Lookin Good

[Anonymous No.10565820]

Show me your shitty shaders

[Anonymous No.10565838]

[Anonymous No.10566152]

raw for comparison

(1/3)

[Anonymous No.10566156]

The custom royale I've been using for games with pre-rendered backgrounds. As usual with royale, gotta play a bit further away from the screen because of the thick scanlines and mask. But boy, it does magic with pre-rendered backgrounds. Perhaps a bit too much contrast/saturation going on, I have to detune that a bit.

[Anonymous No.10566158]

And this is a config of guest I've made to make the mask a bit more noticeable, royale style, while keeping the image smooth and the scanlines softer. It works well for backgrounds too, not to the extend of the previous royale config, but it's nice for playing closer to the screen.

[Anonymous No.10566167]

Another example using the previous guest config, with traditional 2D art this time

[Anonymous No.10566170]

And this is a guest config I've made to mimick the stock megabezel presets, with punchier colors. It's super sharp so I don't like using it much for most cases, but it works well for arcade games and games with simpler graphics like Super Mario World

[Anonymous No.10566268]

[Anonymous No.10566298]

>>10566167
>>10566170
You seem to have too low of a vertical resolution for that kind of mask. Are you using interger scaling? Guest shaders don't really need that. If you use a full 1080p, you can set a cgwg or basic Triniton mask with very few issues.

[Anonymous No.10566303]

>>10566298
>Are you using interger scaling?
I do, I like it that way unless I'm sitting quite far from the screen.

[Anonymous No.10566318]

>>10566268
based bomberman fan
I have no nostalgia for a filter like that, yet still looks better than filterless

[Anonymous No.10566326]

[Anonymous No.10566340]

>>10565820
That's how it looks on my 15 inch snoy tube

[Anonymous No.10566375]

Having a blast

[Anonymous No.10566439]

Not a shader, but curious if anyone will recognize what it is.

[Anonymous No.10566469]

[Dev No.10566473]

>>10566375
Just like I intended!

[Anonymous No.10566695]

>>10565820
Why does the way other people play video games cause you a panic attack ?

[Anonymous No.10566704]

>>10566375
looking great

[Anonymous No.10566713]

>>10566439
Lunar 2!

[Anonymous No.10566737]

>>10566170
What game even is that? I like the art style. I bet it looks good even before being engoodened.

[Anonymous No.10566743]

>>10566737
Sunset Riders

[Anonymous No.10566785]

[Anonymous No.10566806]

>>10566785
It's a low res version of this official art. His mouth is closed

[Anonymous No.10566813]

>>10566806
I know, I'm just taking the piss out of that infamous CRTfag twitter screencap

[Anonymous No.10566816]

>>10566785
teef

[Anonymous No.10566876]

>>10566375
i have no problem with people playing like this. as long as they don't cheat aka use savestates

[Anonymous No.10566893]

>>10566375
>"I don't want to play without a filter, I hate seeing big pixels, it's ugly"
>"Why would I waste screen space with black bars on both sides? The bigger the picture the better"

[Anonymous No.10566932]

>>10566785
Trouble?

[Anonymous No.10567002]

>>10566713
It is indeed Lunar 2, the display was the question. Playing it again for the first time in over 28 years and it's even better than I remember

[Anonymous No.10567017]

>>10567002
Your resolution is royally fucked though.

[Anonymous No.10567113]

>>10567017
Indeed it is! But why?

[Anonymous No.10567163]

I like Mario.

[Anonymous No.10567348]

>>10567113
You're playing on a chink handheld with a shit resolution screen so it scales badly??

[Anonymous No.10567458]

>>10567113
Try using a scaling that isn't nearest neighbor.

[Anonymous No.10567462]

>>10567163
stop memeing lad

[Anonymous No.10567470]

>>10566932

pure shit

[Anonymous No.10567475]

>>10567462
You're meming as well. The gb pocket doesn't have a backlight.

[Anonymous No.10567482]

>>10567475
I modded it. U jelly?

[Anonymous No.10567485]

>>10567470
Elaborate your response, please.

[Anonymous No.10567549]

>>10567462
>Meme tuber basedjak Redditor IPS mod on the far right.
Absolutely fucking soulless

[Anonymous No.10567556]

>>10567549
It's based on the actual Game Boy Light (that didn't see the light in the west... heh) but for some reason they didn't bother making a fitting border for it

[Anonymous No.10567579]

>>10567348
Mot far off! That's just the shitty screen of a PSP

[Anonymous No.10567589]

>>10567348
You're not far off! That's just the shitty display of an old PSP. But at hand length it still looks pretty decent.

[Anonymous No.10567590]

>>10567556
>>10567549
lmao is it soulful now that it's the exact same thing except official from Nintendo?

[Anonymous No.10567608]

>>10567589
I wouldn't be able to tolerate that. I'd either play with a smaller but perfect image, or use a shader like this to eliminate the shimmering and inconsistent pixel sizes
https://github.com/zadpos/Sharp-Shimmerless-Shader

[Anonymous No.10567618]

>>10567589
Please, finish the puzzle. You're so close...

[Anonymous No.10567619]

>>10567608
Yeah it doesn't bother me at all. Even not being great the game looks better than it ever did on my shitty tube tv in 1996

[Anonymous No.10567631]

>>10567618
Lol yeah we'll probably finish it tomorrow

[Anonymous No.10567892]

[Anonymous No.10567914]

>>10567892
wot shader

[Anonymous No.10567925]

>>10567914
https://pastebin.com/iGRyVwFS

you'll have to disable scanlines manually to make it look like the alien trilogy screencap

[Anonymous No.10568058]

One parameter I rarely see used in Guest's shaders is Raster Bloom Overscan. It replicates that thing CRTs did where the brighter the image was, the more it overscanned the picture. This was most noticeable during screen transitions. I most vividly remember it in SMB3 whenever you beat a level and went back to the world map. It doesn't really serve a purpose for improving the image, but I still think it's neat Guest added such a feature.

[Anonymous No.10568064]

>>10566785

[Anonymous No.10568079]

>>10567462
Harlequin was too based for /emugen/.

[Anonymous No.10568148]

>>10568058
Oh fuck, I didn't know about that setting. I just tried it and it definitely unlocked a memory

[Anonymous No.10568176]

>>10568148
Oh yeah, people sleep on a lot of the features of Guest's shaders, which is understandable given there's so many. Another one I don't see used a lot in these threads is the Base Mask parameter, which draws faint phosphors on black, technically unlit areas of the screen, which is something you would also see on CRTs. Of course, enabling this lowers the contrast somewhat, but I like it anyway, though I set it around 0.03 so it's barely noticeable.

[Anonymous No.10568252]

>>10568176
One setting I like is Scanline Shape Bright Pixels. Basically lets you adjust how strong scanlines are but only over the brighter parts of the screen

[Anonymous No.10569243]

How are my GLOW BROS doing???

[Anonymous No.10569721]

>>10569243
I used to play like this but it makes most games look wonky

[Anonymous No.10569726]

>>10569243
Positively RADIANT

[Anonymous No.10569740]

>>10569726

[Anonymous No.10569752]

>>10569726
>>10569740
>same joke every thread
Someone will think it's funny one day, Samir.

[Anonymous No.10569762]

[Anonymous No.10569778]

>>10569243
>>10569726
I know that "glow" is kind of a joke in these kinds of threads, and I get it, but I distinctively recall in my childhood that CRTs had this "glow" to them, I might be remembering it wrong, but it's the way I remember them, so these shaders look cool for me, I adore "crtglow_gauss_ntsc_3phase.glslp" in particular for some reason, it's just a nice shader.

[Anonymous No.10569783]

>>10569752
I hope so, too. Perhaps he will stop posting when someone finally laughs.

[Anonymous No.10569789]

>>10569752
>>10569783
I mean, I use glow shaders, since I like the look of it, but even I think it's a funny recurring joke from these threads, what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.10569791]

>>10569778
They did have it, but it was generated from actual light, whereas on shaders it's basically a fancy type of blur. It can work, but it needs to be subtle. My favorite implementation is on Guest's shaders, particularly the Magic Glow version with some tweaks, but again, only a dash. To really replicate a CRT's glow rather than imitate, you need more actual brightness, which you can only really obtain on high-end HDR displays.

[Anonymous No.10569802]

>>10569789
>funny
Nope. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10569978]

>>10565820
What are all the systems that utilize there is shimmer? I know NES and Genesis do, would it be correct to use a shader like this for SNES?

