[CSDb] - User Forums - Does Interlace really suck ?

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > C64 Pixeling > Does Interlace really suck ?

2006-05-03 18:32

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5022

Does Interlace really suck ?

Back in 96 IFLI was all the hype, nobody really cared about the flickering if the picture was pixeled with a good technique.

Back in 96 Multicolor sized pixels were considered nice and not blocky, hires wasnt so overhyped.

and I think the shifting viewpoint to a great extent boils down to the wide used emulators. Everyone uses emulators today, and yes, interlace looks like shit in them, and multicolor pixels looks like huge square blocks in them.

Everyone should take some time and check the best laced pictures on a real thing with a real TV, and check multicolor / hires difference. I remember back in the time thinking that hires is actually to HIGH resolution, as a normal TV can hardly display such a pixels.

The lesson is: Interlace is only a flickering nightmare if not watched on TV, and multicolor pix has ugly big pixels only if not watched on a TV.

... 71 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2006-05-09 14:07

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5022

yeah, I remember the annoying interlaces in deus ex machina aswell, ugh...

2006-05-09 15:34

jailbird

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576

Quote:

Huh? With interlace you DO blend two 160x200 images, so you agree now that doing that is extra-ugly?

No. I meant that the _blended screenshot_ looks ugly when I compare it to the original. Color blending on C64 is mostly an advantage, though. However, I don't pixel two 160x200 images, but _one_ 320x200. In the zoom mode, I see and set squared hires pixels, not some kind of smudged blobs. However, that might not matter at all to anyone, as in the end, you see the interlace and the blending only.

And seems you'll try to prove my own eyesight wrong till the end of times, post after post. Look, the last time I checked my sight was something like a year ago and my eyes are more than OK. So, let me explain, this is how I compare the screenshot and the IFLI:

1. I look on the image displayed on the TV set/monitor
2. I look on the blended screenshot
3. I say, "Nah, the blur and the PC generated colors look like a pile of shit, has nothing to do with the original"
4. I look on the image displayed on the TV set/monitor
5. I look on the dithered screenshot
6. I say, "Well, not exactly the same, but looks much closer to the original than the blended piece of crap."
7. End of story

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this, but I absolutely don't care about the technical side of interlace and the truly amazing aspects of brain activity whilst looking on the interlace. If I'd think that a non-blended screenshot would have a better resemblance to the original, I'd upload a blended one, believe me. My intention is not to confuse people here, as I always state that it's a fucking IFLI on the shot. The images here should be informative, nothing more - all the more, as people could take a first slight look on the way of pixelling, coloring, antialiasing and the tehnique all in all by looking on the dithered image. By reading the label, which is there - beside the picture, they still get it's an IFLI, right? A blurred crap eliminates all those factors. Non the less, not a single picture here looks like the original, wether it's IFLI, UFLI or 2 color hi-res.

Quote:

No we were discussing the fact that if the bigscreen shows something which isnt there, it's unfair.

Well, actually that makes sense, but since IFLI is still a C64 graphicsmode and the tools for making it could be downloaded freely, I don't see the unfairness in it. Anyone could get the editor, and pixel a blurry unfair IFLI to make it even to the evil bigscreen blenders. But it also sounds OK to me to ban interlace from compos, well, you decide.

2006-05-09 16:44

MagerValp

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1058

Bah. AnimGIF!

2006-05-09 16:45

jailbird

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576

Quote: Bah. AnimGIF!

Will you make them? :)

I think that animated gif won't refresh so fast as interlace does.

Edit: but indeed, an animated gif would be a great idea, showing the blurred and the dithered image in a few seconds delay. I think it would be a solution which would please both sides, either dither and blender lovers.

2006-05-09 20:46

DeeKay

Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 362

Quote: Will you make them? :)

I think that animated gif won't refresh so fast as interlace does.

Edit: but indeed, an animated gif would be a great idea, showing the blurred and the dithered image in a few seconds delay. I think it would be a solution which would please both sides, either dither and blender lovers.

Been there, tried that... See my column "Art of GFX", in Scene+...
Browsers aren't fast enough, plus different browsers show 0sec delay differently!
See for yourself:

JB: I know you prefer the rastered version to the blended one, cause it looks MUCH neater and you can see the pixelling. But you just can't argue away technical realities by saying "i think differently": Interlace DOES blend two pictures into one, the only difference is that it does this using a temporal shift rather than real transparency...

That's like saying "Sure you can argue that 32bit colors are more than 8bit, but i don't care about all that technicall bullshit. I still say 8-bit-pictures look more like a real photograph than 32bit!"
This is NOT a matter of taste, it's a REALITY, a FACT that Interlace does blend!
Using your technique it would be impossible to do UIFLI-screenshots or XFLI (AFLI interlace), cause here the Hires already IS real!...

You sound like Steven Colbert here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

"I don't care about facts, they distort reality, it's the GUT that counts!" ;-)

2006-05-09 21:26

DeeKay

Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 362

Here, I've made a little picture to illustrate the differences:

Look at the original here on a real c64: Monster

Then see if you still dare tell me that you *actually* see individual teeth and beard-hair instead of a murky mess on the monster's head, a grid of pixels instead of horizontal lines (purple background) and that you can actually READ the Katon-Signature on a real c64!

