Gp2x Has The Biggest Screen Size Among Handhelds

[reallynotnick]

OrR at if you're trying to make a fair comparison then why don't you show the pictures in correct scale?

The Zodiac screen is 3.8" compared to GP32's 3.5" -- yet your pictures have the Zodiac twice the size :rolleyes:

​

He did it for screen res not size.


Am I the only one who just likes to make the thing fill the whole screen while keeping the same aspect ratio. It looks horrible with all of these fact 2d sprites walking around. Plus pixel doubling looks alot better then the "zodiac" one. The zodiac is all blurry while the pixel doubling is nice and sharp.

 

[OrR]

OrR at if you're trying to make a fair comparison then why don't you show the pictures in correct scale?

The Zodiac screen is 3.8" compared to GP32's 3.5" -- yet your pictures have the Zodiac twice the size :rolleyes:

​

Simple answer: The actual size was not what my post was about. It was about scaling. If I had resized the pictures to actual size, they wouldn't be pixel perfect anymore. But being pixel perfect is what was important here.

@reallynotnick: That depends on personal taste. I hate pixel doubling because it distorts the image, some pixels are doubled, some aren't. I think it looks awful. In most cases I'd prefer black bars to that. Again, it depends on personal taste, of course. that's why I made so many images, so you can find out which you like best yourself.

@gaterooze: The resolution of the PSP screen is 480*272 I think.

 

[codeninja]

and what about the zodiac?

or the coming gizmondo 16/9 ??

​

Zodiac is 480x320, which is somewhere in between 4:3 and 16:9. Anyway, no pix perfect emulation is no good emulation in my book. Isn't gizmondo 2.8inch?

 

[OrR]

I hate those freaking useless diagonal numbers. Why can't you just talk about width and length and please use millimeters so I understand what you are talking about...

 

[Esn]

I'm just wondering if you've used any emulators on the PSP? I only ask this because if you have and you've played with their setting on a few of them then you'd see that some of them do full screen emulation. That is even an option on a Super Nintendo emulator. Don't get me wrong I think that the GP2X will be great for emulation but the PSP does have a nice screen and at the moment it's a big screen for emulation. I think that if you count the TV-Out option though the GP2x would indeed have the largest screen

​

Stretching looks like shit though. It makes stuff all distorted and blurry.

​

What stretching? The max. GP2X tv-out resolution is also the max DVD resolution, and as for console games, they were all about 320x240 in the first place.
BTW DaveC, I think you should change your comparison of screens image so that it says "XGP" instead of "the new Gamepark handheld" and "GP32/GP2X" insteads of just "GP32", because I think that you may be confusing an awfull lot of newcomers.

 

[gaterooze]

Simple answer: The actual size was not what my post was about. It was about scaling. If I had resized the pictures to actual size, they wouldn't be pixel perfect anymore. But being pixel perfect is what was important here.

Understood, but the thread is about size so I figured that was important too.

What I'm getting at is, any way you scale or don't scale an emulated game on a PSP (I imagine Zodiac is the same), it doesn't look as nice/big as on a GP32 screen.

If the image is at original size, the GP32 image is larger. If the image is scaled to be "bigger" (i.e. shorter but wider) on a PSP, it just doesn't look right (and moves even worse).

 

[joele]

most of 16/9 TV owners i have ever met

seems they prefer stretching things than having 2 black lines,

Really? I have never met one of these people I guess? I have had widescreen Tvs for the last few years, and HATE a stretched picture. Black lines are much better...

Are you one of the types that when you watch an anamorphic wide movie on the 4:3 TV you stretch the picture vertically??

 

[OrR]

Simple answer: The actual size was not what my post was about. It was about scaling. If I had resized the pictures to actual size, they wouldn't be pixel perfect anymore. But being pixel perfect is what was important here.

Understood, but the thread is about size so I figured that was important too.

What I'm getting at is, any way you scale or don't scale an emulated game on a PSP (I imagine Zodiac is the same), it doesn't look as nice/big as on a GP32 screen.

If the image is at original size, the GP32 image is larger. If the image is scaled to be "bigger" (i.e. shorter but wider) on a PSP, it just doesn't look right (and moves even worse).

