Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:29:59 UTC No. 852582

No. Dumb question. Next.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:32:59 UTC No. 852583

>>852581
We can replicate 90's CGI today. We don't because it's 90's CGI and this is the 2020's.
Everyone still around who did that graphics back in the day have moved on to much better things.

Retrofags can't replicate that look because they're only trying to do it because they can't do art that well.
But being able to do art is a prerequisite to make art.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:38:29 UTC No. 852584

>>852581
crt

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:10:31 UTC No. 852605

>>852584
the LCD one has almost half the resolution. do a proper comparison

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:56:48 UTC No. 852610

>>852605

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:41 UTC No. 852624

>>852581
Yes we should, cause i am tired of the last 20 ish years of games, its like half of the devs went insane and decided that stylization was out, and as the years go by more and more of them are falling for the photorealism meme.

OP is a schizo at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:05:17 UTC No. 852628

>>852581
>Is there any particular reason why I can't replicate old 90 CGI graphics today?

fixed

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:06:54 UTC No. 852630

>>852605
fucking retard

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:16:46 UTC No. 852636

OP you have no fucking idea how desperate some people are to perfectly recreate models from the 90s
Especially Mario
I have seen so much genuine drama over who has the most accurate models and what models get released publicly

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:46:53 UTC No. 852642

>>852636
Nah, that's just autism. Fuck em.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:55:23 UTC No. 852774

>>852581
all it really takes is some indiefag striking gold on le quirky 90s cgi styled game
rest of them will follow and you'll quickly find yourself in a state of growing hatred

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:47:24 UTC No. 852796

>>852605
LMAO
The absolute state of /3/

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:11:45 UTC No. 852819

All you need is phong

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:44:20 UTC No. 852826

>>852819
and point lights...and no global illumination.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 22:22:27 UTC No. 852846

>>852581
unless you're a indiefag, there's no reason for use those clay graphics

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:29:32 UTC No. 852852

>>852846
I am. Suck my hairy asshole you demented waggie nigger.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:37:02 UTC No. 852853

>>852852
Holy based

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:19:05 UTC No. 853030

Technical constraints caused by health/polution regulations. Basically, until the early 2000s, graphic cards were made with different components than today, which allowed them to render stuff in the specific style that now we associate with 90s graphics. However, those components were actually he harmful to the environment and the people's health, so they were banned and replaced by other components which work differently and can't reproduce those kind of graphics.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:25:25 UTC No. 853035

Software limitations.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:30:13 UTC No. 853039

>>852581
Just download 3D Studio 4.0 and go wild.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 17:05:13 UTC No. 853085

>>853039
Use an older version of MAX instead. More comfortable to model, modifier stack and the old scanline renderer can easily do this style.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 17:21:12 UTC No. 853091

>>853030
That post gave me a headache. Do you lay out Tarot cards or practice herbal medicine in your free time?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 17:25:20 UTC No. 853092

>>853085
Pretty sure MAX wasn't released before Donkey Kong Country

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 17:47:45 UTC No. 853097

>>853030
This. The semiconductors of the day had special 90's components with a crystaline structure that was much more soulful
But as it turns out it was emitting ionizing radiation radon gas that deleted the ozone layer and caused a bit of a panic back in the day.
You may remember having heard of a small japanese developer called Aum Shinrikyo?

They where moving SGI machine components in their Tokyo offices when it was mistaken for a sarin gas attack on the Tokyo metro.
In the aftermath all hardware capable of making soulful Retro Graphics was promptly moved to the other side of the perimeter icewall
in Antarctica where the globalist buried it underneath in a special vault at the foot of a place called 'Mount Terror'.

Today if you wanna move polygons into simple forms and avoid them to look super advanced and detailed when you hit render you
pretty much gotta break in there and steal these artifacts from the lost civilization when we still possessed this technology (90's tech).

You also need a 90's CRT screen to view it well, but there are some pretty nice filter workarounds these day, not as good as a real 90's one ofc. But even if you somehow had all that stuff it's still not enough because these machines kinda ran
on special wallsocket electricity that was only available in the 90's.

>too Shoko Asahara, the Kojima that could've been.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 18:26:43 UTC No. 853098

>>852605
You're retarded.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 20:21:54 UTC No. 853120

>>853092
Doesn't matter. MAX scanline renderer was shit when it came out. Simple as. Easy to make it look like something Alias R3 spit out.
I love Autodesk 3D Studio for DOS, but I would never start a new project with it now. Unlike Alias it has no proper undo stack.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 20:59:33 UTC No. 853125

>>853097
Is this satire

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 21:03:52 UTC No. 853126

>>853098
care to explain why?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:06:56 UTC No. 853133

>>852624
>decided that stylization was out, and as the years go
Aren't half of all games in that boring ass overwatch/fortnite/destiny style

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:08:48 UTC No. 853134

>>853097
Meds. Now.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:20:05 UTC No. 853137

>>852581
Exacly WHO is stopping you?
...or you come here to beg?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 01:49:52 UTC No. 853148

>>853126
It's the same sprite. The resolution of the graphic being displayed is identical. There is no additional information in the CRT image. It's the exact same image.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 02:01:06 UTC No. 853149

>>853148
are you trolling? There is a screen door effect on the left

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:23:12 UTC No. 853160

>>853149
IT'S. THE. EXACT. SAME. IMAGE. BUT. DISPLAYED. ON. A. CRT.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:58:09 UTC No. 853163

>>853148
>>853160
nope. the CRT shows 7x3 pixels where the LCD has 4x3. it's a badly made comparison. plus, as the other anon says, there's a screen door effect, which probably compels your brain to "fill in" the missing information.

increase the LCD resolution, and mimic the screen door effect using a panel with enough contrast to recreate the black between pixels. then, you can compare the technologies.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:00:12 UTC No. 853164

>>853163
also, you are looking at that CRT image *through* a LCD. faggot.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:36:09 UTC No. 853168

>>853163
holy retard

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 05:14:06 UTC No. 853172

It seems like people in the thread have no idea? I've never been to this board but even I know this shit. Every rendering algorithm has a different approach, and looks different - especially in the past when things were very far from how light really works.
The one called "the Alias renderer" that Rare used, which did not do raytracing but it's own unique collection of tricks and shortcuts that is its signature look - was dropped when Alias became Maya - a new renderer was written. This was mid Rare heyday.
So if you want the exact rare-renders look you need to get Alias or PowerAnimator like, version 7 or something - which only runs on SGI so you have to buy one or wait for emulation to speed up.
Or someone could maybe eventually by trial and error reverse engineer the renderer.
Or use the Maya renderer which wasn't drastically different, or softImage even, etc. These would still look 90s.
These 90s renderers did a thing called micropolygon which is also in the new unreal 5, specifically because Tim or whoever wanted to get back on the track that these renderers were on before it all got abandoned for raytracing. So maybe there's an avenue there. Search up unreal 5 and "reyes"

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 06:17:43 UTC No. 853175

>>853172
>I've never been to this board

this thread is made twice a week which is why nobody responds to it seriously

All your answers have been given over many times which is why we just shitpost in these threads now, the people asking these threads have no interest in learning they will never learn.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 06:27:20 UTC No. 853176

>>853175
ah ok haha

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 06:31:19 UTC No. 853177

>>853163

Neat! This is the most complex post I've ever seen from a brain-damaged turd waffle. You're fucking retarded.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 06:35:31 UTC No. 853178

>>853163

hahahahahaha holy shit you are dumb as fuck

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 18:38:15 UTC No. 853275

>>853172
U dumb af mane

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 19:16:14 UTC No. 853280

>>853177
>>853178
nice refutation.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:07:09 UTC No. 853289

>>853178
>>853177
okay, I decided to test my hypothesis instead of just making this >>853280 snarky post.

and yeah, if you revert the sprite to native resolution on the display and then photograph it similarly to the one on CRT, what you get is quite close.

you definitely can't compare a photo of a display to an enlarged bitmap.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 21:06:41 UTC No. 853295

>>853275
Which program would you recommend, ya dingus

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:47:36 UTC No. 853309

>>853295
Old-ish versions of MAX, C4D, Maya or Lightwave. Something that supports the old specularity based material workflow. Also before global illumination was widely implemented.

All the old SGI stuff is cool, but the tool are hard to get now. Some 3D packages won't even install or generate licenses anymore due to missing activation servers and/or missing/damaged hardware dongles.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:49:40 UTC No. 853310

>>853295
Old-ish versions of MAX, C4D, Maya or Lightwave. Something that supports the old specularity based material workflow. Also before global illumination was widely implemented.

