[quote=98735]Ok, so I’m no expert on the video output, but I’ve been trying the overscan view on the 240p test suite:
http://junkerhq.net/xrgb/index.php/240p_test_suite#Grid
Sticking with SNES as the example, you can get it here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/testsuite240p/files/SNES_SFC/?
Here is a screenshot of the settings from you both, both of which seem to show pixels in the overscan area – personally I like that, as there is valid imagery there, it certainly doesnt bother me. But thats a personal thing.
Again, I’m not sure about the validity of the test (Plus my TV has a slightly odd setup due to the 768 pixels and Elgato setup), but its an interesting one to run through.
patl settings
patrickm settings
[/quote]
The console displayed pixels in the overscan area but that doesn’t mean they were meant to be displayed, and overscan was almost never displayed on a real crt.
At 4x scale you are dedicating a huge amount of screen space to letterboxing and overscan- particularly on SNES and Genesis which displayed black bars in part of the overscan area. A real CRT never showed letterboxing (well, PAL ones did), and the overscan was supposed to be cropped. This is particularly apparent on some NES games- Check out Super Mario Bros 3 or Castlevania 1 for good examples. Or look at Contra or Adventure Island for examples that displayed junk pixels in the overscan area.
As soon as I get home I’ll test the config, but it looks good.
The main point I wish to get across is the importance of integer scale in avoiding pixel artifacts and getting an accurate picture to what a crt could actually produce. Some people might like seeing all of the overscan for some reason and so there’s 4x scale for that. Almost every system I’ve tried looks more accurate to what a CRT would do in 5x scale.
Also, the only impact aspect ratio has on the pixel art is the degree to which it stretches the pixels, and I’ve shown via direct evidence and logical argument that a 6×5 scaled image and a 5×4 image are accurate to what a crt could produce.
Floob- if you like the rgb look, remember that it was much sharper and showed the pixels in more detail than a standard composite ntsc TV. Rgb was the gold standard for gaming in the crt days and the reason why they’re still sought after. The closest you can get to the sharp rgb look is using nearest neighbor filtering with the scanline overlay.
If you like the look of a more consumer crt using rgb, I created the aperture grill overlay specifically for that- it’s suppsed to replicate the aperture grill of a Sony Trinitron TV. The only problem is the weird bug that causes the diagonal line when using it.
I think if the aperture grill overlay problem could be fixed, then my settings plus the aperture grill will get you very, very close to the sharp RGB look on a Sony TV with the right opacity and screen settings.
Of course, the shaders look even better IMO but they aren’t exactly realistic, either- Hyllian for example replicates some aspects of a composite sinal which improve the picture while ignoring aspects that degrade it.
Overall, when it comes to real signals on actual technology, nothing beats the RGB look on a trinitron type monitor. This is also what is replicated by an xrgb mini device.
Also, the bilinear filter blurs the pixel in all directions, which is why it causes problems with scanline overlays- but, some might not notice these issues and prefer the smoother image even though it introduces artifacts.
Some people might want to replicate the look of the poor quality CRTs they grew up with in order to achieve a sense of nostalgia, but gamers back in the days of CRTs almost universally preferred the sharp look of rgb arcade monitors.