Print

[nes6502]

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 01:50 PM)

As for your question about why do you need to remove 2 pixels to the image resolution: What happens when you don't squash these?

I do know the bottom lines (at least 2 maybe are garbage lines. They don't show up on most TV's and game developers often write extra stuff there. Maybe this is why you had to shift the image two lines to get a more accurate display.

[Timerever]

I thought that all lines were displayed and maybe including a bit of the black bars who exist exactly to prevent the game to uselessly draw onto the horizontal overscan? The only game that I remember that draw wierd stuff on the last 2 lines is Sonic 2 in the first level but there are other certainly.

[XaRaNn]

QUOTE(Cospefogo @ Oct 2 2006, 06:45 AM)

Hi Timerever,

Your affirmation makes sense for me, and I just want to let you know the following:
The Nintendo 8 Bits screen is 256x224. To adjust it on my MednafenX NES I need
to double it to 512x448 "MINUS 2", resulting on 510x446 (I never figured out WHY!).

However, 510 gives me a not-full horizontal screen. There are empty space (black area)
outside on the left and right. After few tries, I discovered that EVEN NES 8 BITS I can
resize to 640 on width (minus 2) resulting on 638x446. Few portion of the image
is cropped for both sides outside the television, but it does not matter to me because
they are "dead areas" and most of the time were in many old televisions natively
cropped by the original set of hardwares.

This trick of 638 works for several 256 horizontal native screens Xport Emulators.
You can put both Neogenesis and MednafenX PCE to run on a 638 of width
without no distortions on the graphics.

And, to answer XaRaNn, my posts are large because english is not my native
language, and I do like to explain all the things with all possible details!

Cheers,
C.

 

it's all in good fun, i write huge posts also if you haven't noticed.

SO the correct ratio for SNES is 8:7.
The SNES texture is drawn to the blue-lined area, with a 8:7 aspect ratio, with something like double the snes resolution, right?

Now in zsnexbox we already have a locked AR MOVE, and a resize function.

So if you don't resize at all from the default, only move the default screen so the blue lines are more or less centered, correct 8:7 AR is respected.
The numbers shouldn't matter, since all you're doing is moving it around. But it does seem it's not the only thing to take into account.

The bit of information we're missing is how exactly was the 8:7 resolution native at 256×224 scaled to fill your tv.
Now i think the SNES did output 256x224 directly (wich is impossible on xbox, 648x480 being the minimum, right?), it means the tv took care of filling your screen. If we can get that bit of information maybe we can figure out a possible way to (more) accurately replicate it.

[Timerever]

QUOTE(XaRaNn @ Oct 2 2006, 02:31 PM)

SO the correct ratio for SNES is 8:7.

NO! The correct aspect ratio for SNES is (or should be) 4:3, the SNES graphic chip renders the image at 8:7 and then the SNES TV encoder chip scales it to 4:3, i.e.: it makes the pixels 25% longer.
Go read my post again, this time until the end.

[nes6502]

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 02:12 PM)

I thought that all lines were displayed and maybe including a bit of the black bars who exist exactly to prevent the game to uselessly draw onto the horizontal overscan? The only game that I remember that draw wierd stuff on the last 2 lines is Sonic 2 in the first level but there are other certainly.

Well all lines are displayed but not all lines are assumed visible. In fact on the NES I'm certain that the bottom lines were assumed to be covered by the TV overscan, so many developers didn't bother putting graphics there. I would imagine this is also the case for the Megadrive and SNES.

Two examples are. In Super Mario Brothers on a real NES you don't typically see two complete rows of bricks at the bottom of the screen. You see 1 and a half rows. But on some emulators, you can see both rows because the emulator does not have the limitation of overscan at the bottom. In this case, SMB does render the correct graphics on these lines.

However, take Legendary wings on the vertical scrolling stages. You'll notice garbage at the to pand bottom of the screen. The developers didn't bother putting any usefull graphics there.

Neither of these two examples can be seen on Mednafen NEs because these top and bottom lines have been clipped to make it look more NES accurate. I've written a couple NES emulators and this is how I found this out. If you want to see this in action, you'll have to find an emulator that will let you control how many lines are rendered.

I'm sure this is why you have to shift the image up/down from the NES native display to compensate for this.

This post has been edited by nes6502: Oct 2 2006, 03:15 PM

[Cospefogo]

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 09:50 AM)

It makes sense to you because that's how it should be, that's how Megadrive does it, I just can't be 100% sure about SNES since I never had one and I really don't care about it like I do care about Megadrive.

As for your question about why do you need to remove 2 pixels to the image resolution: What happens when you don't squash these?

Well, let's go!
Another HUGE post!
 


On Xport emulators I do resize to 512x448 minus 2 to get 510x446.
Yet, I strecth to 640 minus 2 again to get 638x446 on a perfect not distorted/damaged screen.

