Most people just crank up the brightness and backlight to ridiculous levels because they think it makes the picture "pop." 
 

For what it's worth, the scanlines are optional, the blacks are black as fuck on that telly BUT there is some motion blur. It's only really noticeable when a black object moves rapidly against a flat, untextured light background. So far I've only seen in SMB 3 where the sprites have a black outline and the background is a flat pale blue. It is annoying but I can live with it. I also dislike seeing the overscan area, which is again a problem with SMB 3. It is an excellent TV though and I'm very happy with how 99% of games look on it. The clarity and sharpness is perfect. You could count the pixels if you were so inclined.

I'm wondering what the scanline strength is set to. 60%?

I'm trying to get my emulators to look exactly like an xrgb mini + lcd/plasma.

The 2013 Panasonic Plasma's are the cream of the crop, the best of the best. They indeed provide 99% perfect black levels (whereas the best an LCD can do is like 60% black in a dark room, and like 85% in a daylight room). And of course, geometry and convergence are never a problem with pixel based displays.

Man.....those BVM/PVM monitors are nice. I've had a few before. But each one I've had were riddled with issues that I couldn't fix and I was not a fan of the light gray mask. So I just went back to other trustworthy CRT's that are still going strong like-new (knock on wood). When the day finally comes where even 13" CRT's are no longer able to be found in good working condition, by then OLED's will be dirt cheap and have flawless motion, AND hdretrovision.com will have a lag-free line-doubler-scanliner for everyone (see their future products) that provides a signal for everyone, from RF/Composite, to RGB. This way everyone wins.

Absolutely. Without scanlines, the graphics become a blocky, blurry, pasty looking mess. It rapes my eyes! I'll never understand why some people like that. Maybe they are use to playing emulators on PC's with the option turned off or something.....

The best LCD's for reducing motion blur are IPS panels (forget about TN panels unless you hate your eyes). The IPS panels however still have plenty of blur. When I tested a few of them, I had New Super Mario Bros. U playing on a CRT, and an IPS-Alpha panel at the same time, and I was stunned to see how crystal clear the CRT looked in motion when compared to the LCD. And keep in mind, the IPS-Alpha panels are the very best LCD's when it comes to motion and color.  (the Wii-U has both a AV port, and a HDMI port, so that's how I was able to play it on two displays at the same time)

Anyway, it was funny. because when the game was not scrolling, the LCD looked far, far sharper. But when the game WAS scrolling, the CRT looked far, far sharper. Question: How many games do not scroll? Unless your playing Tetris, then the CRT will have a cleaner picture while in motion. Heck, even my dad's Pioneer Plasma didn't look as crisp in motion as one of my CRT's, but it was close no doubt.

And as far as being able to count every single individual pixel, well....to each his own. I know for sure that these games weren't meant to be that bloody sharp. They were suppose to have a smoother, more rounded look to the edges, because that's the way CRT's show them, and that's why they look better on their intended displays. But if you really dig that new look for them, then you have my best wishes. However, if you ever view some graphically complex SNES games like Final Fantasy III/VI, or Donkey Kong Country on that LCD, you might wish they were on a CRT because they just might very well look nasty with all that overload of sharpness.

Actually an IPS has motion blur worse than a TN of the same overall quality.  TN monitors have better response time currently so it's eaiser to reduce blur.  But chances are a new IPS will have less blur thanks to some of the other tech used such as lightboost.

Funny thing is, when I was working on my Legends of the Magi game 10 years ago, I was adding in motion blur to make it look smoother.  Now everyone wants no blur. 

I wonder if viewing distance is a factor here. I always thought that games that didn't look right, like the Squaresoft games you mention, were just supposed to be played at a greater viewing distance. At the right distance the pixels blend together and create a smoother image because of the way human vision works, similar to viewing a pointillist painting. The average CRT was 27" and 8 feet from the living room sofa. Some games seem designed for a smaller viewing angle/greater viewing distance, while some seem designed to be played up close.

The games were developed in japan though, so smaller average TVs and people sat closer to them.

I read that the 2013 Panasonic Plasmas are so amazing because Panasonic bought the patents used in the Pioneer Kuro and used that technology. The cheapest 2013 Plasma, the PxxSxx is ~$1200 for a 60" display and has slightly better picture quality than the Kuro Elite, which cost about 5 times as much for the same size display.

That scanline generator/line doubler from hdretrovision looks like it's going to awesome! Thanks for the heads-up.

I guess so. I recommend aiming for a sharp source image from the console, giving yourself more control over the final look. A CRT's natural properties help. As well as increasing the viewing distance or avoiding needlessly large TVs.

As for typical desktop computer setups, I'd rather experiment with filter options. Scanlines lose their effect at that distance.