All the old SGI stuff is cool, but the software is hard to get now. Some 3D packages won't even install or generate licenses anymore due to missing activation servers and/or missing/damaged hardware dongles.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Sep 2021 23:48:38 UTC No. 853318

>>853310
Thank you, genuinely

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 03:45:10 UTC No. 853366

>>853097
>>853030

nice one

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:14:42 UTC No. 853416

>>853289

Just...stop. Nobody is going to hold your hand and explain this to you. At this point, shutting the fuck up is your only option.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:55:34 UTC No. 853492

>>853416
what else is there to explain? the point stands: the comparisons posted above are incorrect. you can't compare an optical image of a CRT to a transformed bitmap, which sits at the start of the graphics pipeline instead. contrary to what some anon said, it's not even the same source data in both cases: one is the sprite at native resolution, the other has been redimensioned to match the apparent size of the photographed sprite.

these issues are very much obvious, and the comparison I posted, hackish and inaccurate as it is, is still closer to how they should be made. it's quite surprising that you are having so much trouble grasping this. I'm almost convinced you're trolling at this point.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:19:12 UTC No. 853496

Watch this

https://youtu.be/lS9X19BAoJQ

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:36:26 UTC No. 853501

>>853163
crts don't have pixels

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:50:43 UTC No. 853504

>>852610
>>853289
pixelets BTFO!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:30:47 UTC No. 853511

>>853501
have you ever seen a CRT up close? the image is not drawn continuously, it's made up of discrete parts.

yeah, I know they don't have cells like an LED panel. still, you can't directly paint between pixels.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:35:55 UTC No. 853513

>>853511
trinitron has long ass lines you won't find on led panels

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:17:47 UTC No. 853520

>>853513
were they continuously addressable?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Sep 2021 03:45:00 UTC No. 853603

>>853511
/crt/ anon here. An image on a crt absolutely is drawn continuously. It's literally a beam of light scanning across the screen a billion times a second. the "pixels" you see is due the slot mask or shadow mask or equivalent which separates the colors, which is why you can see those tiny blocks. It is the same resolution image being displayed on both screens. The CRT does a much better job of blending the pixels together because believe it or not - old content was meant to be viewed on old displays.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:30:16 UTC No. 853609

>>853097
Lmfao Aum a fucking dev, toppest of keks anon.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:33:46 UTC No. 853611

>>853603
>the "pixels" you see is due the slot mask or shadow mask or equivalent which separates the colors, which is why you can see those tiny blocks
I'm aware of that. you can't paint between those slots, so those "logical" pixels are functionally equivalent to the physical pixels in LED displays. the bleeding you allude to is a defect of the technology, that however was used at times to increase the effective resolution of the display. of course, that's not going to work the same in modern displays. but the differences are much smaller than what some side-by-side "comparisons" would have you believe, simply because they are done wrong. I'd even go so far as to venture that with new tech, like OLED and HDR, the appearance of CRTs will be emulated fully.

>It is the same resolution image being displayed on both screens.
if you're referring to the one I posted, that's true. for the others, it is not. to do it right, you must either reduce the dimensions of the image for the LED, or increase the dimensions of the image for the CRT. and, trust me, an enlarged sprite would also look like shit on the CRT.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:38:56 UTC No. 853612

>>852584
You can see his grinning teeth in the crt

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 03:02:59 UTC No. 853967

>>852581
Modern software uses the PBR, whereas 90s hardware used phong/blinn

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 03:27:46 UTC No. 853970

>>852583
>Retrofags can't replicate that look because they're only trying to do it because they can't do art that well.
>But being able to do art is a prerequisite to make art.
Bingo

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 03:58:38 UTC No. 853980

>>852583
>>853970
>>Retrofags can't replicate that look because they're only trying to do it because they can't do art that well.
That's not entirely true, there are some Retrofaqs that do it because they like it, they can replicate the look and they can do other stuff as well since they are actual artists.
None of them would ever come here though and talk about it, or rather beg others to hold their hand in order to get a result.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:00:53 UTC No. 854107

>>853980
unfortunately theres shiton of zoomers who are interested in retro because MUH indie games use pixelart
holy fuck i really should stop complaining about society and move completely to IRC

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:16:45 UTC No. 854110

>>854107
is IRC like a retirement home for old internet users

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:48:45 UTC No. 854114

>>854110
just "home"