Ironically, If do the same trick inside photoshop, here in my PC, the minus 2 trick
distort the screens, so, what I a showing this is justa simulation of what happens
INSIDE the xbox. Don't use the real width x height of the following image
since they are PHOTOSHOP/PC related --- just a guide to show what happens.


This is a 510 x 446 image got using the MINUS 2 trick inside XPORT system.



If I don't do the trick of MINUS 2, I get a distorted screen.
This is a 512 x 448 without the minus 2 trick. Look the pattern, it is wrong!



Moreover, I think that 99% of people resize theirs screens just by "eye",
getting absolutely wrong aspect ratio/resizements that are MASKED/HIDDEN by
smoothing/blurring filters. This is a copletely bad screen randomly
shot to 600 x 448



Now we have Gauntlet 2 on NES just resized to 512 x 448 without
the minus 2 trick. Check the distortions. The magenta thin layer shows
where it happens.



And now using SNES, The Tick:



Toy Story 2, SNES too...


To end my post (and to justify all this mess) I think
that a SOLID NUMBERING SYSTEM on Zsnexbox resizement system
is the BEST way of adjusting screens to lunatic people like me!

Cheeers,
Long live to Erdrick!
Cospefogo.

[XaRaNn]

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 09:41 AM)

NO! The correct aspect ratio for SNES is (or should be) 4:3, the SNES graphic chip renders the image at 8:7 and then the SNES TV encoder chip scales it to 4:3, i.e.: it makes the pixels 25% longer.
Go read my post again, this time until the end.

I did read your post, and you didn't specifiy this bit of information. If you had read mine, you'd see i assumed the TV did the scaling.

If i may ask, where did you get the information that the snes tv encoder took care of the scaling, and that all it did is make pixel 25% longer.



Cospefogo : Makes sense, but then i guess there's an easier way to do this that wouldn't requires numbers.
The function to not only move, but also *resize* keeping the aspect ratio.

[Cospefogo]

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 10:41 AM)

NO! The correct aspect ratio for SNES is (or should be) 4:3, the SNES graphic chip renders the image at 8:7 and then the SNES TV encoder chip scales it to 4:3, i.e.: it makes the pixels 25% longer.
Go read my post again, this time until the end.

Whoa!

I think this is directly linked to the MINUS 2 trick on Xport system,
since I increase from 510 (512) to 638 (640) of width without
distort the graphics.

And, do someone here have contact with Xport (the guy)?
Recently I have updated my Pcsxbox to V8 and it looks
like he changed something --- On this version we don't
need the MINUS 2 trick anymore.

It's just resize to 640x480 and voilá!

Cheers,
C.

[Consoleman!]

QUOTE(XaRaNn @ Oct 2 2006, 10:04 AM)

Cospefogo : Makes sense, but then i guess there's an easier way to do this that wouldn't requires numbers.
The function to not only move, but also *resize* keeping the aspect ratio.

For pixel perfect Point Filtering, the aspect ratio must be a multiple of the original resolution.  256x224 games have an aspect ratio of 8x7, but does that mean the game will be drawn properly at 264x231 resolution, which also happens to have the same 8x7 aspect ratio?  

No, because introducing those extra lines would force some lines of pixels to stretch in order to fill out the uneven display, which would produce deformed results similar to those that Cospefogo illustrated for us in his screen captures.

However, 512x448 would work perfectly, since it's a multiple of 256x224.

This is where Linear filters come in handy, since they perform fairly well at most odd resolutions, while requiring far less setting up to do, but do come at a cost of clarity.

[XaRaNn]

QUOTE(Consoleman! @ Oct 2 2006, 10:34 AM)

For pixel perfect Point Filtering, the aspect ratio must be a multiple of the original resolution.  256x224 games have an aspect ratio of 8x7, but does that mean the game will be drawn properly at 264x231 resolution, which also happens to have the same 8x7 aspect ratio?  

No, because introducing those extra lines would force some lines of pixels to stretch in order to fill out the uneven display, which would produce deformed results similar to those that Cospefogo illustrated for us in his screen captures.

However, 512x448 would work perfectly, since it's a multiple of 256x224.

This is where Linear filters come in handy, since they perform fairly well at most odd resolutions, while requiring far less setting up to do, but do come at a cost of clarity.

Okay, makes very much sence, i totally overlooked that.

Then what's the problem with current zsnexbox behavior, if you just leave it at default and *do not* resize whatsoever. The numbers shouldn't matter, since at most all youll do is move the (already x2 AR, defined by blues lines, right?) around your screen

[Timerever]

QUOTE(XaRaNn @ Oct 2 2006, 03:04 PM)

I did read your post, and you didn't specifiy this bit of information. If you had read mine, you'd see i assumed the TV did the scaling.

If i may ask, where did you get the information that the snes tv encoder took care of the scaling, and that all it did is make pixel 25% longer.

Well the TV can't do it, only special TVs like those in 16:9 have internal image processing the others don't need it especially back then, and since the emulators output the graphics in 8:7 I can only assume that the streching is done by something that's not emulated, the TV encoder chip. That's done by image filters, NTSC Composite is a unusally accurate filter and checking with it I've found that you did well by asking me where did I get the 25% value because:

I stand INCORRECT!
The correct aspect ratio is ... well thare are no meaningfull multiples of it
Here's the deal, it turns out the SNES doesn't do things the same way MD does, I've check with Bsnes and the NTSC Composite filter and the correct aspect ratio is be 597x224. Well guess I got pwned this time assuming that Nintendo would do thing the normal way, should've known it's Nintendo afterall...

And BTW don't bother arguing back, byuu, the guy who did Bsnes and it's helping blargg with his NTSC filter is a real SNES expert (I should've checked his emu in the first place to prevent this mess) and he knows better than us all together, if he says it's 597x224 then it's because it is that way.

EDIT: Here is a screenshot I just took with Bsnes showing the correct aspect ratio, and with this new info on mind a meaningfull X/Y coordinate system in Zsnexbox is really imperative... I guess we must thank consoleman! and Cospefogo for nagging us enough to check if our info was correct, kudos to them

[Mclane]

Hi Nes,

Great work on the emu, it's top notch...

Any chance of a feature addition (a real cheesy one)

An option when making a screen shot to either return to the game or go to the game selection screen.

I know it's lazy but when making all the missing or misnamed screenshots it's a pain to go back into the game then right thumb then exit when you just want to go onto the next missing preview.

Yes it's lazy but more use (to me) than a 10x11 pixel

Whatever the answer, thanks for the mega work!!

[nes6502]

QUOTE(Mclane @ Oct 2 2006, 04:22 PM)

Hi Nes,

Great work on the emu, it's top notch...

Any chance of a feature addition (a real cheesy one)

An option when making a screen shot to either return to the game or go to the game selection screen.

I know it's lazy but when making all the missing or misnamed screenshots it's a pain to go back into the game then right thumb then exit when you just want to go onto the next missing preview.

Yes it's lazy but more use (to me) than a 10x11 pixel

Whatever the answer, thanks for the mega work!!

So, if I just return to the menu after taking a screenshot, how does that help in making multiple screenshots? I mean, if I return to the menu, the emulation hasn't changed so you'd be taking the same screenshot again but putting it in a differnt folder.

So the effect would be 8 previews that are identical (since it never returned to the game). And if that's the goal, I wouldn't bother taking all 8 screenshots. Just take one, and then copy them to the other folders. That would be much quicker. But why would you want all the screenshots to be the same in all 8 folders? Did I misunderstand?

QUOTE(Timerever @ Oct 2 2006, 04:15 PM)

The correct aspect ratio is ... well thare are no meaningfull multiples of it
Here's the deal, it turns out the SNES doesn't do things the same way MD does, I've check with Bsnes and the NTSC Composite filter and the correct aspect ratio is be 597x224. Well guess I got pwned this time assuming that Nintendo would do thing the normal way, should've known it's Nintendo afterall...

So you are saying that on a real SNES, it renders at 597x224? So the pixels are more than twice as tall as they are wide?

[Mclane]

QUOTE(nes6502 @ Oct 2 2006, 05:42 PM)

So, if I just return to the menu after taking a screenshot, how does that help in making multiple screenshots? I mean, if I return to the menu, the emulation hasn't changed so you'd be taking the same screenshot again but putting it in a differnt folder.

So the effect would be 8 previews that are identical (since it never returned to the game). And if that's the goal, I wouldn't bother taking all 8 screenshots. Just take one, and then copy them to the other folders. That would be much quicker. But why would you want all the screenshots to be the same in all 8 folders? Did I misunderstand?

Fraid so... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

What I meant was that say i have 2000 games with a missing preview, what I want to do is load the game to a point I think shows the game best, take the screen shot and then move on to the next game I need a screen shot for.

Not for the same game (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

At the moment I have to load the game, take the screen shot, it then returns to the games emulation, I then right click the thumbstick, go down to exit and then back to the game selection screen and go onto the next game.

If after the point of taking the screen shot it said, "Return to game or exit to game selection Menu" then I bypass a chunk of in'ing and out'ing and I'm onto the point of loading the next game.

I know it sounds daft but depending on the renaming software you used to send the files over to the Xbox you may or may not have the same naming conventions for the packs of screenshots that are on the net so changing them is harder than just going down the game selection screen looking for games without screen shots (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Trust me, it does make sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Mclane: Oct 2 2006, 06:24 PM

[GLiTcH]

great.. i have the silent scope gun.. wonder if it will work.. will try later n post result..