True, so I guess most games are designed to be played up close, then. I think the average viewing angle was smaller than what you get with a HDTV. I think 15-20 degrees was probably normal for CRTs, whereas 30 degrees is closer to what you get with most modern displays and the average viewing distance.

I'm using a gamepad, so I typically just sit far enough back from the monitor until the scanlines blend in and the desired effect is achieved.

The same thing is true of CRTs, Trinitrons had pretty sharp scanlines that were very visible up close.

Only thing I don't like about filters is the additional processing time. They're fun to play around with, though.

We played like 3' away from the screen, always sitting on the floor

Yeah, I guess the viewing angle on a 26" CRT would be pretty similar at that distance to what you get sitting 8 ft from a 40" hdtv (I think that's average, now)

That's why I said "forget about TN panels unless you hate your eyes". In other words, the poor color/blacks are not worth the increase motion resolution. That's all I meant.

You hit the nail on the head. Yes, most of the top-tier SNES games from 1994-up had some of the most complex graphics on that system, and can be brutal to look at on a LCD. Plasma's soften the edges a little better though. But still, CRT's are the best for those games.

Same is true for many 2D PS1 and Saturn games. They are even more complex with their graphics, far more detailed, and can result in eye-rape on a modern display. Simple looking games like on the NES however aren't as offensive on a LCD. And really, really simple looking polygons like on the N64 can actually look perfectly fine without scanlines. Still prefer them though simply because the games were designed that way and look better as a result.

Wow, really? I've always sat far away from my sets. I use to sit about 4 feet away from my old 13" CRT. And I now currently sit around 5 feet away from my 20" CRT, and 15 feet away from my 60" Projection CRT, etc. Allows me to react quicker to on-screen enemies due to my eyes having a better overall view.

Yeah, on my 24" lcd (~19" in 4:3) Secret of Mana @ 1080p using HDMI looks best at a distance of about 5 ft. If it were a crt, 3-4 ft would probably be sufficient.

NES games, however, look good at a distance of about 2 ft (eyeball to screen). Very good observations.

Yea, its funny. I just started to realize this a few years ago when I was battling with picture quality on modern displays. I realized all of it quickly when I saw that low detail games like Mike Tyson's Punch Out looked fine without scanlines on a LCD (not better, but acceptable). But virtually any 2D game from 1993-up looked like pure garbage without scanlines on a LCD. They looked pasty, blurry, blocky, and lacked depth or the "pop" that they desparately needed due to their contrasty design. You can add scanlines to fix the blurry and blocky look, but the poor contast of the LCD still results in the game lacking depth and giving it a sorta pasty look (Plasma's will remedy those problems)

Basically the simpler the graphics, the more acceptable they look even on the worst displays. You won't hear Atari 2600 fanboys moaning or complaing about missing scanlines, or poor scaling, or poor contrast. I mean, those games have almost no detail. But you'll definitely hear a SNES or Sega Saturn fan moan and complain. Those games are insanely detailed, and due to the rich color palette, designers of those games took full advantage of the black levels of CRT's and made many games very "contrasy". Just look as some of the dark lava levels in Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3, and look at the darker games like Prince of Persia (SNES), Rock & Roll Racing (SNES), and Blackthorne (SNES, 32x). And many of the Shmups like R-Type III and Rendering Ranger R2, and Space Megaforce where you have ALOT of dark areas on-screen. That just looks TERRIBLE in a dark room on an LCD. But glorious on a CRT (or a Plasma with an XRGB).

Man I love some 16-bit 2D pixels. Precious works of art that should not be butchered!

I saw Fudoh claim several times, and others make the same claim, that the best LEDs and Plasmas now have BETTER blacks than CRTs... Maybe they are averaging light room and dark room performance together?

Also, I just want to point out that a BVM has 900 lines of resolution, pitch black and razor sharp scanlines and a nearly invisible mask- in other words, it looks almost exactly like an emulator on a good LCD or Plasma

but that's tech that didn't exist when nes was out, that was late 90s. And that was $15,000 - $30,000 for those monitors, so the games were in no way shape or form designed to look like they do there. I don't know of many development houses that would even buy one of them for programmers to see.

So basically, you need a *shitty* CRT to play the games right, lol.

. There is no "right". WantTMNT to look the way konami expected? Play on a 1990s crt. Want it to look like it did for most of us back then? Play it on a 19x crt with rounded corners. Want it to look like the artists intended? build a supergun and don't play a port. Want it to look good? Pick an option. But there is no "correct"

There's no correct when it comes to the way the games should look, true. But there is an objective standard when it comes to what an ideal, perfect CRT would look like, because that's just a CRT without any manufacturing flaws and with no mask, so basically a Sony BVM.

As you said, "intended look" is just too subjective, so I instead go for the objective "ideal crt look," if that makes sense.

Personally, I think these games have never looked better than they do on a Plasma with pitch black scanlines applied. Line doubling is the devil's work.