[Anonymous No.10569998]

Is this too sharp?

[Anonymous No.10570001]

>>10569978
Anything that shipped with composite out and displayed content below 448p.

[Anonymous No.10570003]

How's this?

[Anonymous No.10570026]

>>10569789
>what's wrong with it?
Are you new here? No offense, I'll just explain. It's not rare to have "staple jokes" in threads here, but they're just an occasional one-liner or picture used to bump the thread when it's on the last page, a "trademarked" bump, not unlike a TV vignette/promo.

The "joke" in question doesn't serve this purpose. It's just someone who came up with a setup divided in three parts, thought it was way more funny than it really is, and keep posting it over and over, as if it was spontaneous and a classic "4chan moment". Think similar to a forced meme.

[Anonymous No.10570039]

>>10565820
So... how are my Smuberstep-Glow friends doing? If any of you even exist that is, I genuinely think I must be the only one who uses this thing, it's just a smudgy mess, I know, but for some reason I like the look of it and it's way less demanding than all of the other better shaders I've liked, my 10 year old laptop is a potato afterall, and this is quite an easy shader to run, I wonder where it came from.

[Anonymous No.10570049]

>>10569998
>>10570003
nigga just use your eyes and use what looks good to you

[Anonymous No.10570057]

>>10570039
Use easymode or guest advance fastest instead of punishing your eyes like that. Would rather play raw than using your shader.

[Anonymous No.10570097]

>>10570057
I do play and experiment with other shaders here and there, it's just the one I always default back, I don't know why, but nothing sticks with me for a long while, I've liked using Lottes-Fast and Glow-Gauss, and with LCD shaders when emulating the handheld consoles I like, but this is my main one.

[Anonymous No.10570486]

CRT TVs were meant to be at looked from a distance
you're all missing the point by applying those filters to a monitor sitting right in front of your face, unless the point is to willingly fry your eyeballs

[Anonymous No.10570496]

>>10565820
>soulless
>sovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvl

[Anonymous No.10570631]

>>10570486
What prevents people from backing up a couple of feet or simply scaling down the image (pic related)?

[Anonymous No.10570675]

>>10570631
Uhhh you just can't game away from your monitor because you just can't, ok? only we CRTchads can do that!

[Anonymous No.10570724]

Personally I sit a meter away from my laptop's 15 inch monitor. It looks fine and you don't notice the mask and scanlines that much (unless you go with royale), while also noticing a definite improvement over raw image at the same distance.

[Anonymous No.10570857]

I run no scanlines because I sit too close to my monitor all I have is my desk here, especially if im playing a fighting game I used keyboard so im ultra close

[Anonymous No.10570868]

>>10570631
Which shader is that? I remember asking directly to hunterk if there was something like this, and he said there wasn't.

[Anonymous No.10570916]

>>10570631
>simply scaling down the image

this is actually the best way to play retro console games, especially on a tiny handheld, because everything looks crisp but also hides jaggies because of the low resolution

[Anonymous No.10570985]

>>10570868
Megabezel, specifically the ADV-SCREEN-ONLY_NTSC variant. It's basically Guest Advanced except with even more parameters
I unironically play like this

[Anonymous No.10570989]

For me, it's full strength mask and scanlines with my monitor's backlight cranked all the way up, plus some distance.

[Anonymous No.10571027]

>>10570985
Megabezel uses a ton of extra shit that bogs down performance and too many useless parameters that overcomplicates tuning. It's main draw is the larp bezel and if you forgo that, then it's better to modify guest into resembling your favorite megabezel preset.

The only thing that isn't easy to properly mimic from megabezel is the screen distorsion effect, which is way more pronounced than what guest can achieve (that I know of, maybe some expert tuner can shed a light here)

[Anonymous No.10571041]

>>10570985
God fucking dammit! Megabezel of all places? That's quite unfortunate. RetroArch does need a standalone scaling shader. It could even be an update to the interesting image-adjustment-shader.

About your playing preferences, I see nothing wrong with it. Although I prefer using the full vertical resolution, I recognize modern screens (specially TVs) can get pretty tall, and older games may look weird being scaled that high.

[Anonymous No.10571053]

>>10571027
How do I add scaling options to Guest?

[Anonymous No.10571057]

>>10571027
This is my attempt at recreating megabezel's ADV (the normal sharp one, no gimmicks). I've tuned a little bit the colors to be punchier (as I said here >>10566170), other than that you'll notice that the biggest difference is the screen distortion effect which is more pronounced in MB (notice the image in the center part getting bigger while the corners get smaller), but other than that it copies almost all of the guest configurations embedded in MB's ADV

[Anonymous No.10571063]

>>10571057
My main issue is that I need the shader to have scaling parameters I want to be able to make the image as small as I want, or at least to x1

[Anonymous No.10571069]

>>10571063
what's wrong with using integer scaling?

Anyway, the option you're looking for is Raster Bloom %

[Anonymous No.10571074]

>>10571041
It's not as intuitive as what Mega Bezel uses with the whole calculating the preferred screen size based on your monitor's size, but you can still do something similar with standalone Guest. Just play with the Overscan X and Y settings until you get the image to a size that you find satisfying.

[Anonymous No.10571086]

>>10571074
Yes, overscan works too, silly me (I'm the guy from the post above you). I learn a new thing about parameters every week.

[Anonymous No.10571105]

>>10571074
Thanks! Curiously, the aforementioned image-adjustment does have a "scaling" parameter, called "zoom". However, it gets the final image and scales it *after* rendering time, like a regular framebuffer effect. The end result is a mess, similar to basic nearest-neighbour resizing done by any image editing app. Probably, that's why they just called the feature "zoom".

Anyway, RetroArch does have support for a shader to change internal scaling at will, it's just a matter of creating the right tool. I'm surprised something that useful wasn't even considered to this very day.

[Anonymous No.10571178]

>>10571069
>what's wrong with using integer scaling?
I have a 27 inch monitor less than 2 feet away from my face, I need to make the image smaller
>Raster Bloom %
That's not this at all. Raster bloom changes the image size depending on the brightness of the picture. Play the game with it for a bit and you'll see what I mean
>>10571074
>play with the Overscan X and Y settings
Finally, thank you

[Anonymous No.10571206]

>>10571105
I mean, when you think about it it becomes apparent. The only time people typically scale the image on a game like that is when you're playing on Windowed mode, where you resize the window with the mouse and the image scales accordingly, whereas in fullscreen, the image takes up the whole screen area, at least vertically. Later on we got integer scaling options both for windowed and fullscreen. There are ways to scale the image down by playing with the scalex and scaley parameters using a stock shader IIRC, but again, that'll be integer scaled. In any case, that's probably why such a shader hasn't been considered. I think it could be worthwhile, especially if it came with parameters for choosing the specific scaling algorithm (nearest, bilinear, sharp-bilinear, bicubic, xBR if you're feelin' like LOOKIN' GOOD, etc.)

[Anonymous No.10571321]

>>10571206
Interesting take. The usage I had in mind was for handheld games played on bigger screens. Using the display's full vertical resolution make they seem a little blown out. It'd be nice to scale them down a little. Current workaround is going to "Configuration > Video > Scaling" and do the trick there. Bad news is having to do that every single time. Theoretically, overrides could avoid that need, but they're so messy, and often screw up configs. It would be simpler if I could relegate that to shaders alone.

[Anonymous No.10572016]

[Anonymous No.10572018]

[Anonymous No.10572023]

[Anonymous No.10572024]

What are the best shaders for small screens/handhelds? I mean, small screens make scanlines look like garbage 90% of the time.

[Anonymous No.10572137]

>>10572024
I had decent results with zfast-crt (slang version). For handhelds, there isn't much point in going with complex shaders, even if the device can computationally handle it.

[Anonymous No.10572146]

>>10572016
>>10572018
>>10572023
first one is better

>>10572024
Use the specific ones for each handheld found in the handheld folder. Also reduce screensize (windowed or bigger borders) or sit further away from the screen.

[Anonymous No.10572153]

>>10572146
Really!? You can achieve that 1 visual using the most simple shaders. The 2 and 3 are guest's and royale's respectively.

[Anonymous No.10572156]

>>10572153
Well, more complex =/= necessarily better.

[Anonymous No.10572201]

>>10565820
Looks like when I used to re-record video tapes too much.

[Anonymous No.10572230]

>>10572153
Then which shader is pic #1?

[Anonymous No.10572231]

>>10572024
I'm >>10572137. Just for clarification, I was talking about playing on small screens (like chink handhelds or a smartphone). If you meant shader for handheld games, like Game Boy, then disregard my suggestion.

