this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
115 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
80859 readers
3061 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
3D graphics were incredibly primitive back then. There really weren't "3D processors" as we know them today.
On top of that, CRTs masked many of the weirdest graphical artifacts - the shimmering we see on modern screens was much more of a blur on screens at the time.
It's fun to look back at the PlayStation and the N64, and to see how each of them handled limitations in a different way.
Resident evil for N64 is mind boggling how they were able to shrink it down enough to fit on that tiny rom chip.
This Noodle video on how old games were developed with CRT in mind was absolutely mind-blowing to me.
Yeah, for example when emulating GB/GBC/GBA games, simulating the slow LCD response time makes all the difference. Jittery shaking animations become soft blurs, and everything feels much closer to the authentic hardware
I'm not sure how to reply to this.
Mainly because my own math skill is unrelated to processor technology of the late 1990s.
This reads like someone who was born after the CRT era trying to describe them. No, you're just wrong about that. CRT monitors had a huge effect on the output of the visuals in contrast with modern screens.
Were you hoping for a forum where people didn't call you out on your nonsense?
Hey now, I'm enjoying his nonsense. It's fun to see what holes people dig themselves into.
Pixels on a CRT aren‘t quadratic. Light bleeds between them, and persisted between frames. That was definitely some kind of post processing you could call masking and the games of that era leaned heavily into it. Hardware and games were designed to be displayed on a CRT.
You're quadratic.
Crts don't have pixels. They have scan lines. They have signals. They're analog. Not digital.
I used to play around with this stuff. some decades ago.
They had much different gamma ramps. Things that look dull on lcds pop on crts.
CRTs don’t „have“ pixels, but they display a signals that originated from a pixelised source.
You’re welcome
You must be real fun at parties.