| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
a plea from an old schooler
please dont use modified PAL emulating screenshots for pictures on this site.
people may want to use this site to download unmodified c64 art in gif or png format with pure pixel definition.
if they want to see the stuff in highly debatable pal emulation mode people can download the PRG files and view them in that mode on an emulator.
Thanks
Steve |
|
... 167 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
null
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 645 |
Newsflash: the untouched image IS availble, unless you're too retarded and incompetent to download the attached .PRG/.D64 or whatever other format.
Is that really so hard to understand, even after it's been mentioned over 8000 time in this thread?
------------------------------------
http://zomgwtfbbq.info |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:This thread is about the fact that if you ONLY make pal filtered screenshots avaialable you're forcing an incomplete/incorrect image onto people as being THE correct one. All Ste and I wanted to see was that at least an untouched image was available as well.
a) the unfiltered screenshot is in no way more correct than the filtered one. at this point i can only encourage everyone again to make real screenshots from the real thing and challange anyone else to argue why these would be worse than an incorrect - filtered or not - one from an emulator.
b) i think you very much overestimate the importance of these screenshots. the purpose of the damned screenshot is to be able to quickly check wtf some program looks like. the purpose of the screenshot is NOT to serve as a repository for graphics people. those "people that want to download unmodified c64 art" mentioned in the first post can always do that, regardless if a screenshot even exists. the unmodified c64 art is in the prg file, period. |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
@Knoeki
Of course we understand there are d64/prg files to download, you're also missing the point. I'll try to make it clearer below.. Also. If you'd like to infer that I'm retarded please come visit me to do so. I take offence to such talk on forums ;)
@Groepaz
I think you're still not understanding what me and Ste are getting at. I'll try to explain again.
PAL emulation is of course closest to what a real machine attached to a TV will produce BUT to upload EVERY image to this site with PAL emulation which is (I'm sure most people will agree) an incomplete emulation atm, means a) you're saying that doesn't matter it's right "for now" b) when a better one is written all the current "right" ones have to be fetched again from a prg/d64 and capped again with the new "better" pal emulation else they're all suddenly "wrong".
As it's already been agreed that there can be 2 images I don't see the problem and the need to continually argue about something and to just let people look at the ones they want, use the untouched one for re-conversion if ever needed and if an uploader thinks no pal emulation is the way to go on THEIR images, let them flag that.
That is what I mean when I say an unfiltered image is more correct than a filtered one. Yes, it's no more correct than the also available prg/d64 but it's not "broken" in any way and it's a damn site easier to do something with then trying to reverse engineer a PAL emulated image even if someone decided that one had the wrong palette..
One last thought, I'm not sure if you've actually tried capping with most of the hardware that people would have at home but surely most of the pretty crappy capture cards/devices may look more PAL'y but they'll be even further from what an emulator would produce. If you've seen/own a capture device capable of doing a decent job please let me know which as I've been looking for one for some other purposes ;)
Pete |
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 224 |
"well in all honesty i think the pepto palette is complete cobblers.
no 64 palette i ever used has such dark and muted colours as what i see when i load a koala image into your app with that palette."
I have to disagree, for what I remember using the real c64 from 1986 up until 2003 (and then gradually changed to pc) with the 1084s monitor (with no tuning on the hue/saturation/contrast) the Pepto-palette is the closest thing to the real deal. In the old days I used the Amiga to try out animations and so forth in Deluxe Paint and I made a palette similar to the Pepto-palette.
As for the PAL emulation, I have to agree. It's easier if one can count the pixels and look at it as "clean" as possible. |
| |
null
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 645 |
Quote:Also. If you'd like to infer that I'm retarded please come visit me to do so. I take offence to such talk on forums ;)
Oh noes, someone is offended on the internet. Call the whambulance.
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm sure this whole screenshot debacle has gone by before, where it was pleaded everyone uploaded PAL emulated screenshots. To me, it doesn't matter. I'd say, if you upload a release, then post the screenshot however you want. I personally use PAL emulation screenshots because they seem to come a hell of a lot closer to the real thing than without PAL emulation enabled. I think it was said that it doesn't, but I personally don't agree with that. Opinions, assholes, etc.
Why in gods name you'd want no PAL emulation to begin with goes over my head, because if you're not capable of seeing individual pixels on your modern PC, you may want to get your eyesight checked. In fact, even on my old 80s Philips monitor I can see the individual pixels. Maybe not as well as on any modern flatscreen, but.. yeah.
Anyway, this whole discussion is fucking pointless. The main message seems to be "Waah, I want everyone to conform to my screenshot standards", even though the majority of users here seems to be fine with how it is now. Hell, I'll bet some of them aren't, but just download the files and check them in an emulator set up in the exact way they want, or even on a real machine.
------------------------------------
http://zomgwtfbbq.info |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: Quote:Also. If you'd like to infer that I'm retarded please come visit me to do so. I take offence to such talk on forums ;)
Oh noes, someone is offended on the internet. Call the whambulance.
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm sure this whole screenshot debacle has gone by before, where it was pleaded everyone uploaded PAL emulated screenshots. To me, it doesn't matter. I'd say, if you upload a release, then post the screenshot however you want. I personally use PAL emulation screenshots because they seem to come a hell of a lot closer to the real thing than without PAL emulation enabled. I think it was said that it doesn't, but I personally don't agree with that. Opinions, assholes, etc.
Why in gods name you'd want no PAL emulation to begin with goes over my head, because if you're not capable of seeing individual pixels on your modern PC, you may want to get your eyesight checked. In fact, even on my old 80s Philips monitor I can see the individual pixels. Maybe not as well as on any modern flatscreen, but.. yeah.
Anyway, this whole discussion is fucking pointless. The main message seems to be "Waah, I want everyone to conform to my screenshot standards", even though the majority of users here seems to be fine with how it is now. Hell, I'll bet some of them aren't, but just download the files and check them in an emulator set up in the exact way they want, or even on a real machine.
------------------------------------
http://zomgwtfbbq.info
Well, we all better do what you decide then eh? Only in that mess you seem to change your mind every other paragraph..
Once again you're missing the whole point to go off on a rant about how you don't care and how we should all want PAL emulation..
We've not asked for it to be LAW that no pal emulation is used, that's just what you read into it (fair enough Ste's original post was a bit ambiguous but it was soon explained) yet those not agreeing don't see the other side of it, instead you cloud it all with which palette is the right one etc.
If you didn't notice it was already agreed it was a decent idea to be able to upload two version, why you have to keep on and on about it now I don't know.
Pete
|
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
I don't even see why this all was started in first place, most of the screenshots are taken from Vice (or CCS) with no PAL emulation active. Where did STE see a PAL screenshot? |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
I believe someone was replacing Ste's recently uploaded versions of his images with ones from c64pixels.com. He thinks they looked like they had PAL filtering/emulation on, not totally sure but were different enough to what he'd just updated to make him think so (hard to tell on smaller images). That triggered off what was basically a request not to fiddle with existing files, especially to add PAL emulation to stuff when the uploader didn't apply it.
Like I said in my previous post, the orignal plea was somewhat ambiguous but within a couple of posts I think a solution to all the problems was found. Really didn't need to go on as long as it has...
Pete |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
the small pics at c64pixels.com have definitely no active pal emulation. all recently added ones are even png graphics, so no jpeg artefacts or such things.
please do not spread rumours. |
| |
Cresh
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 354 |
Who cares about screenshots?!
It is just a preview.
Run the file on c64 to see how does it really look like. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 18 - Next |