​

If you don't stretch the picture, it's biggest on the GP32 because it has bigger pixels.
If you stretch the picture while keeping the aspect ratio, it's biggest on the Zodiac.
If you stretch the picture and don't care about the aspect ratio it will be biggest on the PSP.
How big is the screen area of the PSP compared to the Zodiac and the GP2X by the way?

 

[skeezix]

Bah! It varies by emu and person.

ie: Sometimes some games and emus look best un-stretched, while others look fine, and still others don't lose proportion; sometimes they just look sharpest on the oroiginal res (naturally).

FWIW, emus look fine-to-great on the PSP; some are less attravtive due to the black bars, but you generally don't notice and.. so what if theres black bars on either side -- the actual picture might sitll be larger than others. (Since when did size count?)

Now, some games and some platforms show it more than others...

But consider..

Many platforms were 320x200; the PSP is 480x272, which is nearly 1.5 times.. ie; 1.5 on the horizontal, and nearly that on the vertical. So most machines stretch fine _Without a problem_.

Its your tighter systems that vary the resolution a lot, or use slim displays. ie: It looks harsher on your 256x256 arcade Pacman, but its fine for Atari 2600 sort of thing.

So it is up to the individual, and their pickiness, and the systems they choose to emulate. The Atari ST looks great on there, since it was 320x200.. people barely notice anything funky.

(Anyone who complains needs a slap; notice the GP2x and all GP32s are 240 tall, when most systems want 200; the GP32 has always needed vertical letterbox or stretching, and its the otp requested feature, right?)

The GP32 BLU is probably the sharpest so far, but if oyu want a big screen, the PSP is 'it'. If the gp2x is same as the BLU+ it'll look great, but its not as big.

But size isn't everything.

As always, its APPLES TO ORANGES people

jeff

 

[DaveC]

Bah! It varies by emu and person.

But consider..

Many platforms were 320x200; the PSP is 480x272, which is nearly 1.5 times.. ie; 1.5 on the horizontal, and nearly that on the vertical. So most machines stretch fine _Without a problem_.


The GP32 BLU is probably the sharpest so far, but if oyu want a big screen, the PSP is 'it'. If the gp2x is same as the BLU+ it'll look great, but its not as big.

But size isn't everything.

As always, its APPLES TO ORANGES people

jeff

​

Well you can't light half a pixel so there really is no good 1.5 times stretching. Since you can't do half a pixel some are doubled while other pixels are not giving an uneven look to the pixels especially when scrolling. Then sometimes a filter (blur) is added to try to hide the distortion, then you just have a mess. In the case of 320 x 200 I would much rather have a 20 pixel bar at the top and bottom and have the image unmolested on the GP2X/GP32.

The GP2X screen is actually slightly taller than the PSP too but not as wide. since no game consoles emulated were widescreen they look goofy when stretched out to 16:9 and the pixel distortion and blurry filters make things even worse. Well to me anyway.

 

[DaveC]

BTW DaveC at I think you should change your comparison of screens image so that it says "XGP" instead of "the new Gamepark handheld" and "GP32/GP2X" insteads of just "GP32", because I think that you may be confusing an awfull lot of newcomers.

​

I made that before the XGP was named or the GP2X was named as well. I should change it but I am lazy. I also always think it won't ever be used anymore but it seems to come up.

 

[Epicenter]

I'm more impressed by the 320x240 res-- only about 16 pixels bigger than the res used in the MD and NeoGeo-- and that's EXTRA Pixels, not a lack thereof-- so no scaling or cropping! Totally native. They'll look gorgeous.

But a big screen is great, too. I hate squinting at tiny ones.

 

[Tobriand]

Well you can't light half a pixel so there really is no good 1.5 times stretching.

​

Actually, you probably can (well, 1/3 or 2/3 at least - and possibly more if you try turning on the next bar at 50% intensity) - that's what subpixel rendering is all about (if you want to see it, turn on cleartype in XP when you're working on an LCD monitor).

The idea being that since its all about the eye merging RGB channels to give a single colour, its not going to make much difference - especially with white - if the pixels themselves have, say, RGBRGBRGBRGBRGB or RGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRG in terms of what is actually gets seen. All that happens is that you see the colours slightly differently placed.

