.

[tritosine2k]

^ lol , left is considerably smoother , as expected because the flat panel has maximum MTF (modulation transfer function) in both directions. Plus CRT motion quality will show up if there are animation phases correctly done which is a given for high quality sprites as there cannot even be framedrops. Not sure how are you supposed to animate pixel art or even light it.

 

[Bad Sector]

^ lol , left is considerably smoother

Yes, it is smoother - especially because my camera isn't perfect either, you'll notice that the right image is also not pixel perfect. However the point is that the pixels are clearly visible, rectangular and the two images look pretty much the same (the colors have a bit more contrast in the right image but that is 100% due to the photo - i accidentally took it at a slight horizontal angle that i noticed only later, but it does show what i wanted to show and they look the same in person), which has been what i am writing here all along.

Also this is a photo taken up close, you certainly wont sit at the same distance as the distance i used when taking those photos and from a greater distance the differences are practically invisible.

 

[Morenatsu.]

So where's this magical VGA monitor that can display low resolutions as is without shitting its pants? Can you show it to me?

Are you asking me? Anyway, there's plenty. Google "15kHz VGA monitor". Amiga and Arcade communities maintain lists of them. Here's one such list https://www.amiga.net.au/15KHz Monitors.html.

A nice one I have my eye on at the moment is the Sony GVM-2020.

If your screen doesn't support low-res and you don't want to get a new one I guess what you could do is just blank out every other line. That's what I heard some people do i.e. they just output a standard 640 by 480 signal, by 2x scaling with nearest neighbor on their emulator or game settings or whatever, and then run it through a mini-SLG. Not sure if it works with a "native" VGA 13h line doubled 320 by 400 signal (it might), but as discussed if you're running a game where this is the native video mode (i.e. not an Amiga port or emulated console or arcade game), it was probably intended to have chunky, almost square, visible pixels.

I've gotten my monitor to display down to 320x224 successfully, but at a high refresh rate. At worst I'll maybe only have to suffer some some underscanning in 320x200, which is fine. It's just that it seems to me that standard VGA monitors are intended to have higher minimum timings for whatever reason, hence the double-scanning. And anyway, it's not wrong if that's the way it was intended it be (except in CGA and EGA modes, of course).

 

[Nutmeg]

*ALL* CRTs looked like that nor all people who played games on CRTs played games looking like that or associate CRTs with looking like that and *especially* it doesn't mean that the TV CRTs are how CRT graphics are "supposed" to look - which is exactly what i am trying all this time to say that is wrong.

I never said *all*. I conceded from the beginning that VGA 13h native pixel art is different.

But this is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of pixel art, especially from the CRT era. Majority of pixel art took advantage of CRTs' advanced image reproduction capabilities.

However the point is that the pixels are clearly visible, rectangular and the two images look pretty much the same

Loll they are not "pretty much the same". The right is clearly a pixel grid, and the left is clearly a line of lit up phosphors.

especially because my camera isn't perfect either

Yes your photo is kind of crappy and compressed and has artefacts of various kinds and you can't even see the CRT mask but even so, you can see some important characteristics of a CRT mainly the line width variation where brighter colors are wider and darker colors thinner. Effect isn't super obvious, but it's there (easiest to see in the transition from dark brown to brown to almost white in the lines scanning out the hair).

TV CRTs took advantage of how these CRTs displayed their images

All CRTs display the images in fundamentally the same way. For example, the line width variation comes from how the electron beam interacts with the phosphors and this is common to CRT tech as a whole. The way phosphor lights are hidden underneath a mask is just how opaque materials work, even though the exact shape of the mask varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. There is nothing special about a "TV CRT".

Most of the things you attributed before to "TV CRTs" e.g. color bleeding are actually various composite signal artifacts, but nothing to do with the display itself. You need to learn to differentiate what is due to the signal, and what is due to the display.

but it does show what i wanted to show and they look the same in person), which has been what i am writing here all along.

CRTs and LCDs do not look the same in person. You're crazy.

 

[Nutmeg]

I've gotten my monitor to display down to 320x224 successfully

Nice.

And anyway, it's not wrong if that's the way it was intended it be (except in CGA and EGA modes, of course).

Depends what game you're playing. If it's not a pixel art game (e.g. a FPS) then it's most "correct" to just play it in the highest resolution you can. If it's a pixel art game but intended for higher resolutions (city builders, RTS) then it's most "correct" to just play it in the higher resolution.

If you're emulating console or arcade games then it is very wrong to do nearest neighbor scaling, (but it's ok to be wrong if you subjectively prefer it).

