|
To me pure pixels look awful, and it's in no way a true representation of both what artist's had intended and what was really going on on the screen. It's a bit like viewing RAW photos from camera instead of jpeg or switching off all the gfx options in a modern game.
On the other hand, photographing CRT live displays is on of the trickiest things ever, and that's why the quality of photos in mags varies greatly. I sort of study this for one of my projects, and it's clear that some of their camera guys tried their best, and some just utilised the "publish whatever" technique. When the photo is taken properly it can look as awesome as the real thing, but this requires a lot of skill AND luck. So, no wonder so many photos in the mags look so-so at best.
The latter-style images could be from frame grabbers, or maybe even VGA monitors (their image is more stable, hasn't got as many artifacts and is easier to photograph), re-touched in postprocess or the mixture of all these. The results vary, some look okay, some terrible...in any case I'd still prefer the original CRT shot anyway.
|