Comment by weinzierl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by weinzierl | Hacker News Reader

> Evidently, even some retro game enthusiasts want to get rid of pixels so badly that they would rather have a computer smear the art like runny makeup than appreciate the pixel art for what it is. A few years back, the Hebrew University and Microsoft set out to “depixelize” pixel art through a new anti-aliasing(pixel-smoothing) algorithm. I don't care what you have to do, just GET RID OF THOSE SQUARES!

> The hand-placement of the squares is precisely what makes this kind of art valuable. If anyone besides artists should appreciate that, it’s retro game enthusiasts. When even they are splintering on this issue, I think it’s time to face the chiptunes.

What the younger generations that didn't experience the heyday of ultra low-res CRT displays don't understand is that graphics wasn't perceived as blocky so much. The displays were usually so mushy that everything looked kind of smooth. It was more like an pointillistic painting observed from a far distance than what is known as pixel art today. Of course the LCD of the game-boy is a different story - and probably one source where this misconception comes from - but arcade and home computer era was not very pixely.

This. A pixel is a point sample, not a tiny square - even in pixel art. That's why "upscaling" pixel art even to seemingly ludicrous extents is in fact quite appropriate. If you interpolate with a Gaussian kernel, it will yield something very much like what CRT's display, but in a purely digital interpolation you can do a lot better than that. A Lanczos-based resampling gives you a 'watercolor'-like effect that optimally accounts for every single pixel in the original image, while keeping the upsampled image smooth with no "pixelation" whatsoever. (Pixel-art specific algorithms are appropriate to images or sprites with a small color palette, where it is desirable to keep this constraint and generate sharp boundaries between differently-colored areas. Even then, the point is basically to keep things smooth while optimally accounting for what's in the original image.)

Scaling filters like 2xSal look godawful to me (and seem to hide detail), but a bit of blur and scanlines looks great. Makes sense that the type of distortion that the art was made for would be the best for scaling it to me.

That may have been true on the average American CRT receiving its signal via RF or composite, but a high quality RGB CRT is very clear. Here is a random example: https://i.imgur.com/qVkhCpH.png

Sure, at home basically nobody had nice RGB monitors, but arcades did. If an arcade monitor was in good condition and well maintained, it delivered a clear, and quite pixelated, picture.

In Europe almost every TV had SCART (also caller EURO) connector with RGB input since eighties. My first 386 PC used TV connected over RGB to VGA card with VGATV.COM TRS loaded to reprogram CRTC for 15KHz.

Today you can use CRT Emudriver or Soft-15kHz to do this on modern hardware.

The vast majority of SCART-connected devices used composite video, not RGB.

I used a very nice B&O CRT TV for my retro games for a long time, and there was a definite difference between composite, s-video and RGB. Composite is how I remember all games looking when I was a kid. RGB is a huge step up in quality, that most people didn't have, because all pack-in cables were composite only.

You've made this point a few times in this thread and I don't agree with it.

My rebuttal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21912698

> In Europe almost every TV had SCART (also caller EURO) connector with RGB input since eighties.

Yes, in the eighties SCART was common, at least our family TV had a SCART connector back then. Still, from what I remember, most kids just used the cinch cable to connect the output of the integrated RF modulator to the antenna input of the TV. Why? Because that cable came with the home computer and you didn't have to bother your parents to buy you an extra cable. Another reason is that the coax cable was long and flexible compared to the SCART cables I have in mind. At least that is what I remember from the era of 8-bit home computers - like Commodore 64 and Amstrad CPC - way before the 80386.

> At least that is what I remember from the era of 8-bit home computers - like Commodore 64 and Amstrad CPC - way before the 80386.

It was also common for micro computers to have RGB monitors as well. In fact the Amstrad CPC example you give specifically shipped with either a green or colour monitor and the DIN cable you'd connect from the CPC is actually a pre-VGA RGB cable. The BBC Micro also used RGB as well (with the same DIN layout at the CPC -- though Amstrad were inspired by the BBC Micro so it shouldn't come as a huge surprise the connections are the same).

You're right that Commodore were often hooked up via RF but those computers did also support RGB albeit not every owner invested in a monitor. The only 8 bit micros I can think of which only supported RF was Sinclair machines (eg ZX Spectrum) but those were intentionally cheap devices aimed at the bottom of the market.

C-64 was sadly S-video only. Amiga was RGB tho.

Exactly. My Philips CM8833 Mk2 + Amiga combo was super sharp.

