[HN Gopher] Final Fantasy remasters reignite controversies over ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Final Fantasy remasters reignite controversies over pixel art
        
       Author : danso
       Score  : 43 points
       Date   : 2021-06-25 20:49 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
        
       | musicale wrote:
       | One nice feature of the PS3 is that it has analog video output
       | and plays PS1 games (and PS2 if you have a launch model.) I still
       | think PS1/2 games look best on a CRT, as do 1990s-era PC games.
       | Even modern games look pretty great on a CRT, which is why 16:9
       | CRTs command high prices.
        
       | underwater wrote:
       | I've heard the revelation "that art was specifically drawn
       | knowing it would ultimately pipe through a CRT" quite a few times
       | now. It's becoming a meme.
       | 
       | It makes it sound like artists sat down and specifically about
       | colour bleed, and blurry edges, and designed the artwork while
       | thinking about the mechanics of CRT monitors in an academic way.
       | 
       | In reality, every monitor was a CRT. They just drew what looked
       | good on their development devices.
        
         | pessimizer wrote:
         | I don't understand the distinction you're making here. If every
         | monitor was a CRT, the artists sat down at one of those
         | monitors and thought about (while observing) color bleed and
         | blurry edges, and drew what looked good on their development
         | devices.
         | 
         | Are you saying that people are saying that artists back then
         | didn't use monitors, and had to imagine what their art would
         | look like?
        
           | tedunangst wrote:
           | The opposite, I believe. A lot of people do make it sound
           | like art was mastered on pixel perfect displays, and the
           | artist had to imagine how it would ultimately look on some
           | far off CRT.
        
           | taeric wrote:
           | This is a solid rebuttal to the idea that things were
           | carefully crafted to the pixels. https://t.co/pGAxa87C1e
           | 
           | Odds are high that things were varied considerably. Such that
           | it is tough to really claim too much.
           | 
           | Edit: as the follow-up shows. Down res and cleanup probably
           | works better than folks are allowing in the conversations.
           | With the major caveat that the "and cleanup" is tough to
           | automate.
        
           | bluescrn wrote:
           | In the days of 8-bit and 16-bit home computing, monitors were
           | an expensive luxury, and a lot of game developers will have
           | used a TV connected by a composite or even RF connection.
           | 
           | They didn't have to 'think about how it'd look on a consumer
           | TV', as that's probably what they were developing on.
           | 
           | During the era of 16-bit console development, the Amiga (with
           | DPaint - which was never as good on PC) was still a popular
           | pixel art tool. And even if you had a monitor, you could
           | easily preview things on a TV too.
        
         | hellotomyrars wrote:
         | That doesn't really invalidate the point, and doesn't change
         | the part where it looks different (and not necessarily as
         | intended) on non-CRTs, or that they considered some of those
         | aspects when they designed the art.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | tshaddox wrote:
         | They presumably developed on CRTs, of course, but I would also
         | guess that they drew while zoomed in and thus were very aware
         | of each pixel and of tricks to make things look good.
        
           | jbverschoor wrote:
           | Drew while zoomed in? You mean using grid paper to create the
           | sprites
        
             | gmueckl wrote:
             | DPaint was a thing, at least in the later years. That
             | program supported zooming in.
        
         | ASalazarMX wrote:
         | > In reality, every monitor was a CRT. They just drew what
         | looked good on their development devices.
         | 
         | Vector games look atrocious in modern monitors, but beautiful
         | in vector monitors. Developers couldn't know what monitors the
         | future would have, but they certainly designed for the monitors
         | of their time and counted with their quirks in their visual
         | effects.
         | 
         | IIRC, the developer of the 2600 VCS version of Pac-Man decided
         | that the ghosts should display 1 of every 4 frames not because
         | it looked well in his monitor, but because he was running out
         | of time and relied on phosphor persistence to mask his sprite
         | reuse hack.
         | 
         | Edit: The correct VCS Pac-Man story of the flickery ghosts
         | https://boards.fool.com/atari-2600-hardware-and-pac-man-2527...
        
         | vmception wrote:
         | Many visual artists today also factor in the capture and
         | display technology, specifically around color space which can
         | have meaningful changes between mediums
         | 
         | Nobody is suggesting pixel art was an advanced form of alchemy,
         | they are saying many artists understood techniques or why their
         | printed pixel art for a presentation would look one way while
         | their digital version looked another way
        
         | qayxc wrote:
         | > In reality, every monitor was a CRT. They just drew what
         | looked good on their development devices.
         | 
         | Oh you don't even know the half of it, believe me! That was
         | _not_ how it went back in the day.
         | 
         | While every monitor was indeed a CRT, the difference between
         | composite, EGA (later VGA), and RF cable, TV and computer
         | monitors were in fact quite visible.
         | 
         | You could draw perfectly good pixel art on a nice, well
         | calibrated 14" computer monitor only to see the same graphics
         | look like a blend of mouse excrements and frog barf on a PAL TV
         | via RF cable.
         | 
         | In fact, artists needed to make sure their palette and graphics
         | worked reasonably well on both PAL and NTSC devices (different
         | resolutions, slightly different colours, etc.).
         | 
         | Some companies made good ports that worked- and looked well on
         | both PAL and NTSC, while many games had terrible PAL versions.
        
           | joshspankit wrote:
           | ^ Can confirm. The tech itself might have had less
           | "complexity", but devs had to practically (or actually)
           | become _engineers_ of every single piece of the pipeline. The
           | different connectors, the different tubes, how colour works,
           | how the memory functioned (not just how the docs _said_ it
           | functioned), the math that each chip did as the functions
           | were run, everything.
           | 
           | Lack of knowledge of any specific part could mean anything
           | from muddy graphics to a bug in the retail version of the
           | game in a time when there was literally no way to patch a
           | game after release. Those bugs could ruin a company.
        
         | gryson wrote:
         | The focus here should really be on output signal, not CRT.
         | Specifically, composite vs. RGB output.
         | 
         | And yes, at least in some cases, designers very carefully took
         | into consideration how the art would look on a CRT via
         | composite, in contrast to how they saw it on the high end
         | monitors they were designing on via RGB.
         | 
         | Here are two of the designers of the original Sonic the
         | Hedgehog games discussing the point:
         | 
         | https://twitter.com/MegaDriveShock/status/139046602041917849...
        
         | gfaure wrote:
         | Even if they didn't draw specifically for CRT output, I imagine
         | the process to have been iterative -- if something ended up
         | looking bad on end-user output devices, they would make tweaks
         | until the product looked good enough on CRTs.
         | 
         | Or are you suggesting that artists of that era never looked at
         | their art on CRTs at all?
        
       | Wowfunhappy wrote:
       | If anyone is looking for a good CRT filter, I very highly
       | recommend GTU v0.50 by aliaspider.
       | 
       | Unlike some filters, GTU doesn't try to mimic CRTs with complete
       | accuracy. Rather, its an idealized CRT tuned for pixel art, and
       | IMO the results are shockingly good.
        
       | vlunkr wrote:
       | Well the new sprites are certainly an improvement from the last
       | time they remade these games, but I still think it's a step down.
       | I don't really get what they're doing. I fell in love with FF6 at
       | a young age, and huge part of that was that the visuals blew me
       | away, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It reminds me of the
       | Star Wars special editions, why do they insist on tinkering with
       | something people already love?
       | 
       | I understand the issue that stretching these pixels out to 50+
       | inches gets a little ridiculous, but there are already solutions
       | that other re-releases have done. You can add borders to keep it
       | from getting too huge, add optional filters for scanlines or crt
       | blurriness, and if you want to mess with the colors a bit instead
       | of sticking to the very limited original palette, that's probably
       | ok.
        
       | jacksonlango wrote:
       | They should make the tilesets easily moddable on the Steam
       | versions, modern pixel artists could do some incredible work with
       | these games. Maybe open up post processing modding to allow CRT
       | effects too.
        
       | vmception wrote:
       | That's one thing that always bothered me about 90s nostalgia from
       | people born in the late 90s and early 2000s, all the fan-made
       | stuff didn't have the scanlines.
       | 
       | I like how this is being addressed, people go out of their way to
       | emulate VHS artifacting now with dynamic filters, and then
       | pretend to pipe that through a CRT. This is much more appealing
       | to me aesthetically
       | 
       | Square's Final Fantasy remakes do not do this, instead they try
       | to show characters in the way the final result would have looked
       | like if they had never had to use pixel sprites back in the 90s
       | in the first place. Grave mistake. Nobody wanted that.
        