Finally, even if it's a DOS game with low-res pixel art that uses VGA 13h, but it's a port of an Amiga game (or most other machines, really) and the assets weren't changed, then it's "wrong" too.

So this just leaves games native to VGA 13h with pixel art. I can't actually think of too many except like, Apogee titles.

 

[Bad Sector]

Right, so even when presented with an actual image that shows that pixel art looks the same (ignoring small inconsistencies due to being photos) even at 1:1 resolution (ie. no pixel doubling or whatever), you stick to intentionally missing the point. Yes, CRTs and LCDs work differently, nobody claimed otherwise and if you do a 100000% zoom you'll see the differences, but you wont actually use a monitor with your nose touching the screen. I mean, ok, you may, but i'm certain you'll be a tiny minority and most people wont do that.

Anyway, i wont bother further, i wrote what i had to write and others can make up their own mind - if despite all the examples you still think that pixel art on a PC monitor CRT looks the same as a TV CRT or so different to a flat panel monitor that the latter produces different results like shown in the TV CRT vs flat panel comparison posted earlier, then feel free to be as stubborn as you want, hopefully it is only you who will remain wrong on the topic.

 

[Nutmeg]

The data grid the artist defines is 2D rectangular pixels, have you ever seen a pixel artist actually work? Or even a program made for pixel art? Or actually, ignore the "pixel art" part, have you actually seen *ANY* 2D bitmap image editing program? Do you think the zoom in feature is nearest neighbour out of some hardware limitation? These are all intentional because artists (and especially pixel artists) *do* treat these as 2D rectangular pixels.

Yes cause you're manipulating pixel by pixel and it's easier to be able to see the date grid you're working with as a grid. But in the end you zoom out and look at the final result as it appears on the screen(s) you are targeting. Right?

nobody claimed otherwise and if you do a 100000% zoom you'll see the differences, but you wont actually use a monitor with your nose touching the screen.

Yeah at sufficiently high resolutions both will look the same from a reasonable viewing distance when showing a static image. I mean you're 100% right no one is going to see the difference in a 1600 by 1200 image shown on a 19 inch CRT and 19 inch LCD from 2 metres away (except like color differences).

It's how they display low res content on a large screen at a close(ish) viewing distance where the difference is massive. 240p on a 24" CRT looks very, very different from 240p on a 24" LCD from an arm length's away.

 

[JamesDixon]

The data grid the artist defines is 2D rectangular pixels, have you ever seen a pixel artist actually work? Or even a program made for pixel art? Or actually, ignore the "pixel art" part, have you actually seen *ANY* 2D bitmap image editing program? Do you think the zoom in feature is nearest neighbour out of some hardware limitation? These are all intentional because artists (and especially pixel artists) *do* treat these as 2D rectangular pixels.

Yes cause you're manipulating pixel by pixel and it's easier to be able to see the date grid you're working with as a grid. But in the end you zoom out and look at the final result as it appears on the screen(s) you are targeting. Right?

nobody claimed otherwise and if you do a 100000% zoom you'll see the differences, but you wont actually use a monitor with your nose touching the screen.

Yeah at sufficiently high resolutions both will look the same from a reasonable viewing distance when showing a static image. I mean you're 100% right no one is going to see the difference in a 1600 by 1200 image shown on a 19 inch CRT and 19 inch LCD from 2 metres away (except like color differences).

It's how they display low res content on a large screen at a close(ish) viewing distance where the difference is massive. 240p on a 24" CRT looks very, very different from 240p on a 24" LCD from an arm length's away.

I'm of the opinion that you're a retard and rode the short bus to school since you ignore actual facts about CRTs. Not only did I post up how TV and computer CRTs worked you ignored it because you're a fucking commie princess that can't be wrong.

 

[Bad Sector]

It's how they display low res content on a large screen at a close(ish) viewing distance where the difference is massive. 240p on a 24" CRT looks very, very different from 240p on a 24" LCD from an arm length's away.

I don't know about 24" monitor CRT since i never seen one, used one nor have any, however with the 15"-19" CRTs that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people actually had back when CRTs were mainstream, the difference is minor and not really more than the difference you'd see between different CRT models and even flat panel models. I do have a 40something Sony TV CRT and the image is considerably less sharp than any monitor CRT i have (and not because it is damaged or anything, i got that TV brand new back when they were still sold but didn't end up using it much, it is almost of pristine quality and as a CRT TV it has great image quality - it just doesn't make sense to compare it with monitor CRTs).

 

[JamesDixon]

It's how they display low res content on a large screen at a close(ish) viewing distance where the difference is massive. 240p on a 24" CRT looks very, very different from 240p on a 24" LCD from an arm length's away.

