Xgp, Xgp-mini Hardware Selection Polls

[Epicenter]

I'm curious as to the reasons of the people who voted for Vrender-3D. The chip may be cheaper but I do expect added development difficulties (and probably extra fees, knowing Magiceyes) to use it since they prefer to withhold information like how to use the MPEG4 decoders in their hardware (a la MMSP2 in the GP2X) and instead have their customers to be contractually obligated to use software written by their partners, who ARE informed of how to use the hardware effectively. Compatibility's not an issue since either chip will be able to properly run GP2X-compatible software as long as a Linux environment is provided.

640x480 would be way too expensive. I went with the widescreen because I am not crazy about making sure the aspect ratio with emulators is exact. AND I don't care if the screen is stretched. Plus, the widescreen is good for reading text files, viewing websites (via XGP's wifi), and the unlikely DOSBox port.

640x480 definitely makes more sense for web pages than either of the other 2 options, but I don't see why 480x272 is better for nearly any DOS game. VGA resolutions are generally 4:3, not 16:9. It makes sense for widescreen movies and some 3D games but that's about it, from my vantage point.. I voted 320x240 for price reasons however.

Also, I suspect you would prefer the screen be stretched so that emulators don't become a focus of the XGP, as you've quite vocally expressed your hatred for the emulation scene of the GP2X in favor of high-quality original games. Or am I being paranoid?

 

[JaqMs]

I guess I prefer the 480x276 because it's a kind of middle ground. It's long enough to be able to port useful, visible 640x480 programs/games on it, but standard enough to keep the price bearable.

And I appriciate the work done on emulators. It's the community that idolizes them that bothers me.

 

[shinneri]

I thought the XGP was pretty much guaranteed to be expensive, so I don't see why 640x480 is out of the question. The Zod used it, and that was a touch screen, correct? That large resolution would make the wifi all the more attractive because browsing the internet might actually be NICE on the platform.

320x240 for the XGP mini though. Anything higher would be very hard to read.

 

[iignotus]

I guess I prefer the 480x276 because it's a kind of middle ground. It's long enough to be able to port useful, visible 640x480 programs/games on it, but standard enough to keep the price bearable.

How is 640x480 visible on 480x272???

The Zod used it, and that was a touch screen, correct?

It was a touch screen, but it was 480x320, which is HVGA.

 

[JaqMs]

I guess I prefer the 480x276 because it's a kind of middle ground. It's long enough to be able to port useful, visible 640x480 programs/games on it, but standard enough to keep the price bearable.

How is 640x480 visible on 480x272???

Oh, I meant it would be easier to adapt them to the resolution, though there would obviously have to be some changes. Plus, the resolution can still support 320x240 games/programs.

 

[shinneri]

The Zod used it, and that was a touch screen, correct?

It was a touch screen, but it was 480x320, which is HVGA.

Ah, I see. Still, if 640x480 isn't too, too expensive, I think it would be nice (though not necessary) if they went with that.

 

[Epicenter]

I guess I prefer the 480x276 because it's a kind of middle ground. It's long enough to be able to port useful, visible 640x480 programs/games on it, but standard enough to keep the price bearable.

How is 640x480 visible on 480x272???

Oh, I meant it would be easier to adapt them to the resolution, though there would obviously have to be some changes. Plus, the resolution can still support 320x240 games/programs.

No, it wouldn't. Scaling 640x480 screens to 320x240 looks much better than to 480x272 because the aspect ratio is the same. You are not skewing the image grossly out of proportion that way. Scaling 320x240 to 480x272 looks awful, as does 640x480 to 480x272.

 

[JaqMs]

But weren't the GP2X ports of 640x480 games very unreadable? In the widescreen, there could be compensations made to the game while still keeping it playable. Anyway, I don't see how GP could make the XGP look different than a GP2X with a 320x240 screen...

 

[iignotus]

But weren't the GP2X ports of 640x480 games very unreadable?

They wouldn't be unreadable in the least if the images were resized on a Desktop first, with a good filter. For example, the Super Mario War port has nigh indecipherable text because it relies on quick resizing from the built-in hardware in the gp2x -- resizing that isn't very good. But if you did preprocessing on the image with a good filter, it would look almost the same as the original. Look:

Standard example of text at 640x480:

Resized (pixel resize) to 320x240, then pixel-resized back up to 640x480 (for easier viewing):

Resampled (filtered) to 320x240, then pixel-resized back up to 640x480 (for easier viewing):

They both look worse than the original, of course, but I can actually *read* the resampled one. Also note that the original has very small text for any game; it would probably be bigger anyways, making the resample even more readable.