2006-05-09 22:18

jailbird

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576

Oh, seems you missunderstood me, I wasn't thinking about emulating the interlace with gif animation. See:

Quoting Jailbird

I think that animated gif won't refresh so fast as interlace does

So please don't refer to it as my tehniqe, I have nothing to do with it. That was MagerWalp's idea, so blame him :)

Just as you demonstrated, it's a failure indeed. No, I was suggesting to include both kind of screenshots into the gif anim. For three seconds you'd see the blurred one, for another three the dithered one would appear. You'll realise it's a blended IFLI, but you'd still be able to take a look on the pixelling if you'd like to. Voila, everyone happy!

And I perfectly get your's and Graham points about the technical aspects, but both of you seem to put waaaay to much accents on representing C64 images on PC. I mean, those are _not_ the C64 images. The real images execute on the C64, not on the PC, right?

As for that 32/8 bit comparature to blended/non-blended screenshots and my way of looking on those, wow, aren't you extravagating just a tiny bit? Well come on, we're talking about some blurred pixels on the bloody internet! C64 graphics ripped by an emulator and nested on a web site. A web site. Hello, anyone there?

I find this discussion so damn boring and pointless I'll gladly blend all my dithered pictures just to stop it and make you both really happy. True, it will suck, but hey, at least it will be the correct way of sucking. So let's amen that. No need to continue this, really. I guess I can live with the blur... Gees.

2006-05-09 22:35

jailbird

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576

Quote:

Then see if you still dare tell me that you *actually* see individual teeth and beard-hair instead of a murky mess on the monster's head, a grid of pixels instead of horizontal lines (purple background) and that you can actually READ the Katon-Signature on a real c64!

Please. I never told you that I see the individual pixels. The only thing I'm trying to say that the blurred shit still looks much crappier compared to the original than the dithered one. I neither do see some smudged, ugly shapes and fucked up colors on the TV. That's all. Katon's picture wasn't a good example anyway, his interlace always flickered way too much. Just look at that beard, I don't even have to turn on the c64 to tell you it flickers like hell.
But demonstrate no more, I believe you.

2006-05-10 00:57

DeeKay

Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 362

Don't get me wrong: If you said all along that you only prefer the rastered image because it shows you the way the guy/gal pixels, that'd be just fine.

The only thing I'm arguing is your claim that a rastered "screenshot" looks more like the c64 original. This is simply not true, which can clearly be seen by the comparison above: The c64 clearly DOES show the same horizontal lines and murky mess that only the blended picture has!
So summing up:
1) Blending is more true to what it looks like on the c64
2) Rastering tells you more about the pixelling technique
3) Rastering looks better as a "screenshot", because it doesn't have the blur (which is misleading, cause the c64 original DOES have that!)
4) Both methods don't tell you anything about how bad the flickering really is, but only blending "kills" the details through blurring just like real IFLI on the c64 blurs details through $d016!
5) Rastered "screenshots" can easily be mistaken for UFLI/AFLI-Pictures (unless the picture type is specified!). No problem with blended Screenshots here!

If you sum it all up i would say that it shows a slight preference for blended Screenshots: More true to the c64 original and cannot be confused with AFLI/UFLI!

I don't want to "win" this at all cost, I just want to convince you that blending is the more sensible choice. I've just (re-)started this discussion because i'm always on the lookout for new UFLI pictures, and it did piss me off that so many rastered (non-labelled) IFLI-screenshots are on CSDB already that i assumed to be UFLI pics! <:-)

And if you argue that Screenshots are not needed anyway cause one should always check sth out on the real hardware: Well, why do we add screenshots then in the first place? Plus you know the reality is that VERY many people check stuff out first in an Emulator (most of them suck at Interlace!) before transferring - if at all!... Sometimes looking at the screenshot/comments is enough for some people to not even load it in an Emulator...

Quote:

Please. I never told you that I see the individual pixels. The only thing I'm trying to say that the blurred shit still looks much crappier compared to the original than the dithered one.

Which it does not. See horizontal lines!

2006-05-10 01:15

DeeKay

Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 362

Quote:

And I perfectly get your's and Graham points about the technical aspects, but both of you seem to put waaaay to much accents on representing C64 images on PC. I mean, those are _not_ the C64 images. The real images execute on the C64, not on the PC, right?

Well, I was the first person that mailed all Emulator-makers with a PROPER palette, cause my eyes were bleeding with the awful palette they have used for such a long time (prolly originated from c64s! Or look at the Godot-Palette, that's just AWFUL! What drugs do these guys take to consider these colors accurate?). I spent alot of time getting the colors right, both for the Emulators and also because I do c64-gfx in Photoshop sometimes (see my BP seminar to see what I'm talking about! ;-)
Graham coded the first PAL-Emulator (and he did a really fine job, with PAL- and Scanline-Emulation c64-gfx finally reached an acceptable quality on Emulators!), so it's obvious he also has a vested interest in accurately representing c64-gfx on modern machines (this also includes the Web ofcourse!)
The reality is that VERY many people use an Emulator. Either because they don't have real hardware (anymore) or because they like the advantages (Crossdev, can be used on a Laptop/at work etc). So we should make sure that c64 gfx in Emulators and on PC/Mac in general are as accurate as possible! I would even suggest making Screenshots of Demos and GFX WITH PAL-Emulation, but there's that 30000 byte GIF/PNG limit on CSDB, which prevents this very effectively (because these screenshots should be saved in a truecolor-format!).

Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Next

Refresh

Subscribe to this thread: