| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003 Posts: 2721 |
Best way to make IFLI screenshots im Emu?
Hi everybody,
I have the following problem: I want to upload a screenshot from an old compopic of mine which is in IFLI, and I have it only as prg. How is the best way to make a decent screenshot of it in VICE? I have seen many nice IFLI-screenshots here and would like to know how they were done.
Thanks!
-Bugjam |
|
... 22 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts.... |
| |
Dane
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 423 |
Or...just use some tacky gfx-format that doesn't flicker :) |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 206 |
but then we'd just be arguing about the 'true' shape on a C64 pixel and how square pixels on a PC screen don't represent it accurately :) |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 707 |
I am no graphician, but assumptions are made that the graphician takes advantages of the pal blur to mix colours (eg green next to purple etc. to create their image. grabbing a crystal clear image will lose that effect |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 1578 |
Quote: I am no graphician, but assumptions are made that the graphician takes advantages of the pal blur to mix colours (eg green next to purple etc. to create their image. grabbing a crystal clear image will lose that effect
I've never thought about the PAL blur as an advantage, all the more, always found it ugly. For a couple of years I've had a TV and later a monitor with such a clear screen where the blur was hardly noticeable.
The key of colorfades is not exactly the blur (eventhough it's indeed one of the main factors), yet the mixing of colors with close luminance values and a correct dithering.If you do a "stupid", unarranged, Floyd-Steinberg alike dithering, not even the blurriest blur will help you.
Once I mentioned this, but noone of the competent persons responded. For my very eyes, a much more TV specific attribute than the PAL blur is the vertically arranged net of RGB dots. I know it's hard to emulate the effect, but I've managed to reproduce it in Photoshop, and on high resolutions it was much more TV-alike than the PAL blur... I'd be very happy to read a respond from Graham on this matter.
p.s. green mixed with purple looks extraugly :) |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 1051 |
@Jailbird: The reason why I get negatively surprised sometimes is that when I see a screenshot like e.g. the one from "Smart Girls Hate Booze" it looks to me like some kind of cool hires mode with sprites + hires FLI or something like that.
Then when seeing the pic IRL I discover that it's "only" normal IFLI. Not that there's anything uncool about that, but since it's harder to make a pic that's truely hires with a lot of colors next to eachother than an IFLI pic, I get more impressed by that, so that's why.
|
| |
Graham Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002 Posts: 990 |
@Jailbird:
The "PAL blur" is not the blurriness you encountered on your TV, but a mixing of color tones which always happens, no matter how sharp the picture of your monitor is. PAL is built to display luminances quite good and sacrifices a lot of chrominance resolution for that, the result is a VERY strong blurring on the color tones. Since the human eye is very bad in distinguishing color tones, people usually do not notice that until they are told where to look.
"The key of colorfades is not exactly the blur (eventhough it's indeed one of the main factors)"
It is THE main factor. Look on some other 8 Bit machines with RGB colors like Amstrad CPC for example: The pictures look ugly as hell even though the CPC has more colors than a C64. Reason: The colors do not mix with their neighbourhood so they look a lot more "unfitting".
Let me give you an example: If you dither blue and pink, then the PAL decoder will mix both color tones almost perfectly so the blue gets a bit more pink and the pink gets a bit more blue. You still see every pixel because the luminance (brightness) is left alone, but the colors seem "more fitting" than they would with chrominance untouched. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 1578 |
>> The "PAL blur" is not the blurriness you encountered on your TV, but a mixing of color tones which always happens, no matter how sharp the picture of your monitor is. <<
Now that's what I misunderstood, as we're discussing about two kinds of blurs. The "blur", or "colormix" IFLI produces, which is actually an advantage a graphician could use up, and the PAL blur, the optical illusion, which is just there by default... In that case, it's of course natural to have a PAL blur, and it's also evident that the graphician takes an advantage of it spontaneously, mostly by whatever he does - and hardly by a well prepared intention.
I thought what Algorithm mentioned, is the TV's blurring effect, not the mix or blur of close luminances... |
| |
blackdroid Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002 Posts: 84 |
Just my 2 euros thrown in for measure, I prefer the way Deev makes i* screenshots, no blur or funky colors that do not exist on the real deal, I absolutely hate those blurred i* screenshots they dont do any justice at all to the real deal anyway imho. |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002 Posts: 707 |
The sharper and crispier the image the better as long as the 'pal blur / color mixing' (not blur) is emulated with the screenshot. Why remove the feature which PAL C64's have out of the screenshot |
| |
Graham Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002 Posts: 990 |
"I thought what Algorithm mentioned, is the TV's blurring effect, not the mix or blur of close luminances..."
The TV blurring is the mixing of luminances... The PAL blur is the mixing of chrominances.
"no blur or funky colors that do not exist on the real deal"
Those 16 c64 colors only appear in zoom-mode. In the real picture on a real c64 those 16 colors hardly appear anywhere in the picture. |
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |