Doomworld Forums - How nostalgic do you like your Doom?

Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5

Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Doom General > How nostalgic do you like your Doom?

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Author

All times are GMT. The time now is 22:19.

Cyanosis
Member

Posts: 648
Registered: 10-10

Some DOSBox enthusiasts likely don't have to go any further with making Doom seem like 1993 again (unless the means is an older computer with authentic DOS mode) but for me today I've tried Chocolate Doom a bit differently then I normally do. The aspect ratio is still set to look like 320x200 (I'm in 640x480 and my POS monitor goes out of range below that resolution on anything) but now I tried low detail mode and I never played like this before and I like it a lot now, and I added the border on the HUD (times 1 instead of 2 like the default though). This combination is quite convincing and gives a fairly OG vibe that I fancy greatly.

Only other nostalgic way I like to play would be through Doom95 (with it's oddities aside it's still a fantastic alternative though that can be subjective).

I find it amusing really that I used ZDoom as the norm in the day until I found out how much of the enemy/weapon behavior was altered from the original calculations to the point it seriously started annoying me and have taken a step back to older grounds as much as possible to preserve that good ol' feeling.

11-10-11 23:43 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

yellowmadness54
Senior Member

Posts: 1149
Registered: 03-10

Doom always feels the same to me as it did when I played it in fifth grade. Unless I turn sound off, and my usual controls, then its like a blast from the past.

Other than that, really, doom is just doom. Same feelings, etc.

11-11-11 00:13 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

Nostalgic is not the word I'd use to describe my Doom experience as I've been able to keep it vanilla all these years by avoiding upgrading to incompatible hardware.

The biggest problem with DosBox is it's inability to output mode 13h at exactly 70hz, or better yet, sync the emulated refresh rate to the host's refresh rate like some emulators do. It's either perfect 70hz/35fps or it will stutter, and that's one of the reasons I prefer Chocolate Doom.

Using anything but CRT for vanilla Doom is insanity. Washed out colours and horrendous contrast even on the most expensive plasmas. Hopefully OLED's will take care of that, but it's going to take a while.

Unfortunately a lot of people have already forgotten how Doom originally looked, sounded and played, so they don't normally care about authenticity standards and shall settle for whatever generic piece of crap setup DosBox defaults to.

11-11-11 01:04 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Cyanosis
Member

Posts: 648
Registered: 10-10

I do miss my old CRT, I'm not pleased with this LCD (it's my first one actually, HP L1710) and it's quite terrible in terms of deep blacks and little settings to work with. I was able to reduce the washed out look overall somewhat significantly by setting video black level to 0 on the RGB values. But Doom is notably brighter than it used to be so I can see where you're getting at. I think Sigvatr's contrast palette is suppose to be like what Doom would of looked like on an old CRT monitor but it tripped me out at how dark and gloomy everything was.

11-11-11 01:12 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

PRIMEVAL
Senior Member

Posts: 1395
Registered: 03-09

I'll occasionally play it in Chocolate, but I usually use GZDoom with mouselook. Feels better and it's easier on the eyes.

11-11-11 07:21 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

xvertigox
Member

Posts: 262
Registered: 05-09

I used to use GZDoom + mouselook soley but now I use prboom+ with no mlook because it feels nicer, the hud is awesome and it feels more true to Doom. With both ports I have all sprite/flat/texture smoothing turned off, the pixelated sprites look really good IMO

edit:

I find it amusing really that I used ZDoom as the norm in the day until I found out how much of the enemy/weapon behavior was altered from the original calculations to the point it seriously started annoying me and have taken a step back to older grounds as much as possible to preserve that good ol' feeling.

Could you clarify a bit on whats changed exactly? Is it "just" bugfix stuff or does it go further?

11-11-11 07:29 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Lite Sparkle
Mini-Member

Posts: 50
Registered: 11-11

I like my nostalgic doom with a cup of tea and a scone please.

Nah, varies, when i map for anything non-zdoom i usually play with designed port (example: Boom map in PrBoom+, (Ultimate) Doom (2) in Doom95 launcher etc.)

Though most maps i have are unfinished heretic maps :P.

11-11-11 08:07 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

killer2
Member

Posts: 514
Registered: 02-10

I have played Doom on Win98 a few years ago, and while the music sounded much better, I still wouldn't go back to that. I like my GZDoom with OGL and the ability of freelook too much. Everything in software has already started to look ugly and dated to me.

11-11-11 08:36 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

hex11
Senior Member

Posts: 1481
Registered: 09-09

I almost always play with vanilla ports (Chocolate Doom and SDL Doom), keyboard only, full status bar, and 320x200 fullscreen on 14-inch 4/3 aspect ratio laptop LCD. An actual CRT would be nicer, but not as convenient (I haven't got a lot or space).

11-11-11 09:34 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

D_GARG
Forum Regular

Posts: 797
Registered: 12-09

I like it DOOM95.exe
would be insanely flying my face off if jump, crouch, and DECORATE support was added

screw freelook ;) only good for zdoom(and its cusins)

11-11-11 10:29 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Cyanosis
Member

Posts: 648
Registered: 10-10

xvertigox said:
Could you clarify a bit on whats changed exactly? Is it "just" bugfix stuff or does it go further?

The fixed blockmap is one thing, but it should be more than evident not everything could be perfectly recreated in DECORATE which is understandable, technicalities aside Randy can only do so much. But Hexen and Strife are certainly the worst offenders in this case, the latter being a mess in several ways but alas I didn't play the original executable much of that game so I didn't know how much was changed when I played on ZDoom until my friend informed me, like how the assault rifle is not suppose to be fully automatic.

But in Hexen's case I was particularly frustrated with how nerfed Cleric's Firestorm was and thought my memory was screwing with me at how powerful it used to be until I tried vanilla and discovered it is in fact a powerful weapon and ZDoom effectively made it weaker, if by taking an extra shot or two to kill something relatively fodder.

I still swear by Doom that the Archviles seem to be a lot more aggressive in a vanilla-based engine than they are in ZDoom. They seemed freer and were reviving the dead crazy fast as if there was no pause between their revivings.

11-11-11 11:07 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

_bruce_
Forum Regular

Posts: 799
Registered: 11-07

Porsche Monty said:
Nostalgic is not the word I'd use to describe my Doom experience as I've been able to keep it vanilla all these years by avoiding upgrading to incompatible hardware.

The biggest problem with DosBox is it's inability to output mode 13h at exactly 70hz, or better yet, sync the emulated refresh rate to the host's refresh rate like some emulators do. It's either perfect 70hz/35fps or it will stutter, and that's one of the reasons I prefer Chocolate Doom.

Using anything but CRT for vanilla Doom is insanity. Washed out colours and horrendous contrast even on the most expensive plasmas. Hopefully OLED's will take care of that, but it's going to take a while.

Unfortunately a lot of people have already forgotten how Doom originally looked, sounded and played, so they don't normally care about authenticity standards and shall settle for whatever generic piece of crap setup DosBox defaults to.

A CRT beats normal lcd's in any other game too - Quake3/Fallout3 looks astounding on a CRT... even a cheap one.
The final visual test for my Doom maps and source experiment is always done using a 19" CRT Belinea. Although it's a low Joe monitor this one has a yummy tube with high color saturation and good contrast.
A few years ago my fav. rig to play Doom was a Pentium60 + Dos. I also had a DX2/66 + VESA local gfx but esp. Doom2 ran sluggish on it ~28fps using timedemo 3.

Honorable mention goes to IPS panels - just beautiful but not as lively as a CRT.

11-11-11 11:18 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Posts: 7040
Registered: 07-07

Cyanosis said:
not everything could be perfectly recreated in DECORATE

DECORATE is a text-based format for the info contained in mobj tables in the original games. No info was lost. Everything can be perfectly recreated.

Cyanosis said:
like how the assault rifle is not suppose to be fully automatic.

This again? Tell your friend to use a keyboard key to fire, rather than the mouse button.

What's happening here is that Strife has buggy mouse handling. There is nothing in the mobj tables themselves that make the rifle behave differently. If you don't believe Randy's reverse-engineering, you can check Janis' work instead (in Vavoom), or Kaiser-&-Quasar's in Choco Strife.

11-11-11 12:31 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

_bruce_ said:
A CRT beats normal lcd's in any other game too - Quake3/Fallout3 looks astounding on a CRT... even a cheap one.
The final visual test for my Doom maps and source experiment is always done using a 19" CRT Belinea. Although it's a low Joe monitor this one has a yummy tube with high color saturation and good contrast.
A few years ago my fav. rig to play Doom was a Pentium60 + Dos. I also had a DX2/66 + VESA local gfx but esp. Doom2 ran sluggish on it ~28fps using timedemo 3.

Honorable mention goes to IPS panels - just beautiful but not as lively as a CRT.

Indeed. None of the advantages advertised for LCD's and Plasmas have anything to do with image quality, compatibility or flexibility.

However, a modern game designed with these limitations in mind, is likely to look slightly better than an older game that was not, with Doom being a prime example of a bad gamma rape victim.

11-11-11 13:06 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Evolution
Mini-Member

Posts: 75
Registered: 09-10

I only knew DOOM95 back in the day, hell I even thought it was vanilla before lurking here. So for me: 640x480 fullscreen, default settings, preferably ultimate doom. It's hard to emulate the difficulty back then when I was too young to [die] figure out arts like circle-strafing. The more-than-often unavoidable Baron slime and flesh-tearing swipes scared me so freaking much like that - because they were normally superior in combat. Still, playing with UV and having low gamma gets intense despite using mouse now - love the fear factor when waltzing into darkened traps like the exit area of Phobos Lab, e1m5. Also, yeah, I forget dem CRT monitor days... :(

11-11-11 13:10 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

ASD
Green Marine

Posts: 32
Registered: 03-09

I'm nowadays a 100% vanilla Doomer, using DOSBox. Source ports don't have the essence of Doom IMO.

11-11-11 13:24 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Phobus
Senior Member

Posts: 1470
Registered: 10-06

I genuinely can't see the appeal in going back to 320x200 and keyboard only. I've been trying it recently in order to test my maps for Back to Saturn X (using chocolate doom) and my main conclusion is that the massive pixels and inability to see anything clearly at any real range on my 19" (possibly 21", I can't remember) widescreen LCD is both a waste of the monitor and a pointless limitation for me. Likewise I prefer the predictability of being able to aim my shots with mouselook rather than hoping that the autoaim won't aim for the barrel I want to shoot over.

In short, not nostalgic at all. Give me ZDoom or possibly Eternity (I don't like the way 3D rendering in OpenGL looks or I'd probably be a fan of GZDoom) or give me some other game to play.

11-11-11 21:10 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Posts: 7130
Registered: 01-03

Porsche Monty said:

Using anything but CRT for vanilla Doom is insanity. Washed out colours and horrendous contrast even on the most expensive plasmas. Hopefully OLED's will take care of that, but it's going to take a while.

Let's rephrase that:

Failure to properly calibrate your monitor will do that for sure.

I had my CRT set to a gamma of 1.6 to get a good color balance in Doom and to 1.2 for everything else.

With my new TFT monitor I use 1.0 for Doom and 0.7 for everything else - and I do not get washed out contrast and other bad things. Sure, black level is not perfect but the positives do outweigh the negatives - at least compared with the last 2 CRTs I had. The last one (bought used) was so bad that I didn't bother again. Contrast on them was far worse than on my current setup.

Phobus said:
I genuinely can't see the appeal in going back to 320x200 and keyboard only. I've been trying it recently in order to test my maps for Back to Saturn X (using chocolate doom) and my main conclusion is that the massive pixels and inability to see anything clearly at any real range on my 19" (possibly 21", I can't remember) widescreen LCD is both a waste of the monitor and a pointless limitation for me.

I couldn't agree more. I absolutely don't get it why people feel that this is needed to get the 'real deal'. Let's not forget that higher resolutions for Doom have been available since Doom95 so all things considered, 320x200 was the only thing in town for less than 2 years!

If I were into more 'classic' gameplay I'd still use PrBoom+ over pixelvision.

11-11-11 22:49 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Vordakk
Forum Regular

Posts: 862
Registered: 07-10

Graf Zahl said:

I couldn't agree more. I absolutely don't get it why people feel that this is needed to get the 'real deal'. Let's not forget that higher resolutions for Doom have been available since Doom95 so all things considered, 320x200 was the only thing in town for less than 2 years!

If I were into more 'classic' gameplay I'd still use PrBoom+ over pixelvision.

Precisely. Nowadays it's very common to see grand, complex architecture and increased detail due to many mappers having honed their skills for years and also because modern level editors make things easier. So it makes sense to have higher resolutions with which to see the more impressive designs. At least that's my take on it.

11-11-11 23:38 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

Graf Zahl said:
Let's rephrase that:

Failure to properly calibrate your monitor will do that for sure.

That's exactly the point, LCD's and plasmas can't be properly calibrated, you have to make compromises. Take http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm for example, now try getting those 9 squares to perfectly blend with there gray backgrounds for the Gamma 2.2 test (industry standard) and see how good your TFT does.

Graf Zahl said:
With my new TFT monitor I use 1.0 for Doom and 0.7 for everything else - and I do not get washed out contrast and other bad things. Sure, black level is not perfect but the positives do outweigh the negatives - at least compared with the last 2 CRTs I had. The last one (bought used) was so bad that I didn't bother again. Contrast on them was far worse than on my current setup.

Again, the positive things about LCD's and plasmas have nothing to do with image quality, hence the black level problem you just mentioned.

Used CRT's, for the most part, are old hardware by now, and phosphors wear out as years go by, so if you were to make a fair, proper comparison, you'd have to go with new quality CRT vs new quality TFT.

Any any event, if LCD's and plasmas looked anywhere near as good as a CRT, scientists wouldn't have bothered coming up with a replacement technology like oled.

11-12-11 00:04 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

killer2
Member

Posts: 514
Registered: 02-10

Why is everyone talking about CRT's and LCD's but noone about LED's? LED's look the best in my opinion.

11-12-11 00:06 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Processingcontrol
Senior Member

Posts: 1153
Registered: 09-10

I always (unless a more advanced port is required or I'm testing a vanilla map) use PrBoom+. It looks better and is less buggy than chocolate doom, but it still retains full vanilla compatibility. I used to use zdoom, and I stopped because I felt it changed the gameplay too much.

11-12-11 00:19 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Posts: 7130
Registered: 01-03

Porsche Monty said:

That's exactly the point, LCD's and plasmas can't be properly calibrated, you have to make compromises. Take http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm for example, now try getting those 9 squares to perfectly blend with there gray backgrounds for the Gamma 2.2 test (industry standard) and see how good your TFT does.

Depends on how you define 'properly calibrated'. If that means, that they cannot behave exactly like a CRT, yes, you are right - but if you honestly would expect that from a completely different technology to be 'proper' I'd call you delusional. Stick with your obsolete hardware then! :P

Porsche Monty said:

you'd have to go with new quality CRT vs new quality TFT.

There's just 2 problems here:

1. New quality CRTs are very, very hard to find in the market because nobody wants them anymore.
2. They get extremely bulky which would severely restrict the size I could use. So even if I got one it'd have to be a lot smaller than the TFT I am currently using.

Porsche Monty said:

Any any event, if LCD's and plasmas looked anywhere near as good as a CRT, scientists wouldn't have bothered coming up with a replacement technology like oled.

I never said that TFT is a perfect technology, far from it in fact. However, the drawbacks of CRTs make it even less desirable in my book.

Oh and BTW, my plasma TV looks much, much better than any CRT TV I've ever seen. I wouldn't ever buy an LCD TV though.

11-12-11 00:43 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

Graf Zahl said:

Depends on how you define 'properly calibrated'. If that means, that they cannot behave exactly like a CRT, yes, you are right

Correct. CRT's have set the standards for image quality hence for what is considered proper. Since it's physically impossible for LCD's and plasmas to achieve such standard, and I repeat, physically impossible, they will never be properly calibrated. The gamma calibration test posted above (I actually compared it against a professional spider's and it's in fact extremely accurate) backs me up on this one.

Graf Zahl said:
- but if you honestly would expect that from a completely different technology to be 'proper' I'd call you delusional

Trust me I don't expect anything from these technologies.

Graf Zahl said:
Stick with your obsolete hardware then! :P

LCD's and plasmas are on their way out. It's only a matter of time before the oled craze sets in.

Graf Zahl said:
There's just 2 problems here:

1. New quality CRTs are very, very hard to find in the market because nobody wants them anymore.
2. They get extremely bulky which would severely restrict the size I could use. So even if I got one it'd have to be a lot smaller than the TFT I am currently using.

This is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make here, which's specifically image quality. You get the very best LCD/plasma and CRT monitors in existence, compare their performance under the best possible viewing conditions and inevitably the CRT is going to win.

Graf Zahl said:
I never said that TFT is a perfect technology, far from it in fact. However, the drawbacks of CRTs make it even less desirable in my book.

To each there own I guess.

Graf Zahl said:
Oh and BTW, my plasma TV looks much, much better than any CRT TV I've ever seen. I wouldn't ever buy an LCD TV though.

Plasma TV's were designed for progressive video and CRT TV's were designed for interlaced video. You get a lot of detail from 1080p but try a regular, interlaced camcoder source or non-IVTC'd video on these TV's and it's all shite.

In short, old video goes best with old TV's and new video goes best with new TV's. Me personally, I'm happy with my 21 inch, flatscreen, aperture-grille CRT monitor with perfect colours, perfect contrast and a fully 1080p-compliant display ;)

11-12-11 01:39 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

CODOR
Forum Regular

Posts: 770
Registered: 02-06

Everyone who prefers CRTs must have been using rose-coloured anti-glare filters on them.

Of course the best CRT will always defeat the best flat-panel monitor (I can't speak for IPS panels since I don't own one), but average CRT displays of the 1990s and early 2000s sucked. Really, really sucked. They were blurry and there was always some sort of distortion preventing the image from being rectangular. I never had two with the same gamma response (which I suppose is why Doom needs the F11 key in the first place). And the flicker. The endless, headache-inducing flicker...

The average LCD of the past 5 years or so avoids all of that (but to be fair they're still blurry at all but essentially one resolution). And they cost less (even without adjusting for inflation), use half of the power and have a quarter of the mass. (They are set too bright by default simply because the manufacturers can do it. Dropping the brightness by about half and/or setting the color temperature to no higher than 6500K really helps. Your first thought will be "holy crap, it's dark" followed a few minutes later by "holy crap, it looks a lot better")

11-12-11 03:24 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

hex11
Senior Member

Posts: 1481
Registered: 09-09

My kingdom for a brand new Commodore 1084S monitor! And of course an Amiga 4000 and SegaCD to go along with it. I'll switch to the most vanilla-ish Amiga Doom port immediately...

11-12-11 04:06 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

CODOR said:
but average CRT displays of the 1990s and early 2000s sucked. Really, really sucked. They were blurry and there was always some sort of distortion preventing the image from being rectangular. I never had two with the same gamma response (which I suppose is why Doom needs the F11 key in the first place). And the flicker. The endless, headache-inducing flicker...

I you thought they sucked (and for the record I don't agree) you should have tried the average LCD from the same era...

CODOR said:
The average LCD of the past 5 years or so avoids all of that

And so does the average CRT. I'd put the latest AOC CRT's on the "average" list and they look fantastic.

CODOR said:
and/or setting the color temperature to no higher than 6500K really helps

That won't help Doom, though. Doom was designed on and for CRT's, which defaulted to an often fixed 9300k. You lower that to 6500k and all the red/browns will jump in your face. However, considering LCD's washed out colours, you're probably safe regardless of the temp.

11-12-11 04:30 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Posts: 7130
Registered: 01-03

Just a few points:

Porsche Monty said:

Correct. CRT's have set the standards for image quality hence for what is considered proper.

That's all a matter of perspective. Who says that CRTs were 100% and irreplacably correct. They just were there at the time.

Porsche Monty said:

LCD's and plasmas are on their way out. It's only a matter of time before the oled craze sets in.

So? CRT is already out. So what does that prove? It's the normal cycle of technical development that things get replaced by something better. And I doubt that there's anyone claiming that LCD/TFT is perfect.

Porsche Monty said:

This is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make here, which's specifically image quality. You get the very best LCD/plasma and CRT monitors in existence, compare their performance under the best possible viewing conditions and inevitably the CRT is going to win.

'Very best' is rather pointless if the average consumer grade product has trouble achieving that. And yes, I fully agree that I can't remember ever having a CRT monitor that had 'perfect' colors. During the last 18 years, since the release of Doom I went through 5 or 6 and each time I changed colors were different in a way that couldn't be fixed with calibration. One was too bright, the next one too dark, another one always had a slight green push that couldn't be removed without getting shit colors, the next one was too red and so on and so on. So what does a slightly elevated black level with a TFT mean by comparison? Right, Nothing! Just another monitor that again has differences in color reproduction. But unlike any of my previous CRTs it has a nice sharp picture that doesn't cause eyestrain after a few hours.

Porsche Monty said:

Plasma TV's were designed for progressive video and CRT TV's were designed for interlaced video. You get a lot of detail from 1080p but try a regular, interlaced camcoder source or non-IVTC'd video on these TV's and it's all shite.

You can phrase it differently: HDTV displays inevitably bring out all the worst of old analogue or interlaced video signals. But that's not the display's fault but the lack of information in the signal to be processed. It only gets hidden on CRTs because they are so blurry that most of the artifacts get filtered away in the lack of detail the display provides.

Porsche Monty said:

In short, old video goes best with old TV's and new video goes best with new TV's. Me personally, I'm happy with my 21 inch, flatscreen, aperture-grille CRT monitor with perfect colours, perfect contrast and a fully 1080p-compliant display ;)

That may all be but such a monitor would be prohibitive due to size and weight for most people. What does it weigh? 30kg? 40kg? And how many free space do you need for it. And what did it cost? Where can you buy such monsters anyway? No dealer I know of still carries them for the handful of people that still insist on buying nothing else?

On my workspace the biggest I could use was 19'' and that was already tight. No problems with my current 23'' widescreen TFT.

Feel happy being stuck in the past.

11-12-11 07:53 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Porsche Monty
Member

Posts: 417
Registered: 06-10

Graf Zahl said:
Just a few points:

That's all a matter of perspective. Who says that CRTs were 100% and irreplacably correct. They just were there at the time.

It's not a matter of perspective, it's a technical fact. The way LCD's and plasmas are built doesn't allow for the much superior colours CRT's provide, it just ain't possible.

Graf Zahl said:
So? CRT is already out. So what does that prove? It's the normal cycle of technical development that things get replaced by something better. And I doubt that there's anyone claiming that LCD/TFT is perfect.

You called CRT's obsolete, which's false, while your LCD's and plasmas are not in a particularly better position if you were to confer degrees of obsolescence based on image quality.

Graf Zahl said:
'Very best' is rather pointless if the average consumer grade product has trouble achieving that

Again, all that is completely irrelevant. I'm discussing image quality specifically, yet you only seem to care about the monitor not fitting your budget/desktop/whatever.

Graf Zahl said:
And yes, I fully agree that I can't remember ever having a CRT monitor that had 'perfect' colors. During the last 18 years, since the release of Doom I went through 5 or 6 and each time I changed colors were different in a way that couldn't be fixed with calibration. One was too bright, the next one too dark, another one always had a slight green push that couldn't be removed without getting shit colors, the next one was too red and so on and so on

There's nothing 100% perfect, not even oleds are, but for all the intents and purposes, a quality CRT has always been the closest to this elusive perfection, and any graphics designer worth his salt knows this.

Also, I never really had problems with CRT's in the past, and maybe it's because I paid good money for mine, I refused to settle for the lower end spectrum of monitors.

Graf Zahl said:
So what does a slightly elevated black level with a TFT mean by comparison? Right, Nothing! Just another monitor that again has differences in color reproduction. But unlike any of my previous CRTs it has a nice sharp picture that doesn't cause eyestrain after a few hours.

"slightly elevated" would be downplaying CRT's capabilities here, plus there's more to image quality than just the black level, and then again, it's your personal experience with cheap CRT's vs the reality of quality CRT's producing a better picture than quality plasmas.