I don't know about 24" monitor CRT since i never seen one, used one nor have any, however with the 15"-19" CRTs that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people actually had back when CRTs were mainstream, the difference is minor and not really more than the difference you'd see between different CRT models and even flat panel models. I do have a 40something Sony TV CRT and the image is considerably less sharp than any monitor CRT i have (and not because it is damaged or anything, i got that TV brand new back when they were still sold but didn't end up using it much, it is almost of pristine quality and as a CRT TV it has great image quality - it just doesn't make sense to compare it with monitor CRTs).

He's ignoring two factors in this when it comes to computer CRTs. They are resolution and dot pitch. The standard resolution for monitors made in the 1990s was 1280x1024. That's double the resolution of a TV CRT which is 640x480. That means it had double pixel density on the computer CRT. Dot pitch was anywhere between 3-4 times higher on the computer CRTs then TV CRTs. That's why computer monitors back in the day had sharper and clearer images. It also meant that they handled 24 bit color palette with half tones much better then the TV CRT. 24bit color palette is 16.7 million colors.

 

[Morenatsu.]

There are no such things as horizontal pixels or bit-depth, they don't exist.

 

[tritosine2k]

It's a crime scene , one of them ate pixel art , hence the counterfeit stuff of 2000's :

 

[JamesDixon]

You may have heard the term “CRT,” and you might know that it has something to do with TVs, monitors, video games, or computers, but what does “CRT” actually mean? We’ll explain.


What Is a CRT?
In the context of electronics, CRT stands for “cathode ray tube.” It’s a technical term for the glass picture tube inside of a vintage TV set or computer monitor—the kind used before flat-screen displays became common. CRTs are electronic image display devices that have the advantage of showing information dynamically without the need for moving parts.

When someone says “a CRT,” they might also be referring to a TV set or monitor that uses a CRT instead of the actual cathode ray tube itself.

Why “cathode ray?” Before the discovery of the electron, scientists called streams of electrons “cathode rays,” because these mysterious rays were first seen being emitted by a cathode (a negatively charged electrode), casting shadows inside a vacuum tube. In 1897, a German engineer named Karl Ferdinand Braun added a phosphorescent screen and magnetic deflection control to create the first cathode ray tube, which he used to display the waveform of AC current like an oscilloscope.

Here's a good article that explains the operation of CRTs and how they relate to TV and computer versions plus the history of how the art was done.

https://www.howtogeek.com/722863/what-is-a-crt-and-why-dont-we-use-them-anymore/

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

I'm a little surprised we don't see more games using sprites given how audiences have come back around on them. I can definitely see why bigger developers moved away from 2D pixel art given how it was taken as being lesser than 3D in the 2000s. But by the start of the 2010s 2D was coming back, audiences seemed more receptive to it (even when it looked like shit) than just a few years before. Developers however are seemingly completely unaware of this shift that happened given their preference for 3D, even if it looks like total fucking shit, over 2D. Like, take something like Bard's Tale 4: Barrows Deep. Niche game. Looks like total fucking shit. Has zero mass appeal. The idea of using 3D for everything seems to be to get some kind of mainstream traction...but that did happen. But, if they'd made that same game, and instead of the shit looking 3D models had some nice pixel art enemies and party members, it probably would have had people posting pictures of it on Twitter, and in YouTube videos on new sprite based games, and threads talking about new games with pixel art.

Same is true of a lot of these kinds of games. That Wasteland remake from last year, the upcoming Disciples and the recent King's Bounty, Might and Magic X, at least the last two Heroes games...these games would have all had more eyes on them if they'd had pixel art, (or hand drawn art) at least if they had good pixel art anyways. Would that translate to more sales? I don't know. But it probably would've been cheaper, and it definitely would've had more people talking about them which could've lead to more sales.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

 

[tritosine2k]

I'm a little surprised we don't see more games using sprites given how audiences have come back around on them. I can definitely see why bigger developers moved away from 2D pixel art given how it was taken as being lesser than 3D in the 2000s. But by the start of the 2010s 2D was coming back, audiences seemed more receptive to it (even when it looked like shit) than just a few years before. Developers however are seemingly completely unaware of this shift that happened given their preference for 3D, even if it looks like total fucking shit, over 2D. Like, take something like Bard's Tale 4: Barrows Deep. Niche game. Looks like total fucking shit. Has zero mass appeal. The idea of using 3D for everything seems to be to get some kind of mainstream traction...but that did happen. But, if they'd made that same game, and instead of the shit looking 3D models had some nice pixel art enemies and party members, it probably would have had people posting pictures of it on Twitter, and in YouTube videos on new sprite based games, and threads talking about new games with pixel art.

