Came across this video. So do y’all agree?
I didn’t ever think I would be able to play old console games emulated on my computer with simulated CRT shaders, but now we can… so who knows what we will have in the future.
1 Like
Yea, like I have a CRT on the folder in the hallway. However, I’m not trying to lift that up just to not have the modern commodities (I.E. Fantranslated roms and that A.I. translation with RA). It’s good enough for me NOT to see pixels.
I don’t think it needs to match. Even a basic CRT shader is good enough for me.
2 Likes
there are such shaders but they become eye straining after a while, just like real crts
I think shaders stand on their own merits and are not just meant to replace the other.
It’s like guitar amp modeling or drum sampling when convolution got better in digital audio. Some bands like Meshuggah embraced it and changed their production techniques. Others like QOTSA sticked to recording all analog in their studio sessions.
1 Like
I don’t see any specific criticism like i loaded “x” shader and it doesn’t do “a” and “b”. Just loaded some basic shaders in “scanline” folder and a lottes variant probably and then some general stuff like “it doesn’t emulate phosphor decay” and things like that. Having a CRT i can see pixel shape is recreated well in lanczos shaders (crt-geom and others), and that isn’t a rule, some other CRTs will have blurrier or sharper edges pixels.
What can’t be emulated perfectly is mask, except some fine mask in PVM style that a 1080p or 1440p is enough more or less. Scanline beam dynamics are well recreated too. What he sees in CRT and missing on a shader is more LIGHT that is spreaded in all screen even in CRT subpixel level.