[Anonymous No.10572257]

>>10572016
>>10572018
>>10572023
third is best

[Anonymous No.10572268]

>>10572230
It's a tweaked version of crt-hyllian (horizontal filtering changed to blend the most, almost guassian) prepended with a favorite LUT.

[Anonymous No.10572273]

>>10572257
Royale has some amazing contrast treatment without washing out colors. It always gives the best white colors.

[Anonymous No.10572319]

[Anonymous No.10572434]

>>10572268
Thanks! I have never tried LUT shaders. Do you have a recommendation for a beginner?

[Anonymous No.10572486]

>>10572434
I'm not expert in LUTs, but inside "reshade" folder there's a preset called lut.slangp where you can easily edit to load any LUT you like.

[Anonymous No.10572825]

Where do people get those cool custom borders for megabezel instead of the boring default one?

[Anonymous No.10573284]

>>10572825
Probably the libretro forums. Most of the cool cutting-edge shit makes the rounds over there first.

[Anonymous No.10573476]

>>10565820
Why are the rocks gray? Romhack or just an odd palette choice?

[Anonymous No.10573480]

>>10566439
Which version?

[Anonymous No.10573482]

>>10566439
Ah yes, the sequel to the Ariel series

[Anonymous No.10573536]

>>10573476
The rocks in the Zelda 2 title screen have always been gray. Not sure what you mean

[Anonymous No.10573659]

[Anonymous No.10574247]

>>10573536
Always brown on my tv

[Anonymous No.10574364]

>>10570675
Do you seriously back away several feet from your monitor/desk every time you play vidya?

[Anonymous No.10574824]

>>10574364
My chair has wheels. You only need a little bit of distance. Sometimes just reclining myself on my back works, not even moving my feet.

[Anonymous No.10574917]

For me it's newpixie.crt

[Anonymous No.10575194]

>>10574917
I actually love this one, just a shame that I can only run it on my laptop, my phone's a bit too weak to run it without the FPS in it suffering somewhat, it's a shame.

[Anonymous No.10575342]

>>10571069
>what's wrong with using integer scaling?
Let the shader do it on a system by system basis, not Retroarch in general. Some systems don't need integer scaling.

[Anonymous No.10575351]

>>10574917
Too destructive, and who really used a shitty TV like this one? It looks broken. I mean, sure, if you found your first snes in a dumpster in Kabul I guess it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10575408]

>>10573480
Sega CD, the only version worth playing.

[Anonymous No.10575707]

>>10575351
You can minimise the visual artifacts effects tho

[Anonymous No.10575743]

>>10575351
It's one of those larp shaders made by zoomers for zoomers because of the vaporwave experience.

[Anonymous No.10575952]

>>10575743
>everything I don't like is zoomers zooming
I don't like it either, but come on man. The developer of that shader is literally a balding GenX-er:
https://github.com/mattiasgustavsson

[Anonymous No.10576043]

>>10575408
Ah ok that's why it took me a sec. Just started that version I've only played Complete all the way through

[Anonymous No.10577390]

lookin' good bros, we're faltering...

[Anonymous No.10577470]

>>10574917
I genuinely love this one, it reminds me of my childhood CRTs, or at least how they seemed back then to me, also has a sort of glow which will always be a plus for me... I recommend it.

>>10575952
He looks BASED. I do love his shader, so jokes aside he actually looks like he's a cool GenX-er.

[Anonymous No.10577517]

>>10576043
I despise the remake compared to the original. Once you get to Illusion Woods you'll find they are basically completely different games.

[Anonymous No.10577519]

>>10574917
Honestly this looks more like the tube TVs I played in the 80's and 90's than the vast majority of shaders people post in these threads.

[Anonymous No.10577560]

>>10577517
I've heard about the woods being hugely condensed/basically cut from a gameplay perspective, but it's there any huge difference in story/dialogue between the two? I've already noticed that the intro up to where you meet Lucia is different but it's hard to put my finger on because it's been so long

[Anonymous No.10577584]

>>10577390
o that looks nice
great game btw

[Anonymous No.10577668]

>>10577560
Story wise it's mostly the same. In fact you may or may not have noticed when you meet Ghaleon for the first time that when he shows up the audio is out of synch. It's because the animation is different but Working Designs didn't re-record anything so the old audio track doesn't line up with the new cutscene.

Most of the changes are gameplay related, much shorter, much easier dungeons and that sort of thing. Illusion Woods going from a massive undergound tunnel system connecting trees with hidden doors in them to a tiny hedge maze. Pretty much all dungeons were gimped like that. But there are also a lot of little things like doors in the original open with a little animation and Raculi when you get there has it's own look to it, where in the remake it's just a town layout with the graphics from other towns.

[Anonymous No.10577760]

[Anonymous No.10577824]

>>10570486
I dunno Anon, maybe for the TV itself because it was bigger, but when I was gaming on PC in the 90s, I sat about the same distance from my monitor as I do now.
What's the real difference between the monitor and the TV?

[Anonymous No.10578078]

>>10577824
>What's the real difference between the monitor and the TV?
Not him but TVs were much lower "resolution" and sharpness than computer monitors. My eyes are currently no more than 2 feet away from my 27 inch computer monitor but if I were to use a regular CRT TV from the mid 90s that's also 27", I'd probably sit at least 5 feet away. Redditors masturbate over phosphors but you actually don't want to see each individual phosphor, you want to be sitting far enough for everything to blend together as much as possible

[Anonymous No.10578153]

ass

[Anonymous No.10578401]

For me it's SMB3 over RF on my shitty old ass TV

[Anonymous No.10578891]

>>10577668
Yeah I'm still right in the beginning but I already noticed a scene with Leon that either wasn't in the original or is so different that it seemed completely new to me. Oh and Lucia booba definitely wasn't in the intro to Complete or I would remember furiously jerking off to it when I first played it at 15

[Anonymous No.10578974]

>>10578891
*Leon scene wasn't in complete

[Anonymous No.10579642]

>>10578078
I'm not so sure about that, I know a number of TV sets were pushing more than 360p, I mean, even SD sets pulled 480p and better before we got HD sets that did at best 720p, and 1024x768 usually being max res for a PC Monitor I have a hard time believing the we got so much more detail out of a PC Monitor vs a TV set showing us live people moving.
I get the difference between Shadow Mask and Aperture Mask and how it changes the images and how we perceive them, but that's not going to dampen the level of detail so drastically to a TV set.

[Anonymous No.10579690]

CRTgeom a best

[Anonymous No.10579776]

[Anonymous No.10579913]

>>10578153
I want to nut it deep in r. mika

[Anonymous No.10580432]

>>10578974
>>10578891
Man there's so much shit they either cut completely or just fucked up in that version. No other game I ever played made me so viscerally angry at it's level of laziness. Lunar 2 had been easily my favorite RPG of that era and possibly my favorite game overall. When the remake came out I asked my brother for it for Christmas and he got me the deluxe edition which was a pretty big gift for us at the time. Then I played it and felt so shitty about it all because it just sucked.

The upside at least is finally replaying the original after all this time I'd worried I'd put it on a pedestal, but it's actually even better than I remember. First fight in a new area and my party gets it's shit kicked hard before anyone gets to act, having gone through it by the end we've all gained a couple levels so I can usually act first, shut down hard enemies and knock others into position to hit groups with a spell.

[Anonymous No.10580441]

[Anonymous No.10580508]

[Anonymous No.10581441]

>>10580432
If I have one gripe about it it's that the colors feel kinda muted coming from the Complete version. You can definitely tell it's a Sega CD game. But at least this gives me a reason to play a possibly better version of one my top 5 games of all time

[Anonymous No.10581735]

Are there shader plugins for individual emulators or is it typically only a Retroarch thing?

[Anonymous No.10581750]

>>10566158
Meanwhile, in opposite land, picrel.
I don't see what everyone likes about scanlines.

[Anonymous No.10581761]

Anyone else notice how guest renders the lines? It doesn't really split the content but instead stretches it on each line.
If you reduce the number of vertical lines the image gets blurrier and blurrier instead of being shown through less lines against a black background like royale does. This fucks with the way the image is rendered since blurred edges from previous passes will bleed into adjecent lines and make it look shittier.