Granted this wouldn't work well for Green, seeing as its in the middle of the next pixel, but you can, to a limited extent, light half a pixel.

It goes without saying, of course, that the calculations to do this in say an emulator whilst stretching would be phenomenal and pointless for the most part (much easier to simply average colours where they clash), although conceivably a Vectrex emu (with only white lines whose aim is to look as smooth as possible) could make some use of it, with someone who enjoyed headaches coding it. Would be quite a nice feature, actually, imo

 

[OrR]

Bah! It varies by emu and person.

But consider..

Many platforms were 320x200; the PSP is 480x272, which is nearly 1.5 times.. ie; 1.5 on the horizontal, and nearly that on the vertical. So most machines stretch fine _Without a problem_.


The GP32 BLU is probably the sharpest so far, but if oyu want a big screen, the PSP is 'it'. If the gp2x is same as the BLU+ it'll look great, but its not as big.

But size isn't everything.

As always, its APPLES TO ORANGES people

jeff

​

Well you can't light half a pixel so there really is no good 1.5 times stretching. Since you can't do half a pixel some are doubled while other pixels are not giving an uneven look to the pixels especially when scrolling. Then sometimes a filter (blur) is added to try to hide the distortion, then you just have a mess. In the case of 320 x 200 I would much rather have a 20 pixel bar at the top and bottom and have the image unmolested on the GP2X/GP32.

The GP2X screen is actually slightly taller than the PSP too but not as wide. since no game consoles emulated were widescreen they look goofy when stretched out to 16:9 and the pixel distortion and blurry filters make things even worse. Well to me anyway.

​

No, you fucking idiot, there is absolutely NO distortion. :angry: Sorry about my language but I'm REALLY loosing my patience. Bilinear stretching like on the Zodiac is NOT pixel doubling + blur. That is complete bullshit. There is no distortion, every pixel counts as 1.5 pixels.
Original:

Pixel doubled:

Pixel doubled and blurred:

Zodiac bilinear scaling:

See, every pixel from the original counts the same. The edges are blurred together.
Get it now? :angry:

 

[iignotus]

Pixel doubled:

Why would you double only the height of a pixel? Talk about distortion.

 

[yaustar]

Depends on your definition of distortion.

You can argue that the Zodiac bilinear scaling DOES distort the original image as it adds colours that were not there before.

or

You can argue that the Zodiac bilinear scaling DOES NOT distort the original image as it still retains the original shape of the original image enough to tell what that shape is.

 

[OrR]

Pixel doubled:

Why would you double only the height of a pixel? Talk about distortion.

​

Um... Do you understand how this works? :blink: The program has to make a choice: Double the pixels or not? In the vertical direction, the red pixel is doubled. In the horizontal direction the blue pixels are doubled. This is done so there is as few distortion as possible.
Original: 1/4 = 25% red
Resized to 1.5 the space the image has 9 pixels instead of four. So, how many pixels to paint red? You want to get close to 25%. 1/9=11%. 2/9=22%. 3/9=33%. So it paints 2 pixels red. Which two pixels? Well, it could as well have painted the lower left edge and the one right to that, doesn't matter. Both are equally wrong. But if it'd have painted 3 pixels red, it would be farther from the original so only 2 are painted red.
Got it?

 

[Jarska333]

For some reason, I suddenly understand what you mean. From those pictures, I really could not wrap my brain around it, but that's a good explanation. And it reminds me of the old Hold And Modify graphic option from Amiga.

 

[reallynotnick]

Man I am so confused, just to add to the cofusion who likes the filter hq2x/3x/4x? I feel they are the best looking out of the bunch!

Edit: 2xSal and super 2xSal I VERY good to and use alot less processing power. Can't quite stand up to hq3x but they are really fast and look great. Plus niether of these look blurry like bilinear filtering!

 

[junker]

hey guys, just quit this discussion. it went no where last time!

I'm more impressed by the 320x240 res-- only about 16 pixels bigger than the res used in the MD and NeoGeo-- and that's EXTRA Pixels, not a lack thereof-- so no scaling or cropping! Totally native. They'll look gorgeous.

But a big screen is great, too. I hate squinting at tiny ones.

​

yeah! looks SO much better in native resolution.