by phaser on 10/13/25, 2:13 PM with 25 comments
by D13Fd on 10/13/25, 3:53 PM
People also forget that most video game CRTs ran at a headache-inducing 60hz, which had an unpleasant strobe effect.
by naet on 10/13/25, 4:39 PM
An old video game just looks and feels right on a CRT in a way that it doesn't on a modern hd tv, to me at least. That doesn't necessarily mean it looks "better", however you might define it.
It's like listening to a record. Records are lower quality than CDs or other digital options due to limitations of the analog technology, but they can still be a real joy to listen to on an older stereo system. There is a certain warmth, a little bit of crackle or pop, maybe a different dynamic range and other things that make a record sometimes more enjoyable, even though the "quality" is technically far lower. I think sometimes we can get lost in the technical specifications of pixel density or color range or audio bitrate and end up missing out on things that can prove the human experience.
A couple other random things about CRTs: there are so many that are 4:3 or standard aspect ratio instead of the widescreen that dominates today. Watching something 4:3 that fills the whole screen (without the black letterboxing of a widescreen) feels so good and makes me miss the aspect ratio. On the flip side, I also want to find one of the HD CRTs that is widescreen to run some of my more modern devices through.
by superfamicom on 10/13/25, 5:05 PM
by leakycap on 10/13/25, 3:18 PM
It is insane how much space they take up. Landfills must be full of these huge things.
by tuna74 on 10/13/25, 4:11 PM
Also, with 4K+ high refresh displays we are getting closer and closer to emulate the look of CRTs!
by cout on 10/14/25, 10:18 AM
I almost find this argument compelling, but I'm still as fascinated as when I was a kid with what makes an image on a crt look different from the pixels in my head.
by kelseyfrog on 10/13/25, 8:27 PM
by fleabitdev on 10/13/25, 4:53 PM