.png)
Is it weird that I prefer the look of pixel art as it's displayed on modern monitors as opposed to CRTs?
To clarify, I mean i like sprites looking more clean and blocky as opposed to blurred on an older display.
I mean I love CRT art but people also overstate how much CRT art was "made for that"; lots of quality CRTs had very sharp pixels and the artists were drawing for those sharp pixels. Plenty of older games look great with sharp pixels and were really meant to be played that way. Not everything was Vagrant Story.
wait, how were they meant to be played with sharp pixels? what kind of display would allow that?
Quality CRTs? I used to have a Sony Trinitron that was sharper than my current LCD
wouldn't those still have scanlines and aperture grilles, though? i thought those were the primary reasons for the pixel bloom effect
Yeah but when the bloom requires a microscope to detect it can be less distortion than just the refraction on any given LCD panel. We are talking $$$ devices but lots of people who Did Computers had such things
maybe i don't understand how the technology works. i thought the bloom would be similar to other CRTs because they still have the same number of scanlines and have a bigger variation in luminance compared to LCDs?
edit to add: even if the designers had expert-level displays, the games would still be meant to be displayed on consumer-level electronics, right?
I mean it comes down to a number of factors, mostly down to the precision of manufacture of various components. Quality of phosphor, length of the tube and so controllable precision of the electron gun, quality of manufacturing of the aperture grille (shadow masks really did just kinda have an upper limit on quality), timing precision, etc.
Actually, noting the length of the tube is really important, it's why everyone talks about how massive these fucking things were. You could get TVs and CRTs that weren't like monstrously deep but they were either more expensive for the same quality or lower overall picture quality.
