• mtlvmpr@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is no “looks objectively better” since it’s a subjective thing. I’ve seen those examples multiple times and they look as blurry as ever.

    What makes you push this tech to these limits?

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The objective part is in whether it matches what the creator intended.

      Sometimes they intended crisp contours, like in ClearType; sometimes they intended to add extra colors; sometimes they designed pixel perfect and it looked blurry on CRT; very rarely they used vector graphics or 3D that can be rendered at better quality by just throwing some extra resolution.

      Many artists of the time pushed this tech to these limits, “objectively better” is to emulate that.

      • mtlvmpr@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s not better. That’s more accurate. Is preference really this foreign of a concept to you?

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If you call this “preference”, then there’s nothing to talk about. Like printing the Mona Lisa on toilet paper and calling it a “preference”.

          • mtlvmpr@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            That looks bad sure but I wouldn’t look at that closely anyway and the filtered one looks even worse. I have played that game without any filters and I didn’t get any urges to use any. I have also played it on CRT but there wasn’t any choice back then.