See also: waterfalls in Sonic 2. In basically all modern ports and in most emulators, the default appearance is aliased pixels.

On my CRT in the 90s it was beautifully translucent with no hint of aliasing.

The Earthworm Jim level load screen is a good example, too.

This video talks and shows in great detail exactly those things. https://youtu.be/x0weL5XDpPs

>The displays were usually so mushy that everything looked kind of smooth

Only in countries lacking a standardized high image quality connector like SCART.

I remember my old SNES with a SCART cable looking extremely sharp and clear on our 25" Philips CRT TV.

Even on SCART you could not see the pixels at the regular distance where a TV would be.

I bet you underestimate how many children played Mario scooted up close to the tv.

I still associate my NES with the smell of ozone.

I bet your overestimate anecdotal evidence for an actual phenomenon :-)

Unless you bought an actual RGB cable for your SNES, it was running composite video.

Shipping with lowest common denominator was always the case, but in countries with SCART being standard RGB cables were also a standard upgrade offered by every place selling consoles.

In the majority of third-party cables, those were just SCART cables with only the composite video hooked up, not actual RGB cables. You had to go for the official cable.

And the vast majority of people hooked up the console with the included cables and never gave it any more thought. You're looking at the past through rose-colored console nerd glasses. And not all TVs with SCART were RGB capable.

Im looking at the past from the perspective of someone doing computer/console accessories retail in ~2003-5. Additional free RGB cable, memory card or second pad were the difference between average and good console shops. I still have my ps1 and xbox stashed away with RGB SCART cables.

You've made this point in a few places but composite is still sharp enough to see the pixels on your average screen for your average 8 and 16bit console game.

Also home computers have had RGB since the 8 bit era. Whether it's a BBC Micro, Amstrad CPC 464 (all released early 80s, all used RGB monitors and RGB cables) through to the IBM PCs with VGA cables. In fact anti-aliasing techniques for 3D games started out in the CRT era because even back then computer monitors were sharp enough to show a jagged line along the polygon edge.

I do agree that LCDs are sharper (and also worse for scaling) then CRTs and that RGB is sharper than composite; but it's still a fallacy to say the average 80s and 90s gamer didn't see pixels because they did.

Source: I used to write games on said machines as well as still being an avid retro gamer and collector (as it happens most of my consoles are still hooked up via composite to the same TVs that I've owned since the 90s. I'm more than happy to share photos if you want)

You're arguing against a point that I did not make.

Pixels are absolutely visible when using a composite connection, however they are distinctly more fuzzy than if you use S-video or RGB or component video. The horizontal bleed is especially noticeable, which was deliberately used for transparency effects on consoles like the Sega Megadrive/Genesis, which couldn't do proper transparency in hardware.

I had several consoles hooked up to my composite/S-video/RGB capable CRT TV (in 240p, too), including a RetroPi hooked up via a HDMI->composite/S-video converter (before I got a proper SCART RGB module for my Pi3). The difference when switching the converter box from composite to S-video was profound, a very clear difference in sharpness and color quality. The difference from S-video to RGB was much smaller, but still noticeable.

These days I mostly play games on emulators on my PC, I don't really have room for a CRT TV anymore. I absolutely abhor all the pixel art scaling algorithms, I much prefer a gentle CRT-emulating fuzz (similar to a good RGB signal) and subtle scanlines, which seems to best replicate what the games look like on the actual CRT.

I was also there for the console boom from the C64 all the way up to the Xbox360, at which point I mostly lost interest. I have a background partially in electronics, including CRT TVs, and I used to work at a TV manufacturer during the CRT to LCD transition. So I'd like to think my credentials are in order.

Very true. Even as late on as a Sega Saturn (which did support alpha blending but not between the two video chipsets) stipple blending was used (ie the fg bg fg bg etc effect you described) with the assumption that most TV sets would bleed the two layers.

Could you give me examples of the best scanline filters you have found? across the different emulators you use if possible =)

I'm always looking for some subtle scanline filters, but most emulators seem to have way overdone scanlines for my liking.

It was still nearly not as sharp and clear as an LCD.

Yes, on a CRT the pixels were smoothed a bit, depending on the quality of the CRT and your cable connection, even TVs were available with analog RGB input. But with a good TV you always would also see the pixels.

Of course modern, pure digital LCD screens show a rather cruel sharpness and in general are much larger than the typical CRT (desktop screens were 12-15" back then, TVs less than 30").

That is why the best emulators try to strike a middle ground, where pixels are just blurred to the extend to which good CRTs would doo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com