Originally Posted by jsnepo
Oh. Cool. It confuses me though. How else are others able to say that the intended look of retro games includes scanlines if the average consumer CRT television doesn't even have visible scanlines? Honestly, I don't remember scanlines at all during the 8bit and 16bit generations. Anyway, thanks for the input.
I mean, your scanlines are visible, just not prominent. Still, even if you back away, your set doesn't show the same type of pixelization that would occur if a 240p game were scaled up to 1080p for a fixed pixel HDTV. Plus, it depends on when you're talking about - consumer sets in the mid to late 90s had more prominant scanlines than consumer sets in the early 90s and 80s.
Prominent scanlines or not, 240p definitely wasn't meant to be upscaled into an overly blocky, sharp, and heavily pixelated image. I think the presence of the lines themselves is missing the point to an extent.
But certainly, if you do upscale, adding in fake lines gives the image a more coherent look than otherwise:
In that sense, as the resolution of the monitor increases, the need for scanlines to make the image look more authentic increases as well. This occurs naturally in CRTs - higher res monitors that render 240p natively will have thicker black scanlines which offsets the increased pixelization. But the same isn't true on a fixed pixel display (e.g. a modern flat screen). That's why adding in the scanlines for high res fixed pixel screens is "more authentic" than simply upscaling without them.
So did artists intend
for their artwork to have the lines there? Well I don't really think it's a relevant question. However, I think it's pretty clear that they intended for home console games to be played on CRTs, and scanlines help you get closer to that specifically on high res displays.