Quote:
Originally Posted by guest.r
Well, the "cutoff" (which produced black gaps)was hard coded into the shader, i changed that with the new version. 
Unfortunately i can't access a trinitron crt, so i have to relly on user feedback...
I added a new parameter and considerately reduced the default value (now 0.1, previously 0.45). |
Thanks, that last tweak on mask 5 is a bulls eye
Just a question on alternate scanlines 2.0. I have to use sort of "inverted" alternate scanline 1 values for "scanline bright" and "scanline dark" to calibrate to real trinitron.
So where with "alternate scanlines 1" I would for example use:
-scanline dark 1.2
-scanline bright 0.75
now with alternate scanlines 2 I need to sort of ïnvert" the bright and dark values to get to accurate results:
-scanline dark 0.7
-scanline bright 1.15
otherwise the bright areas get way way overblown (remember on real trinitron scanlines remain even visible for a tiny part in very bright / white areas).
I'm fine with setting these values for alternate scanlines 2, because the result is pretty much perfect, but it sort of feels inconsistent with the settings for alternate scanlines 1.0 (always been used to setting the scanline dark to a higher figure than bright..). Just thought I'd mention it.
Some last meticulous detail comparison...
In the image below a comparison is made between some details from the high resolution shot from Lomax from real Trinitron (as attached in
this post) and the current shader.
In the top half of the image is real trinitron, in the bottom half the shader
upscaled from 1080p source (4K would have been nice, but alas..). Two -minor- things stand out:
- With alternate scanlines 2.0 the fall-off grade from very bright dots to something adjacent less bright is less gradual than with real trinitron. With the shader this makes some highlights to have a very slightly "artificial" standout.
- In some parts of the image the "fall-off curve" for scanline height seems to follow a non-linear function, i.e. more concave , making some parts more elliptical, compared to the more linear (less "rounded" ?) fall-off in the shader.
Especially with regards to point 1 is there maybe some room to improve, or possibly even a configurable fall-off grade?
Just to be clear, I understand this is really about small details, so I'm totally fine if you leave everything as it is
.
Please click for large and then click larger picture again for true size:
