As said, game developers understood exactly what a CRT could do, and how that could help them work around CPU limitations of the day. Raster timing was a keystone in generating game graphics. The tube in a way was a mini-GPU.
10 years ago Walmart was selling some 16x9 CRT TV sets that had (SD) component inputs. Those would have been great… Have several 42" & 50" Panasonic plasma displays (720p) recently put into storage… should haul one out and see how an old Atari 2600 looks.
I really hope that we make a move back to decent aspect ratio before CRTs die off properly. I’ve got an old 1600x1200 Trinitron that I’ve been using as my monitor for years, I’m hoping to get my hands on one of the holy grails at once point: 2650x1920, but they go for like $500. I just like the look and the feel of them, plus I play a lot of old games and trying to play old games at their native resolutions looks like shit on LCDs.
If someone made a decent 4:3 modern display I might be convinced though.
Good. CRTs look like crap. LCDs are cheaper, consume less power, have less heavy metals, and look way better. But I know, I know, you just can’t replicate how those arcade cabinets looked! Same way you just have to listen to vinyl, or use tubes instead of solid state. Nostalgia is pretty dumb, y’all.
Generate the new frame as a weighted average of the prior frame and the new raw pixel buffer. Finding the right weight could be a pain (and the weight might depend on the active color, but I expect that effect is too minor to need simulation), but it should work well enough & only require one extra stored buffer and one extra pass.
It is amusing to see how much work is put into making perfect rectilinear displays look like curvy old bumpy glitchy displays. We don’t like the old CRT displays because they are good, we like them because they are familiar.
If you really like big old CRTs, then I invite you to carry one a block down the street. You’ll change your mind.
Not a gamer, so I can’t speak to that. But I still prefer CRT TVs. I haven’t yet found a flat-panel television that looks good from more than a 30-degree angle. I can’t always sit directly in front of the TV, and with a CRT it barely matters.
Reminds me of when I carried my first Macintosh up the hill from UC Berkeley‘s campus store to international house that thing was heavy and was in a big white box with handles. Little gray screen & one floppy disk drive; had to swap the OS disks back and forth back and forth to load it. …
Um, no. It’s nice that the position of a given pixel is always absolutely correct, but you’re gonna have to go to OLED before the picture looks comparable.
That’s going to depend very, very much on what metrics you compare them by. What screens you’re comparing. And what your definition of “better” is.
Refresh rate were often higher on CRTs. But that’s not a clean comparison as the high refresh was primarily about overcoming shortcoming with the screens themselves (flicker), interlaced video, And non digital signals. So you weren’t actually often pushing a signal at those refresh rate, or even the refresh rate being used (which caused problems of its own). While we’re seeing plenty of flat panels with refresh rates up to 240hz. Where those refresh rates are actually multiples of the frame rate of the signal. And variable refresh rates that side step some quality issues.
CRTs were at least initially better at color reproduction. We used to use calibrated true color monitors in video/film work to make sure the color correction was right. And there was similar lingering of CRTs in graphic design and imaging work. Those disappeared when ips panels became a thing. And plasma and oled have pushed that even further. All three of which provide rich blacks, even if the CRTs can still get closer to true black.
Flat panels are generally higher resolution. Compatible with progressive signals. Tend to have fewer glare issues, especially with matte screens. Display text more clearly. Among other benefits.
You may remember them looking better back in the day. And for certain signals that were designed for them that may still be true. But they don’t neccisarily get along with modern signals too well. I can’t tell you how awful the crt tvs we’ve got around look displaying modern SD broadcast TV or other video signals. Unreadable text. Smeared colors and blurry lines. The color reproduction is terrible. It’s better with my dad old, expensive trinitron than in the bargain tvs. But it’s still awful. Throw an old console or VHS tape in? Looks much better (though not like back in the day, everything in the setup has seen wear and tear).
Even when there’s a clear metric by which CRTs are technically better. Its largely no practical and may not even be applicable. I’d say the bulk of commonly available flat panels do indeed look better than their CRT equivalents. It’s not really sensible to compare a specialist or very good crt screen to a cheap, bulk tn panel. Just like its not sensible to compare a top of the line oled monitor to a cheap off Brand crt TV. And there’s a reason why people have moved on, even in the professional and specialised fields where advantages might be applicable. There’s a reason the niche uses almost always have to do with working with very specific inputs that were very specificly designed to use CRTs quirks for very specific purpose.