[Anonymous No.10581861]

>>10581735
The emulator has to incorporate support for them, and often times they are not compatible between emulators since the shader spec they use often differs. While it was not the first one to incorporate them, RetroArch has by far the most robust support for them, which is why it's the most popular emulation solution for use with shaders. There are programs like ReShade that allow you to inject shaders similar in complexity to RetroArch's into emulators with poor or no shader support.

[Anonymous No.10581865]

>>10581750
>I don't see what everyone likes about scanlines
Preserves the original assets but makes everything blend together more seamlessly, especially in games with pre-rendered backgrounds such as FF7 or the Resident Evil games
AI upscaling like in your pic fucks up a lot of things like that red sign at the top of the image for example. In the original it's illegible but you can still tell it's kanji. In the upscaled version it's sharp but also doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.10581870]

>>10581750
>AI slopscale

[Anonymous No.10582129]

>>10581865
scanlines arent what blends the image

[Anonymous No.10582164]

>>10581750
>I don't see what everyone likes about scanlines
Like it or not, it's often a necessary evil to bring low res 2D to form, turning edges more palatable and helping fool our eyes. The fact you have to rely on an AI upscale which is a tool made decades after the fact is proof enough of the validity of scanlines —and let me mention the uncanny valley effect your image has. The reluctance of some to sit a little bit further away from the screen as to not be bothered by scanlines is specially funny when you remember all sorts of hoops you guys have to jump through to cope, like downloading an AI upscale that is several GBs in size.

[Anonymous No.10582241]

Some people still need to learn how to tone down scanline gaps (if they're too pronounced to their taste) or just try a different shader. It's not that hard.

[Anonymous No.10582418]

>>10582164
Well, we certainly have differing opinions. I played VII on a crt in '01-02.
When LCDs came out I was so glad. CRTs used to hurt my eyes and make them water for some reason, and I could hear their crazy screech that many can't hear rooms and floors away.
I think they're gross, and while these no-scan AI upsales aren't perfect, it's the only way I want to ever play it with. It's a preference.

[Anonymous No.10582842]

>>10581750
>That disgusting Cloud model
>Looks barely taller than the beds
Kys nigger

[Anonymous No.10582847]

Use a proper shader like Cybertron you fags
And stop using meme settings

[Anonymous No.10582892]

>>10582847

[Anonymous No.10582906]

[Anonymous No.10582908]

>>10582906
god I wish I had an 8k monitor

[Anonymous No.10582937]

[Anonymous No.10583014]

>>10582906
too sharp

[Anonymous No.10583310]

>>10582418
The reason your eyes hurt wasn't the scanlines but the rays emitted by the crt.

[Anonymous No.10583351]

I don't get how people use CRT filters. Every time I try them, my eyes hurt. All I see and end up focusing on are the lines. It's annoying and headache inducing. Doesn't matter if the resolution is 1080p, 1440p, or 4K. I notice the lines and it ruins it.

[Anonymous No.10583354]

>>10567475

[Anonymous No.10583380]

>>10583351
Then use a scanline-less shader. Or better yet, don't come here to bitch in a thread you don't like. You wrote the same shit the previous thread word by word.

[Anonymous No.10583383]

>>10583380
This is my first time even posting in a thread on vr in over a year. The fuck are you talking about? You sound like a horrible person to be around. I'm sure that's why you're terminally here and not being around others IRL.

[Anonymous No.10583384]

>>10583383
cool story bro.

[Anonymous No.10583394]

>>10583384
Thanks for admitting you're an insufferable person IRL and that's why you're alone. Enjoy killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.10583405]

>>10583394
Lots of projection here. These threads receive a lot of negative reactions using always the same arguments, and you want us to treat it different because it's your first post here. Nah, we're fucking tired of negativity. Also the gall of coming to a nerdy board trying to shame anons for being nerdy. Why are (You) here, Mr. Chad?

[Anonymous No.10583436]

>>10583351
So why the fuck are you posting in the thread then?

[Anonymous No.10583481]

>>10583436
Because I can. Others have posted ITT about it using scan lines and why not to use them, nobody had a problem with it.

[Anonymous No.10583490]

>>10582418
>CRTs hurt your eyes, but you'll happily fill them with AI diarrhea

[Anonymous No.10583506]

Scanlines filter the weak
>Feilong: scanlines users
>Cammy: people with weak eyes

[Anonymous No.10583514]

>>10583351
Don't sit so close to the screen.

[Anonymous No.10583979]

>>10565820
"Well, let me get this straight... you think using a 'glow' shader is 'cool"?"
"I do... and I'm tired of pretending it's not, Murray..."

[Anonymous No.10584417]

>>10581750

[Anonymous No.10584487]

>>10566158
Is it good at bigger resolutions? Or just 4x?

[Anonymous No.10584581]

Play Fallout (DOS)

[Anonymous No.10584586]

[Anonymous No.10584589]

[Anonymous No.10584689]

>>10584581
If that's using Guest-Advanced, I recommend using No Scanline Mode. As it is, you're getting faint, unevenly-scaled lines. It might make the image a little bit brighter, too.

[Anonymous No.10584710]

>>10584689
Guest deactivates scanlines automatically above a certain threshold (usually 400px in height by default). What you're referring to is the mask. The mask looks good for my screen/resolution but it might look worse in other monitors.

I changed the mask type for pic rel, see if you find it more pleasing.

[Anonymous No.10584723]

>>10584689
Guest should deactivate scanlines automatically above a certain threshold (usually 400px in height by default). What you're referring to is the mask. The mask looks good for my screen/resolution but it might look worse in other monitors.

I changed the mask type for pic rel, and fiddled a bit with a few more settings, see if you find it more pleasing.

[Anonymous No.10584917]

>>10582906
Shader?

[Anonymous No.10584978]

>>10584689
>unevenly-scaled lines
Not him but looks even to me, are you sure you're viewing the image at full size?

[Anonymous No.10585046]

>>10584978
I am. Again, it's very subtle, but if you look very closely, you'll notice every ten pixels or so, there's two faint horizontal lines going across the screen, although this appears to be more a side effect of the curvature. Guest only fully disables scanlines if you're playing hi-res content at exactly 2x scale with no curvature. If you add curvature, use non-integer scaling, or go above 2x scale (possible with integer scale overscale, or using a 1440p or 4K display), you'll see hints of scanlines again.

[Anonymous No.10585063]

>>10585046
Looks fine to me

[Anonymous No.10585103]

[Anonymous No.10585112]

[Anonymous No.10585186]

[Anonymous No.10585223]

>>10584689
>>10585046
Is this better? The no-scanline setting makes the image look blurrier than I'd like, which is not what PC CRTs looked like. Scaling 800x600 content on a 1080p screen presents problems for obvious reasons, so instead of using RA's integer scaling solution, I've used one of guest's scaling parameters. Honestly, the issue you describe for the other image isn't noticeable unless you really place your eyes a couple of inches from the screen, so it shouldn't be noticeable for normal gameplay.

[Anonymous No.10585240]

>>10565820
What are some good looking and/or accurate CRT shaders for lower end laptops or tablets? What I'm talking about is stuff like 4GB RAM maximum, and a a quad-core processor, or an octa-core one with the strongest cores being around 2,4GHz, also average/weaker chipsets.

Also, we're talking 11' to 13' screens without something like 4K, so 1080p at the very best.

[Anonymous No.10585246]

>>10585063
That's not right either, though in that particular part of the screen, it looks more akin to moire artifacts (scanlines are not fully contiguous along the horizontal axis, again due to the curvature). Look at brighter parts, such as the ground. Again, though, it's very subtle, so I understand if you don't normally notice it during regular gameplay.
>>10585223
How blurry it looks depends on how you set it. It looks sharpest at the lowest setting of 0.05. Also, this is just my preference, but I like to set it to use a shadow mask. I think it works better for No Scanline Mode.

[Anonymous No.10585247]

>>10585240
Guest advanced should be fine, if not, you have lightweight versions of it (fast, fastest). If not, easymode, hyllian-fast, lottes-fast, zfast, etc

[Anonymous No.10585260]

[Anonymous No.10585454]

>>10585223
>>10584710
is this reshade?

[Anonymous No.10585496]

>>10585454
No, retroarch. You can use DOS cores to play DOS games. FO1 was on DOS but not FO2 for example.

[Anonymous No.10586000]

[Anonymous No.10587003]

>>10577519
This.
It looks even more accurate in motion with the rolling scanlines and interference, it's a superb shader for me and I use it often nowadays too.

[Anonymous No.10587023]

>>10577519
>>10587003
did you guys only use shitty 70s sets or what? or are you being mandela'd?