 

[Epicenter]

Why on earth did you post a 640x480 image resized to 320x240 and BACK? at 320x240 it's perfectly readable, but blown back up it's destroyed. You don't DO that when you display it on a 320x240 display. Same as when you blow up 320x240 to 640x480 normally, it looks great-- when you resize to 320x240 first, you ruin the image. It's like turning a cow into a hamburger, then trying to make it back into a cow and expect it to moo. It doesn't work that way- you go one direction or the other, not both.

 

[OMars]

Why on earth did you post a 640x480 image resized to 320x240 and BACK? at 320x240 it's perfectly readable, but blown back up it's destroyed. You don't DO that when you display it on a 320x240 display. Same as when you blow up 320x240 to 640x480 normally, it looks great-- when you resize to 320x240 first, you ruin the image. It's like turning a cow into a hamburger, then trying to make it back into a cow and expect it to moo. It doesn't work that way- you go one direction or the other, not both.

Well said!

 

[iignotus]

Why on earth did you post a 640x480 image resized to 320x240 and BACK? at 320x240 it's perfectly readable, but blown back up it's destroyed. You don't DO that when you display it on a 320x240 display. Same as when you blow up 320x240 to 640x480 normally, it looks great-- when you resize to 320x240 first, you ruin the image. It's like turning a cow into a hamburger, then trying to make it back into a cow and expect it to moo. It doesn't work that way- you go one direction or the other, not both.

Well said!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You guys are hilarious. You both ARE joking, right? Good God, I hope so, because if you're not, you'd be looking awfully stupid right now

The resized versions of the 320x240 images are pixel-resized. Every one pixel has been turned into 4. There has been no information lost, therefore, no distortion has occured. The resized images can be pixel-resized back to 320x240 and be the same exact image they were originally after resizing. Nothing is "destroyed." Read up on these things before you comment, guys :rolleyes: it makes you look like you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

 

[Epicenter]

It's NOT exactly the same image, or the 640x480->320x240->640x480 image would be precisely the same-- but you DO lose image data that way. This isn't how it'd LOOK-- you need to view the 320x240 image on a native 320x240 display to get the proper effect. Rescaling it to 640x480 to 'get an idea' will just give you a nasty distorted image.

 

[iignotus]

It's NOT exactly the same image, or the 640x480->320x240->640x480 image would be precisely the same-- but you DO lose image data that way. This isn't how it'd LOOK-- you need to view the 320x240 image on a native 320x240 display to get the proper effect. Rescaling it to 640x480 to 'get an idea' will just give you a nasty distorted image.

Whatever, but you were wrong. The images were just resized back to 640x480 to be able to see fine detail better for people with high resolutions, like I said ("for easier viewing"). They contain the same amount of information, and are therefore congruent, and perfect illustrations to make judgements off of.

It's okay, I'm not looking for an argument or anything Cheers.

 

[Epicenter]

I'll drop it; I've seen this topic of discussion (resolutions and scaling) spiral out of control before..

 

[iignotus]

I'll drop it; I've seen this topic of discussion (resolutions and scaling) spiral out of control before..

:lol:
/waits for DaveC to show up

 

[Epicenter]

Well, 4:3 and a D-Pad were DaveC's suggestions, too. He didn't say anything of the S3C2460, and largely hates the idea of 2D/3D acceleration because he thinks 3D is worthless and everyone should just appreciate 2D-- my standpoint is that the benefits of a GPU to *2D* games are tremendous (my main reason to want one) and it would be nice to run Quake I/II and a couple PSX games acceptably too.

 

[JyCet]

To use a "big" 640*480 resolution the handhelp need 4* more power cpu/gpu.
Manage a pixel, move some video area is not free

That's why I've choosed 480*272, for me it's the best ratio resolution/soc power.

Of course on the paper samsung is more intersting

 

[iignotus]

To use a "big" 640*480 resolution the handhelp need 4* more power cpu/gpu.
Manage a pixel, move some video area is not free

Wtf? It wouldn't need a 4 times powerful cpu/gpu. It would just need a better video controller, with higher output. You don't take the entire power of any given processor just to draw a surface.

 

[JyCet]

Wtf? It wouldn't need a 4 times powerful cpu/gpu. It would just need a better video controller, with higher output. You don't take the entire power of any given processor just to draw a surface.

Yes a better GPU but here all are in a SOC we dont have GPU choice
On your'e computer you can but here no

For each system with the same GPU it's the same, more pixel you have = less frame rate it give.

And of course I dont speek about shared memory bandwith

For a PMP 30FPS is enough but for a gaming handheld ... No

For a 640*480 resolution screen, MWeston design is more reliable. Perhaps he can explain better than me