Graf Zahl said:
You can phrase it differently: HDTV displays inevitably bring out all the worst of old analogue or interlaced video signals. But that's not the display's fault but the lack of information in the signal to be processed. It only gets hidden on CRTs because they are so blurry that most of the artifacts get filtered away in the lack of detail the display provides.

See it this way. You have exactly the same video looking ok on one TV and looking bad on the other. What's to blame here? the video? the TV? nope, blame the user for trying to display a video on incompatible hardware.

Graf Zahl said:
That may all be but such a monitor would be prohibitive due to size and weight for most people. What does it weigh? 30kg? 40kg? And how many free space do you need for it. And what did it cost? Where can you buy such monsters anyway? No dealer I know of still carries them for the handful of people that still insist on buying nothing else?

Oh God...for the 1000000th time, I'm not discussing any aspect of any monitor technology but image quality, and lacking muscle tone, living in a bedroom and not having access to the internet does NOT affect the quality of a CRT monitor's display whatsoever.

Graf Zahl said:
On my workspace the biggest I could use was 19'' and that was already tight. No problems with my current 23'' widescreen TFT.

If you work as a programmer or something that doesn't require proper colours, contrast or any degree of flexibility like different resolutions and refresh rates, you're much better off with a regular LCD, and I don't think this is even debatable.

Graf Zahl said:
Feel happy being stuck in the past.

Feel happy being stuck in your broken perception of present ;)

11-12-11 09:08 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!

Posts: 7130
Registered: 01-03

Porsche Monty said:

It's not a matter of perspective, it's a technical fact. The way LCD's and plasmas are built doesn't allow for the much superior colours CRT's provide, it just ain't possible.

What's a fact for you is just a strong bias in my book. I've never seen a color perfect CRT in my life so what?

Porsche Monty said:

You called CRT's obsolete, which's false, while your LCD's and plasmas are not in a particularly better position if you were to confer degrees of obsolescence based on image quality.

Some quick research with TV and computer hardware dealers shows that nobody sells them anymore. So yes, they are obsolete. Whether LCDs or plasmas will become obsolete in 5 or 10 years doesn't matter. They are currently the dominant technology.

What you think of these technologies doesn't matter. There will always those who think that old technologies are superior to new ones, whether it's true or not. If something is no longer commercially viable it's obsolete.

Porsche Monty said:

Again, all that is completely irrelevant. I'm discussing image quality specifically, yet you only seem to care about the monitor not fitting your budget/desktop/whatever.

So? It's also a factor. If you got unlimited budget and unlimited space you can always aim for the very best, even if the price is insane. Even if I presume that the monitor you got is 'perfect' it's still not a viable alternative for most people due to its size. So it's worth shit for them.

Porsche Monty said:

There's nothing 100% perfect, not even oleds are, but for all the intents and purposes, a quality CRT has always been the closest to this elusive perfection, and any graphics designer worth his salt knows this.

Strangely enough the graphics designers I know were among the first people to switch to LCD - because the image is so much sharper. So again I see your bias speaking, not facts.

Porsche Monty said:

See it this way. You have exactly the same video looking ok on one TV and looking bad on the other. What's to blame here? the video? the TV? nope, blame the user for trying to display a video on incompatible hardware.

LOL!

So now a standard resolution CRT TV is better than a HDTV plasma/LCD just because it doesn't show all the problems that are present in a video signal? Sorry, but that's plain and utterly ridiculous. I guess you are using a native 320x200 VGA screen to play Doom then, too, because the low-res blockiness of that resolution looks like utter crap on most monitors, even moreso on CRTs because they leave every second scan line blank. By your reasoning your 21'' 'high quality' CRT would be 'incompatible hardware' for it, too.

I guess you are using vinyl LPs over CD's too. It'd fit your attitude.

11-12-11 09:36 #

Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy

IP || Edit/Delete || Quote

All times are GMT. The time now is 22:19.

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Doom General > How nostalgic do you like your Doom?

Show Printable Version |

Email this Page |

Subscribe to this Thread

Forum Rules:

You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON

< Contact Us - Doomworld >