[Anonymous No.10587914]

>>10587023
Not them but I played the Genesis over RF

[Anonymous No.10587938]

>>10587914
How does RF compare to composite

[Anonymous No.10587948]

>>10587938
It's the worst. RF is blurrier with more artifacts

[Anonymous No.10588397]

Whats a good shader for SNES? All of them either are too sharp or oddly colored. My Composite shader is too hardcore and better suited for NES and genesis

[Anonymous No.10588618]

>>10588397
Use guest advance and adjust sharpness in the parameters to your liking (look for horizontal sharpness and substractive sharpness). The shader also has color tweaks to fine adjust that if you want to.

[Anonymous No.10588627]

>>10566375
Perfect!

[Anonymous No.10588858]

>>10588618
>substractive sharpness
What does it do? I played with it, but noticed no difference. Does it need to be coupled with another parameter?

[Anonymous No.10588869]

>>10588858
It works alongside the Horizontal Sharpness parameter by "subtracting" the blur from that parameter. At the 5.2 default, you get minimal blur, so Subtractive Sharpness does very little there, but lower Horizontal Sharpness and the image gets blurrier, which can then be offset by raising Subtractive Sharpness. The idea, then, is to be able to fine tune just how sharp or blurry you want the image to be.

[Anonymous No.10588958]

>>10587023
Well given that I grew up in the 70's, yeah what we had were shitty 70's sets. Even after that, it wasn't till the mid 90's or so that semi decent looking CRTs became anything close to commonplace. I've always hated them all though. CRTs of all types have always hurt my eyes after a few minutes and to this day I think even the best ones I've seen still always look like shit.

[Anonymous No.10589075]

>>10588618
What game? Looks interesting

[Anonymous No.10589106]

>>10589075
Trials of Mana / Seiken Densetsu 3

[Anonymous No.10589124]

>>10588869
Thanks! I'll try it later.

[Anonymous No.10589167]

[Anonymous No.10589318]

I know people say composite shaders are good because they blend the image, but I prefer shaders that look like professional CRTs.

[Anonymous No.10589340]

[Anonymous No.10589526]

[Anonymous No.10589531]

[Anonymous No.10589535]

Choose your poison!

[Anonymous No.10589668]

>>10589526
>>10589531
>>10589535
I'll choose my own shaders thanks, but if I have to choose one of yours, I pick the middle image. The no-scanlines one is too blurry.

[Anonymous No.10589671]

>>10589535
>>10589668
Here's one example of a tuned no-scanlines preset I have saved even though I don't use it - it's not as smeared with vaseline. If you're using the same one (the one with sinc param), I recommend using sharper paremeters.

[Anonymous No.10589674]

>>10589671
>>10589526
>>10589531
>>10589535
Unironically I'd like raw pixels over these

[Anonymous No.10589683]

>>10589674
This one preset mimicking megabezel looks good for these types of game IMO

[Anonymous No.10589690]

>>10589683
this venom preset also works well too, less scanline heavy and a bit softer

[Anonymous No.10589737]

>>10589671
Too blocky!

[Anonymous No.10589739]

>>10589683
>>10589690
If you like them then more power to you.

[Anonymous No.10589745]

>>10589737
ahhh, now it's just right

[Anonymous No.10589752]

>>10589674
If you like blocky graphics.

[Anonymous No.10589756]

>>10589745
I once saw a MVSC2 cab that actually looked just about this bad.

[Anonymous No.10589760]

>>10589752
I still see scanlines. Like I say, I know most here would either disagree or not believe me but I like raw pixels.

[Anonymous No.10589772]

>>10589760
Are you the anon who was complaining about a shader thread not featuring images that weren't raw just a couple of days ago? Why are you still here? Just to suffer?

[Anonymous No.10589774]

[Anonymous No.10589794]

[Anonymous No.10589796]

>>10589772
No that wasn't me. I don't like shaders but get why others do. I've just kept browsing the thread because I was posting about Lunar 2 sega cd running on a PSP earlier and clicking out of habit. Don't take my opinions to mean anything important, it's just slightly funny after saying I like raw pixels the best you kept (You)ing me with more screenshots of different filters.

[Anonymous No.10589827]

>>10565820
Been playing around with shaders on my RG353V and this is the current result, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.10589863]

>>10589827
I don't think a handheld needs shaders unless the screen is too big. Also I can't value said image unless I see it on said handheld but from my monitor it looks ok. A bit too dark but again I don't know about that handheld's brightness settings. The background looks nice and non-pixelated.

[Anonymous No.10589921]

[Anonymous No.10589928]

[Anonymous No.10589951]

>>10589928

[Anonymous No.10589953]

Looks way better on my laptop's 4K display. Too bad its GPU is too shit to actually drive it at that resolution at full speed for most things.

[Anonymous No.10589987]

[Anonymous No.10590038]

>>10589796
Heeey, you're the puzzle guy. Is it done by now?

[Anonymous No.10590048]

>>10589863
I get what you mean and I'm obviously not looking for 100% accuracy (especially how little power the machine has), but stuff still looks rather pixelated (particularly PS1 games) and playing around with shaders helps smooth the image a bit and make the colours pop up better. The handheld's brightness can be adjusted along with the contrast and saturation.

[Anonymous No.10590071]

>>10565838
are there any shaders that accomplish this without having ridiculously overdone dot crawl that my CRT doesn't have

[Anonymous No.10590075]

>>10590038
Ohh yeah we finished it a couple days after that. Have another new cool one we might start this weekend if all goes well.

[Anonymous No.10590081]

[Anonymous No.10590176]

>>10590071
Yep. Use guest-advanced-NTSC and turn down the NTSC artifacting and NTSC fringing parameters. You can mess with other things, too, like the NTSC phase, resolution scaling, and chroma scaling parameters, until you get the blur and colors like you want them.

[Anonymous No.10590179]

>>10590176
awesome, thanks

[Anonymous No.10590212]

>>10590081
Shader? This looks excellent

[Anonymous No.10590223]

>>10590212
It's not actually a shader, but i felt compelled to post because thread description. This is what a n3dsxl screen looks like vanilla.

[Anonymous No.10590232]

>>10590223
You can disable that epilepsy filter that darkens the screen if you're running cfw

[Anonymous No.10590306]

>>10569740
watermelon detected

[Anonymous No.10590421]

World is saved. All is well.

[Anonymous No.10590423]

One more world saved. Yay.

[Anonymous No.10590430]

>>10590232
I prefer involuntary seizures

[Anonymous No.10590497]

>>10565820
CRT-Lottes-Fast looks pretty decent considering that it's not all that demanding, at least it seems pretty lightweight from what I've played with it.

I think the waterfall here looks quite decent too.

[Anonymous No.10591228]

I'm dumb and I need help from people here that are smarter than me when it comes to shaders...

Is there a way to objectively measure which are the shaders that are less, or more, demanding? Of course, when I select a shader and it runs, it can be implied that my PC can handle it, and if I choose a shader and suddently my RetroArch UI slows down... then it's more demanding, but I'm sure there must be a way to know which are the most, or least, demanding when it's more subtle.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I have a couple of shaders, and neither do something drastic like slow down my UI, and both run decently, how do I know which is harsher for my PC in the long run?

[Anonymous No.10591234]

>>10569740
>glownigga stole my bike

[Anonymous No.10591253]

>>10590071
#reference "shaders_slang/crt/crt-guest-advanced-ntsc.slangp"
wp_saturation = "1.000000"
contr = "0.000000"
ntsc_cscale = "4.000000"
ntsc_ring = "0.500000"
ntsc_gamma = "2.000000"
cust_fringing = "0.000000"
cust_artifacting = "0.000000"
HSHARPNESS = "1.000000"
HSHARP = "1.200000"
SIGMA_HOR = "0.500000"
S_SHARP = "1.200002"
MAXS = "0.180000"
FINE_BLOOM = "2.000000"
mask_bloom = "0.000000"
glow = "0.000000"
spike = "0.000000"
bloom = "0.000000"
halation = "-0.400000"
hmask1 = "0.500000"
brightboost = "1.000000"
brightboost1 = "1.000000"
gsl = "-1.000000"
scanline1 = "6.000000"
scanline2 = "26.000000"
beam_min = "1.000000"
beam_max = "0.850000"
tds = "0.000000"
beam_size = "1.000000"
scans = "1.000000"
scan_falloff = "0.100000"
scangamma = "2.200000"
shadowMask = "6.000000"
maskstr = "0.500000"
mcut = "1.000000"
maskboost = "3.000000"
mask_layout = "1.000000"
mask_gamma = "2.200000"


Increase cust_artifacting to 1.0 if you like rainbow.

