It might be my cheap ViewSonic monitors I have at work.. still not seeing it.Check the lower text in the hardcore-BMP
okay see it now.
ImageMagick compare utility. I was playing with it this morning. By default you give it two input images and an output image and it draws anywhere the pixels are different in red to the output. I'm trying to figure out how to make it give relative differences (so you can see shades of blue, etc... where it is different) rather than just a solid red is/isn't different, or at the very least a scale where dark means very different and light means barely different. That would give a more accurate representation.
It's an image specifically designed to make compression very very hard. That's what makes it hardcore.Using the ImageMagick compare utility, most of the images are just kind of splattered with red, lines tracing objects and letters where there are hard colour borders mostly, and then the hardcore image is almost solid red meaning just about every single pixel was changed to compress it.
If you have to zoom in in order to see it, that probably means there's not really a perceivable difference.
I displayed the images on a 15" monitor at 1280x720 and then stood 3 feet away basically simulating a 5" screen from one foot away, then I flipped back and forth between the two images rapidly. Personally I couldn't tell the difference.
This. Put up some screencaps from the Iconoclasts, Noitu Love 2, or Legend of Princess. I think konjak's art-style would make for a good test of this algorithm.
I'll check with my expensive NEC monitors when I get home.It might be my cheap ViewSonic monitors I have at work.. still not seeing it.Check the lower text in the hardcore-BMP
Here you go:
).Well, there CAN'T be a high latency technical wise, as the RAM doesn't take more than 2 frames, so with doublebuffering (which is does), the whole thing would not work if it would need more than 1 frame for everything
Yes, I saw that as well.
That's forgetting the pixel doubling/trippling that will take place on the pyra. How will we take advantage of the large resolution if we cant do these type of things ?
I was going to say "what if we want hq3x scaling or something" but even at 3 times the SNES was still under that many pixels... assuming the 960x600 is an example resolution and the actual storage space is 5760000 pixels, not hard borders.
Could you please try it with these images?Here you go:
http://evildragon.openpandora.org/Pixelart.zip
Nothing wrong with Cavestory (except that I rather wouldn't like to play it with that resolution... just see how small Mimiga Villag is
You can see some artifacts in the PixelArt images, but there's a hell lot going on as well there (not sure if any game would make use of that).
Still, the artifacts are really only visible when you zoom in a lot - if you can really see them on a 5" screen is something else.
A Link to the Past doesn't make sense - anything that's less than 960x600 px does not need compression, which includes all classic consoles (as 960x600 is more than a classic TV had).
Also for emulation of classic consoles there should be no problem to bypass the rotation chip completely, use the screen losslessly in portrait mode and do the scaling/rotation manually on the second core.
Well, only the first one was uncompressed, the second and third one was already horribly compressed with JPEG (clearly visible), but I compressed them as well, as it shows how the compressor handles already compressed pictures.
Yea, I realized the other 2 were uncompressed. I figured it was worth it to see how it would handle it, since I am not anywhere near my home computer to make uncompressed screencaps.
Thanks for running these images.
