The amazing difference between a 1084S and LCD screens...

[Anubis]

Last edited by DamienD; Today at 15:02. Reason: Reduced massive image sizes!!!

If that was reduced, how big are originals?

My fav game there at the end...

[iddqd]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

Like donnie wrote, there's no problem with non-interlaced screen modes (240p).

Slightly n00bish question, but what is the output of e.g. an Amiga 500 showing workbench, is that 240p?

[donnie]

Sorry for the image sizes.

I have mine set @640x256 high res pal, which probably is some form of 240p. Its flicker free. Same with pal super high res 1280x256.

If i set it to high res interlaced it flickers like mad.

[NorthWay]

Originally Posted by donnie

I tried to take some of my own pics with my ipad. ..

Those seemed a tad sharp and non-CRT to me. I would at least expect more "bloom"(? - the correct names for these effects are a nightmare...) on a CRT.

[idrougge]

256+ lines obviously isn't 240p.

[ImmortalA1000]

It's amazing how different even some Sony Trinitron models look to me. I had a mid 1980s Trinitron portable TV connected via RGB SCART and that was why I DETESTED dithered ST-port job graphics in games, you could see each individual pixel. The 1084SD (1084D with S-video input as a bonus) I got with my A2000 had terrible quality compared to the domestic TV I used on my A1000. Think they had Goldstar anti-glare CRT tubes not Phillips of some 1084S models. Colours were way too warm.

The first problem you will have with an LCD if not using RGB is it is going to be doing a flash conversion low quality digitised output of your composite video and these are very fast and dirty like over compressed motion-jpegs.

It's not just the scan lines, if you compare a 640x512 Amiga on a CRT TV via RGB SCART and the same image on a PC in 640x480 on a CRT Monitor of the same size....the Amiga image will look higher resolution subjectively too. I noticed this on Team 17's Arcade Pool interlace splash screen when I had a 14" TV and 14" SVGA monitor.

Sadly when I moved I had to leave behind my 36" Panasonic 100hz CRT which did a sterling job of de-interlacing the Amiga's RGB interlaced Workbench screen with simple but effective line doubling with onboard digitizer (you could pause the picture being received by the TV was a big giveaway) which is much better quality than the digitizer on my top of the line (for 2014) Panasonic 48" LCD.

Every Amiga game back then was designed to be viewed on a CRT which is why I keep one around. A good pixel artist knew which combination of pixels would overcome his palette limitation without you noticing it (well maybe not so much on RGB but composite for sure).

One of the best things about Amiga for me was the RGB video output, great bonus for SCART equipped TVs here in the EU. My plasma TV is great fun to play Lotus II on via SCART RGB, no scanlines but the colours are spot on for CRT lovers and it doesn't look blocky on such a huge screen all things considered, certainly not rectangular pixels of 65" LCDs.

[donnie]

Originally Posted by idrougge

256+ lines obviously isn't 240p.

288p then?

[Retro1234]

CRT do hurt your eyes after a while though

Also I've never thought the Commodore monitor much better than a good CRT TV not like PC monitors.

[viddi]

Got used to some blurry LCD scrolling effects,
but always use scanline emulation.

The Indivision is fine for me.

[roondar]

I absolutely love the look of Amiga graphics over a period accurate CRT monitor like the CM8833 or 1084S, scanlines included. It's also crystal clear to me that the graphics were designed with the limitations of that technology in mind.

So here's my totally biased opinion:

Looking at retro graphics on any form of modern LCD without tricks such as scanlines or CRT emulation is an outright horrible experience, it makes all the defects of the old graphics stand out: the extremely low (outright terrible) resolution, the lack of colour depth and even the low temporal resolution all become very visible. Not only that, but CRT 'pixels' are not actually square and tend to blend together a bit, which means the graphics are rather distorted on an LCD compared to their original (and clearly intended) look. And that's not getting into the far lower contrast and brightness on most LCD screens or the blurry movement that these screens tends to create. For me, it just about ruins the whole experience.

It gets far worse when you couple this with the much bigger displays we use these days. Now you're displaying an extremely low-res image that you're already distorting compared to the original intentions of the artist and making it super big. IMHO, it's all a giant mess.

The best thing I've ever done for my retro hobby was to get a small CRT (the CM8833 in my case). It made all the games look much better. Of course, this is just my opinion - yours might differ and I fully respect that. At any rate, I think it's clear that I never got the love for displaying old games on massive LCD's.

[Tigerskunk]

I don't have an 1084 monitor anymore, but sometimes I plug my Amiga or C64 into my old Watson TV bought in 1987.
Weirdly enough, I vastly prefer that TVs output to that of the Commodore monitor.
The 1084 looks too dark and muddled to me.

[donnie]

Roondar:

Nailed it.

[donnie]

I have been trying to get an commodore/15hz monitor. But they are damn expensive. Especially when you consider how fragile they are suppose to be.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by donnie

288p then?

Exactly.

[Retro-Nerd]

288p is PAL. 240p is NTSC of course.

[NovaCoder]

Digital Foundry recently did a great video running a modern PC game with all the effects maxed out including real-time ray tracing but on a Sony CRT using a lower resolution to keep the speed up to 60 FPS and apparently it looked amazing compared to using a LCD panel.

For retro gaming it's never going to look that great trying to stretch a 320x240 image to fill at 4K 3840 x 2160 screen....there just isn't enough data available for the image processor to work with.

I would love to get a CRT but they are so friggin huge!

Specifically for Amiga gaming, the best LCD I found was a Samsung 4:3 panel, that didn't look too bad.

[ Show youtube player ]

[nobody]

240p content looks just fine on the small psp 272 or so vertical pixels screen. Coz there is no need to multiply same data 3/4 times to fill the screen.

[Tigerskunk]

Playing Amiga games on my huge Samsung TV is like the most horrible experience ever.
It looks really horrible there.

On my Benq though, it's quite acceptable.

Using WinUAE on my Macbooks glassy screen looks rather good.
I prefer that to CRTs, to be honest.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by NovaCoder

I would love to get a CRT but they are so friggin huge!

I bought a 29" Sony Wega for $1, thinking it was a bargain. The component inputs work perfectly in PAL non-interlace (AKA 288p) unlike my LCD TV.

Only problem is it didn't come with a stand, and it's too heavy to lift!

[iddqd]

Originally Posted by NovaCoder

Digital Foundry recently did a great video running a modern PC game with all the effects maxed out including real-time ray tracing but on a Sony CRT using a lower resolution to keep the speed up to 60 FPS and apparently it looked amazing compared to using a LCD panel.

That was a very interesting video, here:
[ Show youtube player ]