[Anonymous No.10591303]

>>10591228
1. Go to On Screen Display -> Notifications -> Visibility and turn ON Display Framerate.

2. Audio -> Syncronization -> Turn OFF Audio Syncronization

3. Video -> Syncronization -> Turn OFF VSync

4. Open some image, turn OFF shaders and take note of the framerate. Then, load any shaders and take note the framerate. Is up to you how to do the math to calculate the hit on performance.

[Anonymous No.10591494]

[Anonymous No.10591671]

>>10591228
If you want to save time, there's the copypasta below:

---

This a test of how heavy each shader is. They're not ranked, but instead grouped in tiers for similar performance, accounting for fluctuations. With that in mind, you can run a shader at fullspeed, but get minor framerate dips with another in the same tier. The higher the tier, the heavier the shader is. Not all of them were tested, but the most used and famous ones.

Shaders updated as of 2023-08-15

>Weight Tier 1
* crt-caligari
* crt-gdv-mini
* crt-geom-mini
* crt-nobody
* crt-pi
* crt-simple
* fakelottes
* zfast-crt
* zfast-crt-composite

>Weight Tier 2
* crt-easymode
* crt-guest-advanced-fastest
* gtu-v050

>Weight Tier 3
* crt-hyllian
* crt-lottes-fast
* newpixie-crt

>Weight Tier 4
* crt-geom
* crt-guest-advanced-fast
* crt-lottes-multipass

>Weight Tier 5
* crt-guest-advanced
* crt-guest-advanced-ntsc
* crt-lottes
* crt-royale

>Weight Tier 6
* crt-mattias

[Anonymous No.10591691]

>>10591671
guest advanced shouldn't be in the same tier as royale, royale is more resource intensive.

[Anonymous No.10591707]

>>10591228
If you want to save time, there's the copypasta below:

---

This a test of how heavy each shader is. They're not ranked, but instead grouped in tiers for similar performance, accounting for fluctuations. With that in mind, you can run a shader at fullspeed, but get minor framerate dips with another in the same tier. The higher the tier, the heavier the shader is. Not all of them were tested, but the most used and famous ones.

Shaders updated as of 2023-08-15

>Weight Tier 1
* crt-caligari
* crt-gdv-mini
* crt-geom-mini
* crt-nobody
* crt-pi
* crt-simple
* fakelottes
* zfast-crt
* zfast-crt-composite

>Weight Tier 2
* crt-easymode
* crt-guest-advanced-fastest
* gtu-v050

>Weight Tier 3
* crt-hyllian
* crt-lottes-fast
* newpixie-crt

>Weight Tier 4
* crt-geom
* crt-guest-advanced-fast
* crt-lottes-multipass

>Weight Tier 5
* crt-guest-advanced
* crt-guest-advanced-ntsc
* crt-lottes
* crt-royale

>Weight Tier 6
* crt-mattias
>>10591691
Make sure all your shaders are updated and using the modern slang version. If you're using older glsl presets, then guest may be lighter, since it had less functionalities back then.

[Anonymous No.10591718]

>>10591691
NTA, but for me, guest-advanced is actually heavier than royale, using the latest slang versions of both. Guest has obtained a lot more features in the past year and gotten heavier as a result. And that's with all default parameters. Depending on what features you enable, it can get even heavier than stock.

[Anonymous No.10591724]

>>10591707
>>10591718
I use slangp but I may be basing my judgement from back when I had a worse computer than I do now. A year ago royale felt noticeable slower.

[Anonymous No.10591730]

>>10591707
>>10591718
I use slangp but I may be basing my judgement from back when I had a worse computer than I do now. A year ago royale felt noticeably slower.

[Anonymous No.10591764]

>>10591303
>>10591671
>>10591691
>>10591707
>>10591718
>>10591730
Jeez... thank you for all of the help, everyone! It all got a lot clearer for me now.... you're all cool. crt-lottes-fast and zfast-crt-composite look very good for how demanding they are, or aren't, at least in this case, I'll experiment with all of their settings more, looks worth it for weak hardware.

[Anonymous No.10591767]

>>10591764
I personally prefer gdv-mini from the first tier, but they're all decent for what they are, I'd say.

[Anonymous No.10591772]

>>10591764
You can also use Blargg's NTSC filter on emulators that allow it (SNES9x, Genesis Plus GX for example) and slap some scanlines on top and be done with it.

[Anonymous No.10591778]

>>10591772
It's like I'm really back in 2001!

[Anonymous No.10591826]

Shader-weight-tiers anon here. Forgot to suggest the scalines-rere shader, inside the scanlines folder. It's pretty lightweight and a good solution for 240p content (no higher than that). Just bringing attention to it.

[Anonymous No.10591847]

So... where does the absolute CHAD smuberstep-glow.glslp fit into all of this... weight discussion? I know most don't like this one, but for whatever reason it's the one I always default back into, I'll try many others, and like many of them, but still I end up finding something that bothers me in it.

It's probably a curse, or maybe I just have awful taste, but this one genuinely looks good to me...

[Anonymous No.10591864]

>>10591847
Did you ever play these games on an actual CRT? Could be that it just resembles yours the most. CRT displays differed quite a bit in a number of ways.

[Anonymous No.10591875]

>>10591864
I did, I grew up with quite a few different CRTs at home, a really small one, less than 10' I think, and some bigger ones over 20' as I grew up a bit, also in the living room, back then having almost 30' in a TV was a big deal, good times. I suppose this at least might explain why I like it, though to be fair it's been a long time since I used those old CRTs, most of them either broke or were sold long ago.

[Anonymous No.10591887]

>>10591847
>So... where does the absolute CHAD smuberstep-glow.glslp fit into all of this... weight discussion?
Sorry, bro. Didn't mean to left your shader out, but it has no slang version, being stuck with the glsl format, which nowadays is maintained only with low-end devices in mind. However, since the tiers only consider how much computational power a shader demands, I'd say smuberstep-glow fares pretty good (from what I remember when I tested it), probably at tier 1, definitely no higher than 2, making it a viable fast option.

[Anonymous No.10591901]

>>10591887
No need to apologize, my friend! I was just joking a bit, since I know it's not a popular shader really, anyways thanks for the consideration, I never got the difference between glsl/glslp and slang, so it makes a little more sense now, also explains why I get better performance when testing glsl/glslp shaders over slang ones, knowing that this is still sort of lightweight is nice, since my laptop's old.

I guess the reason I like it is because the image is smooth, while also having these small outlines in it that sort of resemble how the light came from the CRTs, at least from what I remember from it.

[Anonymous No.10591941]

>>10591901
Just by itself, there is no meaningful difference between glsl and slang. The former is based on an OpenGL renderer, while the latter on a Vulkan one. A skillful programmer can make the most out of a specific renderer and the final result can be faster on a given format. Nonetheless, since Vulkan is more capable, people use it to add further functionalities, making it more complete, thus consequentially heavier. Know that it's not a hard rule, there are exceptions, but, generally, glsl is a bit faster with less options, slang is a bit slower with better options.

About smuberstep-glow, if I may intrude in your taste, I'd say people might find weird your choice of mask, since your resolution (or, at least, your screenshot's) is too low. Fiddle with the shader parameters and see if there are other masks to pick. For below 1080p resolutions, perhaps you'd be better with a cgwg mask.

[Anonymous No.10591963]

>>10591941
I found other mask options in the parameters, but it was all numbered, so I'm not sure how to go with a cgwg one, though out of all the few numbered options it had I felt this one was the best for my lower resolution monitor afterall.

[Anonymous No.10592063]

>>10591875
Do you play at that tiny resolution? At just 3x scaling, it can't even be considered a crt shader. It probably lay around to lcd shaders.

[Anonymous No.10592067]

Some more beauty while thread's still going

[Anonymous No.10592625]

>>10592063
I usually play with my laptop's 1366x768 resolution.

[Anonymous No.10593005]

Why did CRTs have "masks" to begin with?

[Anonymous No.10593017]

>>10593005
It's literally the part of the screen that's lighting up. The phosphor mask takes the excited electron and lights up when it gets hit.

[Anonymous No.10593058]

>>10593005
Take the mask as if it was the screen's """pixels""". The electron beam has to hit somewhere, and that somewhere needs to produce a single spot of a picture with a recognizable color. That's what the mask does.