Same is true of a lot of these kinds of games. That Wasteland remake from last year, the upcoming Disciples and the recent King's Bounty, Might and Magic X, at least the last two Heroes games...these games would have all had more eyes on them if they'd had pixel art, (or hand drawn art) at least if they had good pixel art anyways. Would that translate to more sales? I don't know. But it probably would've been cheaper, and it definitely would've had more people talking about them which could've lead to more sales.

at least if they had good pixel art anyways.

= work

you just can't help scrappy idiots once they figure it out they can replace work with hype outright. See crypto, VR, etc. etc.







...

 

[Rincewind]

I'm a little surprised we don't see more games using sprites given how audiences have come back around on them. I can definitely see why bigger developers moved away from 2D pixel art given how it was taken as being lesser than 3D in the 2000s. But by the start of the 2010s 2D was coming back, audiences seemed more receptive to it (even when it looked like shit) than just a few years before. Developers however are seemingly completely unaware of this shift that happened given their preference for 3D, even if it looks like total fucking shit, over 2D. Like, take something like Bard's Tale 4: Barrows Deep. Niche game. Looks like total fucking shit. Has zero mass appeal. The idea of using 3D for everything seems to be to get some kind of mainstream traction...but that did happen. But, if they'd made that same game, and instead of the shit looking 3D models had some nice pixel art enemies and party members, it probably would have had people posting pictures of it on Twitter, and in YouTube videos on new sprite based games, and threads talking about new games with pixel art.

Same is true of a lot of these kinds of games. That Wasteland remake from last year, the upcoming Disciples and the recent King's Bounty, Might and Magic X, at least the last two Heroes games...these games would have all had more eyes on them if they'd had pixel art, (or hand drawn art) at least if they had good pixel art anyways. Would that translate to more sales? I don't know. But it probably would've been cheaper, and it definitely would've had more people talking about them which could've lead to more sales.

Pretty much my thoughts on modern games, it's so boring when almost everybody is on the "threedee"and "realism" bandwagon. Realistic 3D games are nice too once in a while (e.g. ELEX), but more abstract gaming experiences are almost extinct. HoMM 2 and 3 look just awesome with 2x integer scaling, and when I replayed EoB I last year I was quite surprised how good the graphics looked (with 3x integer scaling). I definitely wasn't like, "ok, it could be a great game, only if the gfx was better". The visuals were just fine.

 

[InSight]

"Pixel Art"
Pixel :
is formed from the words of Pix=Pic(picture) and "el" the start of element. it is a unit of measurement, a basis/part/block of a picture.
Art :
an alternative/older word for skill or craft, a measure/category/scale of ability.
early 13c., "skill as a result of learning or practice," from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft," from PIE *ar(ə)-ti- (source also of Sanskrit rtih "manner, mode;" Greek artizein "to prepare"), suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." Etymologically akin to Latin arma "weapons." https://www.etymonline.com/

"Pixel Art" a term that was coined after the advent of 3d graphic, to categorized/refer to what seems an older/lesser/limited graphic visuals. Yet on the very basic of their words there is no core/basic/fundamental difference for they both (3d and 2d graphic) digital and drawn from pixel placement, they are both consist of blocks. The difference is in scale of size & color, one can take a 3d game such as one among "Call of Duty" and lower its resolution down to 480x320(or similar) and behold the pixel are made apparent, they are revealed. Another example would be changing quality to lowest in abode Flash will show squares/pixels. Even one's vision is based on pixel if compared to eye-cones, the difference is that the human eye has millions of them, a much higher resolution.
On Both accounts of 3d & "Pixel Art" are hand by hand a manual input using a digital screen. as if the "artist" as not designed, as not drawn, as not placed the instruction on which the computer generates/create/copies without fail one form simply allows better, more efficient ways ,more impact, more rate of data transfer towered one's brain. Back then it was the relatively advanced form and if the developers/artist of these times were here today given equal circumstances(times is not an issue), they would have used the most advance tools that allowed the better graphics which is the 3d graphics that can allow flexibility in resolution and color yet the same can not be said vice versa even with a most advance AI for a single block for a face does not allow much details to work with.
Both 2d and 3d are made by human thus handmade/manual and are shown on digital screen(which is flat, shows 2d image), using pixel as units, yet the former and lesser form is the one refereed to "Pixel Art", the latter is excluded while both fit the category/term.

Biologically, as one who measured his eye sight, when playing an old game such Zeus(city building game), one can notice the deterioration of the sight, your vision becomes blurry. This does not happen often with more detailed/advanced graphics despite the similar long length of play time. This can be explained on the saying "use it or lose", lower graphics (color &pixel scale) cannot make full use of the entire eye spectrum, they do not provide the detail and color to stimulate all the cones, that can result in strain one can assume some eye-cones are overused and other left to wither. This makes playing an older games an issue for these they eye sight is a concern for good games are engaging for hours. Having poor graphics("Pixel Art") on a good game only worsen/enlarge/deepen their ills for they are bad on the sight.

The word Art in general is often misused to praise, the issue that they often praise the lower/lesser/backward rather then the higher/greater/forward. yet "Pixel Art" is not without merit for the lack of details simulate the brain to fill the gaps and for these lacking in drawing skills a fixed unit makes it harder to "screw up",show deformity on such rigidness. In fast paced games such as "Children of Morta" the action can distract from their faults. The fact remains that the best 3d will suppress the best 2d and thus require more skill from the crater/developer/creator thus deserve the better praise/elevation/mention with the drawback of needing a higher/better/advance hardware.
On the basis/scale of image detail/info per time provided; "Pixel Art" is the equivalent of caveman drawing, a level/rank above letters for image.

 

[Grauken]

The difference is in scale of size & color, one can take a 3d game such as one among "Call of Duty" and lower its resolution down to 480x320(or similar) and behold the pixel are made apparent, they are revealed.

In all your useless drivel this one stuck out as fundamentally misunderstanding 3d art, which is made up of polygons, basically math objects with continuous contours. If you see pixels it's because either they have bitmaps slathered on them or you have gone so low resolution that your display device has reached the lower technical limit of what it can show, but the 3d objects themselves are not made from pixels.

 

[InSight]

In all your useless drivel this one stuck out as fundamentally misunderstanding 3d art, which is made up of polygons, basically math objects with continuous contours. If you see pixels it's because either they have bitmaps slathered on them or you have gone so low resolution that your display device has reached the lower technical limit of what it can show, but the 3d objects themselves are not made from pixels.

While 3d object themselves may/are not made from pixels they are in the end represented as such on your computer screen, (as in "the end of road/destination") which shows digital image, which (according to my knowledge) is measured in pixels.

And what is the unit of measurement of each part of the lines that forms the polygon is? Do designers/artists/creators not use the digital image of the screen they work with which consist of pixel to form and manipulate them or they do so all strictly mathematically(in their head)?

 

[Grauken]

And what is the unit of measurement of each part of the lines that forms the polygon is?

Americans usually do it in feet, Europeans in kilometers

Do designers/artists/creators not use the digital image of the screen they work with which consist of pixel to form and manipulate them or they do so all strictly mathematically(in their head)?

They usually build a real world model of millions of tiny polygons, then scan it

 

[Rincewind]

"Pixel Art" is the equivalent of caveman drawing, a level/rank above letters for image.

 

[tritosine2k]

Here's the thing vs. caveman art. VISIBLE pixels "compress" vertical resolution ,hence result in layering of depth inherently so at sometime you end up as flat as possible. Here the distinction becomes apparent vs. line art that can operate on shades for depth. That's why something like CRT is vital for some of this stuff getting thrown around ( which I'd group into line art then)

also obvious pixel art is simply a play on line art IMHO
...

 

[tritosine2k]

hopw roewur ne x 2

yeah right, tell em:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...th_Perception_in_Stereo_and_Non-stereo_Images

Effects of Image Resolution on Depth Perception in Stereo and Non-stereo Images

• February 1997

Authors:

Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro

• Södertörn University

Lars Kjelldahl

• KTH Royal Institute of Technology

 

[Rincewind]

hopw roewur ne x 2

yeah right, tell em:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...th_Perception_in_Stereo_and_Non-stereo_Images

Effects of Image Resolution on Depth Perception in Stereo and Non-stereo Images

• February 1997

Authors:

Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro

• Södertörn University

Lars Kjelldahl

• KTH Royal Institute of Technology

What has depth perception in head-mounted displays has anything to do with the simple enjoyment of pixel art from the 80s/90s?

Also, you don't need to be a signal processing expert to decide whether you like something or not... You can make the same points about aliasing, distortion, "incorrect" DSP calculations in old (or even newer) synths and sound modules, but in reality no-one fucking cares. If anything, many of those "errors" and imprefections give character to the sound. 100% mathemathical correctness has its place when you want accurate reproduction, but in art that doesn't always matter (and I'd say, more often it doesn't at all).