       | arduinomancer wrote:
       | Tl;dr:
       | 
       | Pixel graphics on CRTs look smoother (almost like anti-aliasing)
       | because CRT pixels don't behave like the clean pixel squares in
       | modern displays.
       | 
       | Just displaying the same pixels on a modern display may not match
       | the original artist's intent.
        
         | musicale wrote:
         | Even without interlacing (which will alternate the set of
         | scanlines that are used and thereby "double" the resolution),
         | having black scanlines reduces the brightness and allows your
         | brain to fill in the imagined intermediate image.
        
           | svachalek wrote:
           | I think this is why it's just not possible (or at least super
           | difficult) to replicate the look of a CRT on a modern LCD. On
           | a CRT it's firing an electron gun at one point on the screen
           | which burns searingly bright, while the rest of the screen is
           | fading out and between the scanlines it's perpetually dark.
           | 
           | Your brain somehow turns that mess into a surprisingly
           | coherent image, especially if it's animated, to the point I
           | remember lots of people comparing 1080P LCD TVs in the store
           | back when they came out to their old CRTs at home and asking,
           | "is it really any better? I can't tell". (I still think they
           | all needed glasses, but there were a LOT of people talking
           | like that!)
           | 
           | Maybe someday we'll be able to emulate the whole effect with
           | fast enough, bright enough, LED/LCD screens but right now
           | even the photos of CRT screens viewed on an LCD screen don't
           | really give the right idea.
        
             | qayxc wrote:
             | > Maybe someday we'll be able to emulate the whole effect
             | with fast enough, bright enough
             | 
             | Please, never ever do that shit again. Ever. It was an
             | actual strain on the eyes to watch TV back then (or work on
             | a CRT monitor). You could actually catch tan if you were
             | sitting too close to a CRT (hot sensation and slight
             | discolouration of the skin from the electron radiation).
             | 
             | Truly an ergonomic nightmare in every way (the flickering,
             | OMG, the flickering...) - I don't miss CRTs.
        
         | larusso wrote:
         | It also depended on the TV set you had. I was allowed to play
         | secret of evermore a few nights on the TV set of my father for
         | a few nights. He had a Sony Trinitron and the game looked
         | amazingly sharp. It was also one with a flatter screen compared
         | to the bludgy curved mess my TV was at the time. I still love
         | pixel art. I would love to see a reinterpretation of FFVI with
         | the Octopath Traveler engine. I know that for some the only way
         | to play that game is as original as possible. But sadly that is
         | no longer possible for the most of us.
        
           | foobarrio wrote:
           | I think that's what these people are doing at Project Final
           | Fantasy 6. I haven't delved into the details but the screen
           | shots look just like Octopath Traveler.
        
       | gman83 wrote:
       | If you've ever tried playing old games in an emulator, and
       | thought to yourself, wow this looks terrible, take a look at how
       | much better these games could look on a CRT:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9C_TfmPgYM
        
       | einpoklum wrote:
       | Do these things run on Linux?
        
         | dagurp wrote:
         | probably
        
       | underwater wrote:
       | I don't understand the concept of a "Final Fantasy Pixel
       | Remaster". How can you remaster pixels?
       | 
       | If they were going for higher resolution assets, then sure. But
       | they're just redrawing sprites at the same resolution using the
       | same colour palettes?
        
         | kllrnohj wrote:
         | Click the link and find out? There's pretty clear side-by-side
         | comparisons showing the original & the remaster which answers
         | your question.
        
         | reikonomusha wrote:
         | The article explains this in a lot of detail. Pixels are not
         | pixels until they're on a display, and different displays (CRT
         | vs LCD for instance) display pixels differently in very not-
         | subtle ways. So one interpretation of "remaster" is to emulate
         | CRT-pixels as LCD-pixels through filters. Another is to re-
         | design the pixel art to be optimized for LCDs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-25 23:00 UTC)