[Anonymous No.10593394]

>>10591707
Incredible copypasta, anon? Did you make this one or was it someone else? Anyways if you're the one who made it, good job, it's great, if not, then thank you anyways for posting it, it's nice. Also quite useful for everyone here who has an older machine that can't handle the good stuff.

By the way, any idea how demanding the CRT-Glow shaders are? Stuff like crtglow_gauss and crtglow_lanczos or crtglow_gauss_ntsc_3phase?

[Anonymous No.10593446]

>>10593394
I made it some months ago, while I was discussing with another anon about how taxing shaders were. It's a bit tiresome to do those tests, because they stress the machine to be properly measured; hence, the PC eventually gets too hot and needs to cool down to ensure there's no throttle contaminating the results.

Unfortunately, I didn't test the CRT Glow and variations, since I only used shaders which were mentioned during the latest threads. When I update the test, I'll be sure to include them.

[Anonymous No.10593456]

>>10593446
Well, you did a terrific job with it, so congrats. I can imagine that it's tough to do, which makes me admire your work even more, so good job. Whenver you update it, I'll be excited to check it out, but don't rush, you already did a lot, anon.

[Anonymous No.10594325]

[Anonymous No.10594371]

>>10594325
Why does this look like the wrong aspect ratio?

[Anonymous No.10594379]

>>10594371
What released version do you think has an aspect ratio close to what you just posted?

[Anonymous No.10594383]

>>10591228
I know you've already had help but what are your specs? I have a "retro" machine here which is a DELL optiplex 9080, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T 2.00 GHz integrated, 12Gb RAM and this little bastard is having a great time with retroarch up to PS1/Saturn with shaders, and is running L4D2 at 800*600 passably. As for shaders on retroarch fastlottes or CRT-easymode are working well (the former causes jittering on a lot of 3D stuff) and Dos-Box staging with reshade works wonders.

[Anonymous No.10594391]

>>10594379
GBA but why does Anon play GBA games in 4:3?

[Anonymous No.10594495]

>>10594391
That's very clearly not MKA

[Anonymous No.10594567]

>>10594325
>>10594371
can't see shit captain

[Anonymous No.10594580]

>>10594567

[Anonymous No.10594660]

>>10594383
It's a Samsung ATIV Book 2 from 2014/15, 4GB of RAM, 2,4GHz Quad-Core and Inter Core i3, 1366x768 resolution, 13' screen.

[Anonymous No.10594667]

>>10594580
much better

[Anonymous No.10595102]

What's the best shader for playing on a 4K TV?

[Anonymous No.10595169]

>>10595102
Sony Megatron. You need to enable HDR for best results, though.

[Anonymous No.10595282]

What's your favorite shader for GBA

[Anonymous No.10595356]

[Anonymous No.10595482]

>>10594580
sexo, post the preset m8

[Anonymous No.10595524]

>>10595482
https : // easyupload.io/ebef7l

[Anonymous No.10595529]

>>10595524
cheers

[Anonymous No.10595591]

>>10594660
I think you’ll do ok with retroarch and easymode-halation shader. I use masks type 4 and jack halation/diffusion up a whack for delicious mouthwatering glow but, naturally, it’s personal preference

[Anonymous No.10595605]

>>10595591
Thanks! I'll give it a go tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10596143]

That's what I played tonight. Another world to save.

[Anonymous No.10596146]

>>10596143
Yeah, here I am!

[Anonymous No.10596147]

>>10596146
Friends helping to make way.

[Anonymous No.10596148]

>>10596147
What's a man? I mean, wrong game.

[Anonymous No.10596159]

>>10596148
Thank you, thank you! It was hard, but I did it for you.

[Anonymous No.10596161]

>>10596159
If I gaze into the sunset here, people will think I'm based.

[Anonymous No.10596164]

>>10596161
End of this adventure. Fun as always.

[Anonymous No.10596916]

When you play DC, PSX, etc. games that allow you to crank the internal resolution, do you still use CRT shaders with the cranked resolution?

[Anonymous No.10597016]

>>10589827
>>10590048
what shader?

[Anonymous No.10597245]

>>10595282
I just use the one called dot. I tried the lcd2x/3x ones and didn't like them.

[Anonymous No.10597395]

>>10595282
crt-royale. For a smooth look, scalefx

[Anonymous No.10597412]

these shaders make me laugh they're so bad just buy a crt monitor

[Anonymous No.10598187]

>>10595591
>>10595605
An update, I've been playing around with it a bit and I really dig it! It's quite great when you mess around in the settings to get it to your liking, so I thank you once again for the advice, anon!

[Anonymous No.10598371]

>>10596143
This looks pretty good, like an Elemental Master but without the scrolling

[Anonymous No.10598376]

>>10596916
I just don't increase the resolution

[Anonymous No.10598451]

>>10598371
Yes, they're somewhat similar, that's a precise comparison. Although I find Twinkle Tale considerably harder. Japanese devs have some itch to make a game hard if the protag is a cute young girl.

[Anonymous No.10598642]

Has anyone ported shaders to pcsx2, like guest-advanced? I don't like the ones they packaged with it.

[Anonymous No.10598649]

>>10598376
DON'T BULLSHIT ME NIGLET

[Anonymous No.10598734]

>>10597016
crt-guest-sm (custom settings for higher brightness/contrast) with a Sony scanlines CRT overlay for 640x480 resolution.

[Anonymous No.10598768]

>>10598734
how does it looks with NES, like say, Castlevania 3?

[Anonymous No.10598803]

[Anonymous No.10598807]

>>10598768
Not that anon, but this is how it looks with stock settings

[Anonymous No.10598809]

>>10598807

[Anonymous No.10598845]

Fiddling a bit with guest-sm parameters (the few it has), it can be a nice shader for pre-rendered backgrounds, at the cost of a strong, noticeable mask.

[Anonymous No.10598954]

I really think "crtglow_gauss_ntsc_3phase.glslp" deserves a lot more love, it has that glow that I loved so much from CRTs without me having to have a HDR display to use actual brightness, it's nice and also has scanlines and this softness to it that seems to make the image feel less pixelated on the whole, smoother and defined, it's how I'd recall my old CRTs to be at least, and I like it a lot.

>>10569791
I appreciate the feedback, I suppose a higher end display that could replicate actual brightness is a goal I could have for when I save up more money, are there any shaders that try to replicate glow using actual brightness with settings that helps us get that effect or do they all go for blur or no glow effect at all? I know glow isn't most people priority, but it's one for me for some odd reason.

[Anonymous No.10599218]

>>10598954
>it's how I'd recall my old CRTs
I've literally never seen a CRT that looks like this

[Anonymous No.10599310]

>>10599218
I get that, and to be fair it's been a while since I last played video games on a real CRT, but this is a shader that accurately replicates how I recall it, even if it's an innacurate memory, this is just how I remember my childhood CRTs and how it felt to look up to them, that glow and lower definition that made images smoother and comfortable to look at, it captures that awe for me well enough.

Of course, I'm certain that if I were to find those exact CRTs I had as a kid, the image could look a lot different from this, but I like how this looks and it's just like my vague nostalgic memory is.

As always, I'm still experimenting, I change what my favorite shader is once every few weeks, and that's fine, trying out new things and seeing how they look and feel is always fun! So it's alright.

[Anonymous No.10599389]

>>10598954
I have a crt and it never glows! It's a fancy effect, but it doesn't simulate a real thing. IMO, it's distracting. The real effect is a subtle bloom.

[Anonymous No.10599625]

>>10599218
some people really had dogshit and badly calibrated CRTs

[Anonymous No.10599910]

>>10598642
Yeah I'd like to know too.

[Anonymous No.10600245]

>>10599910
No. Pretty much no one who works on PCSX2 gives a fuck about shaders or having good shader support. They're an afterthought for pretty much all the 3D console emulators for that matter, since the main "desirable" enhancement for those always seems to be upping the internal resolution, and if shaders are considered, they're always something like SweetFX. God forbid you actually want to play these games closer to how they looked on real hardware.

[Anonymous No.10600362]

>>10600245
It sucks cause some games look better at native res and some upscaled. I guess I'll just use reshade.

[Anonymous No.10600653]

[Anonymous No.10600715]

>>10600653
I'll always be "somewhat capable" for Jenny!

[Anonymous No.10601547]

>>10581750

[Anonymous No.10601650]

>>10565820
I just use whatever the fuck emulators have, kind of eyeball it. You're telling me people make good ones? How do I use them?

