Polooo2, We Need You... :)

[Vimacs]

/me slaps davec with a cow

 

[junker]

yeah, you can always count on davec for negative comments ;P
oh yeah, that display they were playing the gbc emulator on...it wasn't full screen since it was a high resolution display, right? what resolution is the gbc's display?

 

[polooo2]

Just a slight sentance difference between the English GPX2 site's movie description and the Korean side.


English site reads: "As I mentioned before, there is no real difference from a 400mhz cpu as you can tell.

There may be some tearing in the sound however it is the camcorders fault, it will look perfect in person."


And the Korean site reads: "전혀 끊김없이 돌아가는 모습을 보실 수 있습니다.^^ (절대 400Mhz CPU에 비해 동영상이 끊기거나 스킵현상은 없음알 다시 한번 이자리를 빌어 말씀드립니다)

카메라로 LCD화면을 촬영한 특성상, 깜빡임 들과 줄현상이 있습니다. 실제 눈으로 볼때는 이련 현상 없습니다.
감사합니다."

Which is: "As you see, there are no skipping or stuttering at all. (I hereby emphasize again that GPX2's CPU is not at all slower than 400Mhz CPU, never causing things such as stuttering or skipping.)

As the video was taken with a camcorder, there are white lines and flickerings, but when you see them with your bare eyes, everything is perfectly fine."




I'll translate in-movie texts if I find it important.

 

[LHC]

Not that I doubt them, but a GBC emulator isn't really the best way of showing the power.

It's great to know how easy it was for them to port it though.

 

[polooo2]

Though plagued with flickers and green lines due to recording, movie playback really amazes me.


Very smooth, crisp sound and resolution seems very good when it zoomed in for like a second.


I can't wait to TV-OUT animes and movies at random TV locations.


Now only if they supported external HD's out of the box...

 

[polooo2]

The image reads:

"The video you're about to see is an emulator running on GPX2 test board. It will be running Super Mario Delux of Game Boy.

The emulator is not optimized for GPX2 with default settings. (No 2D acceleration used, 30 minutes spent for emulator conversion)"



Impressive.

 

[Hanz™]

The image reads:

"The video you're about to see is an emulator running on GPX2 test board. It will be running Super Mario Delux of Game Boy.

The emulator is not optimized for GPX2 with default settings. (No 2D acceleration used, 30 minutes spent for emulator conversion)"



Impressive.

​

Very impressive.

 

[Draken]

Yeah, that's rather impressive if it's a straight port without any optimizing to the gpx2.

 

[reallynotnick]

I downloaded the 640 one (a huge 80mb file) and it is only 320x240 at 2,000kbps. Then I went and download the 320 and it is 320 but is only 10mb at 1,000kbps. Either my wmp is messed up (would not be surprised wmp sucks) or someone did some crappy encoding. Plus I could not see any quality difference between the two, maybe if you look REALLY hard.
So as of now I recomned you download the 320 one.

 

[efegea]

I downloaded the 640 one (a huge 80mb file) and it is only 320x240 at 2,000kbps. Then I went and download the 320 and it is 320 but is only 10mb at 1,000kbps. Either my wmp is messed up (would not be surprised wmp sucks) or someone did some crappy encoding. Plus I could not see any quality difference between the two, maybe if you look REALLY hard.
So as of now I recomned you download the 320 one.

​

Yes, the 80mb file is 320x240 at 2,000kbps. My linux mplayer says so

The quality (compression artifacts) difference doesn't make it worth the 80mb download at low transfer rates (around 20kb/s)

 

[junker]

it was perfectly fine at 640x480 for me earlier..but my screen resolution was 1024x768 then..

anyway, that straight port of the emulator is VERRRY IMPRESSIVE!!

 

[DaveC]

yeah, you can always count on davec for negative comments ;P
oh yeah, that display they were playing the gbc emulator on...it wasn't full screen since it was a high resolution display, right? what resolution is the gbc's display?

​

Don't get your panties in a bunch. It was an observation that is all. I also said that it looked pretty good (except for the bad pixel).

And yes the GBC emu was running on a higher res display (maybe through TV-out?), that is why it looked so much smaller than the screen.

 

[Alpha2]

I believe the green line on the bottom of the Fantastic Four video was probably due to it being from a Bootleg DVD screener copy, seeing as that wasnt from a trailer and the Movie isnt out on domestic DVD yet.

