mask strengts shader to properly ‘emulate’ a 1x nits value crt tv display. The images above might be taken with about the same lighting strength.


are you saying you need (for example) 200 nits + full mask strength to equal a 100 nit CRT? That sounds right for the 2px masks, which result in a 50% reduction in brightness. For the 3px masks I think you need 3x nits, and for slotmask it’s even worse.


I started experimenting with -50 mask value with crt-guest-advanced and I am happy with the results. Try and see if this is something that interests you. While using HDR it looks super bright at 200 paper white (800 peak white)


I wrote/meant you need at least a ‘2x nits’ modern display, but you are quite right about the increasing necessarity for brightness.


I’m not sure about these nit comparisons as a CRT is a pulse display and a LCD is a sample and hold. Therefore one has a very intense pulse of nits then a steep fall off and the other is constantly spitting out a stream of photons at a relatively steady rate. They’re very different graphs.

Sure you can average out the pulse display but I’m not sure our brains interpret it like that. As in I think that intense pulse is being interpreted as many more nits in total than it actually is spread out over a longer period of time - with the peak lower.

Thats in the temporal dimension alone then take into account the spatial dimension differences.

From my limited testing with a HDR600 monitor it gets reasonably close in brightness to a 2730 PVM. Certainly not quite as bright but I think a modern QD-OLED or LCD will surpass it with 100% mask and a 4px mask. Whether the colorimeters agrees with that over the whole screen is a different matter.

What it won’t do is mimic the pulse though - which is really the next step and is started to being taken with backlight strobing as I’ve said (bored you with :joy:) elsewhere.