[Anonymous No.10601686]

>>10601650
CRT-Guest-Advanced on RetroArch is probably the most popular since it has lots of parameters you can play with if you want. You can make it look like RF on a shitty 70s TV or S-Video on a high end CRT

[Anonymous No.10601694]

>>10601686
I never use RA. Seems like a pain in the ass. I like having all my stuff separate.

[Anonymous No.10601703]

>>10601694
>Seems like a pain in the ass.
It's really not, some find it to be hard to use, but I personally never had issues, and it being a software with a large user base means there's lots of support, so if you have questions just ask them here and/or Google it and you'll definitely find your way around, anyways it's really just a matter of going into the online updater to download your emulators, or cores, and then scanning your ROMs folder, also setting up your controls how you want them, and after that comes the shaders, which is where RetroArch really shines.

[Anonymous No.10601860]

>>10601694
Its pretty shitty but its the only thing that seems to support all these .slang shaders

[Anonymous No.10601865]

>>10601694
You get used to it after a while and it's pretty good to use with a gamepad

[Anonymous No.10601979]

>>10601694
>I like having all my stuff separate.
Meanwhile I'm sick and tired of configuring every single emulator individually

[Anonymous No.10602015]

>>10601694
RA has this UI that makes you say "what the fuck is this retarded shit" the first time you use it, but after forcing myself to learn it because of shaders, I realized it gives you so many options and settings that it might be the best way to emulate 5th gen and earlier (only because the 6th gen cores are outdated)

[Anonymous No.10602209]

>>10590176
this is the best crt shader ive ever seen. what are the exact settings you used for this?

[Anonymous No.10602435]

[Anonymous No.10602462]

>>10602209
Gotta be this one
https://pastebin.com/mE0Q83i8

[Anonymous No.10602474]

>>10602435
a bit blurry

[Anonymous No.10602480]

>>10602474
Yeah, it was a bit sharper before but I tweaked it since I'd rather have it be a bit softer than have harder, visible lines between the pixels, still tweaking though. Also because I have it in windowed mode, not in proper integers. Looks a lot better in motion.

[Anonymous No.10602491]

>>10602462
thankyou

[Anonymous No.10602498]

RIP Mudlord

[Anonymous No.10602502]

[Anonymous No.10602504]

[Anonymous No.10602514]

>>10582937
This is really good and close to what I remember this game and other Genesis games looking like playing on tvs in the mid 90s. It hid a lot of the color palete issues with the system compared to SNES.

[Anonymous No.10602783]

>>10602514

[Anonymous No.10602785]

>>10602783

[Anonymous No.10602810]

>>10602491
>https://pastebin.com/mE0Q83i8

[Anonymous No.10602867]

>>10602498
>>10602502
>>10602504
congrats, you just spammed three useless unfunny images and made us closer to the image bump limit

[Anonymous No.10602871]

>>10602015
I must be weird because I thought it was pretty intuitive from the start.

[Anonymous No.10602873]

>>10602435
>>10602474
>>10602783
>>10602785
These scanlines-less shaders will never work IMO. They always look too blurry even at max sharp settings, specially the text.

[Anonymous No.10602874]

[Anonymous No.10603004]

>The Shader of Cathode Rays.
>Invoking this spell cloaks my merriment under a faux-phosphor mask. Whatever simulacrum of legitimate audiovisual entertainment cast at my monitor will be filtered through the scanline distortion field, altering the final image to better imitate devices of olden days. It will only last for a short time, however, before leaving me urging me to refine its minutiae once more.

[Anonymous No.10603043]

>>10602867
I wasn't trying to be funny. I was just mourning the recent passing of mudlord, an oldfag of emulation and creator of the shader I posted.

[Anonymous No.10603061]

>>10602498
Did he died?

[Anonymous No.10603064]

>>10602873
I think they work best with really coarse masks. With finer masks, yeah, the blurriness is too apparent.

[Anonymous No.10603082]

test

[Anonymous No.10603085]

>>10603082
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

[Anonymous No.10603239]

>>10578401
Perfection. The way it was meant to be.

[Anonymous No.10603306]

>>10602867
>useless unfunny images
The entire thread then?

[Anonymous No.10603559]

>>10603306
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.10603635]

Do you wanna know how I got these glaucomas? My son was a drinker... and a zoomer, and one night he goes off crazier than usual. My wife gets the kitchen knife to defend herself, he doesn't like that... not... one... bit. So, me watching, he takes RetroArch to her, laughing while he does it... he turns to me, and he says, "Why so serious, dad?" He comes at me with RetroArch. "WHY SO SERIOUS, DAD?" He puts the controller in my hands. "LET'S PUT MORE GLOW ON THAT SHADER!" And... why so serious?

P.S. All jokes aside, I'm actually really enjoying the glow shaders under the .glslp CRT folder, crtglow_gauss.glslp and crtglow_gauss_ntsc_3phase.glslp to be more specific, lovely look to them.

[Anonymous No.10603654]

>>10602474
this shit does not blend correctly

[Anonymous No.10603679]

>>10602874
Looks good at normal viewing distance but the vertical scanlines are a bit odd at close inspection. Is this in TATE mode or just forcing some wacky interlace blending?

[Anonymous No.10603698]

[Anonymous No.10603704]

>>10603679
No scanlines there. Those lines are just an RGB mask.

[Anonymous No.10603708]

>>10603704
NTA, but I am also not a fan of how a Trinitron mask without scanlines ends up looking like vertical tate scanlines. I think a slot mask works better for that purpose.

[Anonymous No.10603768]

[Anonymous No.10603805]

>>10598768
Here's how it looks with og Castlevania (pixel perfect resolution with integer scaling), since I was just playing it.

[Anonymous No.10603935]

>>10603708
Not any of these Anons but yeah, I was playing with masks last night and that's the conclusion I came to. Trinitron masks need scanlines

[Anonymous No.10603956]

>>10565820
This scenery mogs 90% of n64 games

[Anonymous No.10603989]

>>10567113
What game is this?

[Anonymous No.10604007]

>>10603989
Go up a few more in that reply chain.

[Anonymous No.10604054]

>>10603768
Noooo! You need to press "Up + Jump" when thrown. If you did, this wouldn't happen.

[Anonymous No.10604159]

>>10598734
>>10598807
>>10598809
>>10603805
Thanks bros, I think NES games needs a lot of work. I'm trying to setup one that works with non-integer scaling res, I wanna try to unbloat it and see if it can work on such devices, if not cloning and making it lightweight.
I'm lazy as hell so I will never finish it thoughbeit

[Anonymous No.10604225]

Another attempt at a no-scanlines shader. I still prefer scanlines myself but at least this one doesn't look super blurry, or so sharp that there's no point to the shader. Trying to strike a balance.

[Anonymous No.10604698]

>>10603004
kek

[Anonymous No.10604835]

>>10566375

[Anonymous No.10604860]

[Anonymous No.10605306]

>>10604860
I did not care for Ocarina of Time
look your settings because the text looks super wonky here

[Anonymous No.10606572]

>>10605306
>the text looks super wonky here
The text looks like that on real hardware. You probably got used to emulators that filter elements it shouldn't like text

[Anonymous No.10606579]

>>10605306
>>10606572
Should have used the same text box as an example in the first place but yeah, that's how the text looks like on a real N64

[Anonymous No.10606582]

>>10606572
>>10606579
bro, the point is that you should attempt to approximate a CRT, "real hardware" is meaningless, you can connect a real n64 to an 8k OLED and it will look like ass.

Is the thread on autosage? yep, created 15 days ago. RIP

[Anonymous No.10606586]

>>10606582
wrong img

[Anonymous No.10606591]

>>10606582
>>10606586
Yeah, the text is effectively anti-aliased. It's made to look good at 240p with blur.

[Anonymous No.10606605]

>>10606586
You're using an emulator that filters text

[Anonymous No.10606614]

>>10606586
Post the same screenshot but without the shader. You're using inaccurate emulation. The textures aren't even using 3 point filtering

[Anonymous No.10606720]

Is there any benefit to using a shader in combination with upscaled emulation (even if it's accurate upscaling like with ParallelRDP)?

[Anonymous No.10606774]

>>10606720
Only if you downsample back to native res to have a smoother but still low res image, basically SSAA. It's pretty nice with ParallelRDP because you get a 240p image but without the crusty N64 vaseline

[Anonymous No.10606795]

>>10606605
And you're using a text that filters emulators.

[Anonymous No.10606824]

>>10606605
>>10606795
>not using a text that emulates filters
shiggity diggity