 

[iignotus]

I downloaded the 640 one (a huge 80mb file) and it is only 320x240 at 2,000kbps. Then I went and download the 320 and it is 320 but is only 10mb at 1,000kbps. Either my wmp is messed up (would not be surprised wmp sucks) or someone did some crappy encoding. Plus I could not see any quality difference between the two, maybe if you look REALLY hard.
So as of now I recomned you download the 320 one.

​

Nothing unexpected there at all. No notion of bad encoding. Do the math: 10mb x 2 (1,000kbps -> 2,000kbps) = 20mb. 20mb x 4 (320x240 -> 640x480) = 80mb. It all pans out.

 

[reallynotnick]

I downloaded the 640 one (a huge 80mb file) and it is only 320x240 at 2,000kbps. Then I went and download the 320 and it is 320 but is only 10mb at 1,000kbps. Either my wmp is messed up (would not be surprised wmp sucks) or someone did some crappy encoding. Plus I could not see any quality difference between the two, maybe if you look REALLY hard.
So as of now I recomned you download the 320 one.

​

Nothing unexpected there at all. No notion of bad encoding. Do the math: 10mb x 2 (1,000kbps -> 2,000kbps) = 20mb. 20mb x 4 (320x240 -> 640x480) = 80mb. It all pans out.

​

Yes that math works out that way, but that is not how it works. 1,000kbps, it is 1,000kb's a second so for every second of video you have it will take up 1,000kb's. Then you can have your diffent codec's and resolutions. I can have a video at 1,000kbs at 320x240 and one at 1,000kbs at 1280x720, they are both going to take up the same amount of space but the smaller one is going to have less pixelation and just be better quality over all.

It's like the kbs are the engine and the resolution is the car body. The bigger the body the slower the car goes, and the bigger the kbs the faster and nicer the car runs.

AND to top this off, the 640x480 video is really only 320x240 (they named it wrong). So no matter what I have some sort of right point.

 

[iignotus]

Yes that math works out that way at but that is not how it works.

​

Sure it is :lol:

but the smaller one is going to have less pixelation and just be better quality over all.

​

That "better quality" is completely subjective, and pixelation isn't the right word. If anything, the smaller video will be much more prone to "pixelation".

It's like the kbs are the engine and the resolution is the car body. The bigger the body the slower the car goes, and the bigger the kbs the faster and nicer the car runs.

​

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

AND to top this off, the 640x480 video is really only 320x240 (they named it wrong). So no matter what I have some sort of right point.

​

Sure thing...

 

[tengen]

....as long as it works.

tengen = :huh:

 

[reallynotnick]

How about this I am right, someone has to back me up here. Its a simply fact, and yes quality was a better word. I can figure out any better way to explain this, kbs has to do with the size of the file and THATS IT, I can use differert resolution and codecs but as long as they are are the same kbs they are going to be the same size.

I took the gp32 ad and encoded it at 200kbs at both 320x240 and 160x120 and they were 1.6mb and 1.5mb (Bit rates vary a little, they are not constantly the same). I will email them to you if you want.

 

[iignotus]

How about this I am right, someone has to back me up here. Its a simply fact, and yes quality was a better word. I can figure out any better way to explain this, kbs has to do with the size of the file and THATS IT, I can use differert resolution and codecs but as long as they are are the same kbs they are going to be the same size.

I took the gp32 ad and encoded it at 200kbs at both 320x240 and 160x120 and they were 1.6mb and 1.5mb (Bit rates vary a little, they are not constantly the same). I will email them to you if you want.

​

:lol: ok, nick, trust me. I know how video encoding works. Really. I do. Norly. NORLY! There's not much reason for trying to go on longer, as I think we're saying the same thing. It's just that you have a really hard time saying that thing correctly. No worries.

 

[reallynotnick]

Hey I don't want to be mean or anything but the kbs is the only that determines the size of the file. Everything else like video size and codec make up the quality. No matter what any 4 minute clip at 200kbs is going to be the same size, its just how it works. kbs IS the size of the file, every second of video is 200kbs, you claim that the kbs has something to do with the size of the picture, but it doesn't. It just has to do with how long (time) the file is and the bit rate, those 2 alone make up the files size, nothing else can change that.

Kbs x seconds=equal total Kilobits, then you divide the Kiliobits by 8 to the Kilobytes and yet again divide that by 1024 to get the MegaBytes. THATS the equation.

Sorry to be so off topic here, and I just wish this whole argument would end.


EDIT: I am done, we are both are on so different pages it is hard to figure out what each other are saying, but as my last statement the video resolution has nothing to do with the size of the file. NOTHING, but I am done.