| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 680 |
Screenshots of Interlace Pics
I’m interested to know what people’s thoughts are on screenshotting interlace pics…
On C64GFX, we do things a bit differently to CSDb. Generally, we care more about the original art than how it’s presented - so we’ll host logos with all the “extras” removed (scrollers, textual information, etc). But of course CSDb screenshots are of how things are actually released.
With interlace pics, it’s more complicated. In theory we should be displaying animations at 50fps (usually) switching between 2 screenshots.. but I’m lead to believe that that could cause battery drain and other problems on devices - plus the FPS probably wouldn’t be 50.
Some sort of blending was suggested.. or simply choosing alternate pixels and merging to create a full-res pic.
The latter is what I’ve tried with some pics .. eg. Some of Leon’s. It looks good and it looks like it’s true to the original creation - I’d hazard a guess that he simply drew these pics at full 320x200px resolution on most of these, actually, rather than drawing on C64 in an interlace editor?
Eg. https://c64gfx.com/image/168046
I toyed with the idea of blending the 1px offset pictures (frame 0 and frame 1).. but I’m not sure that that’s correct either.
Others have suggested some fairly complex blending schemes that presumably show more like it would be on CRT - and I think this is where the 1,000s of colours problem comes in (evident on many CSDb screenshots). This seems unfair since regular MC/HI screenshots don’t get the same treatment.
Anyway, interested to know thoughts… both for CSDb and for C64GFX.com |
|
... 71 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Gordian
Registered: May 2022
Posts: 80 |
Quoting sociI'd be really nice if it could be improved by removing the "not-loaded" class from the container. Then it wouldn't be blank with javascript disabled. Asking for a friend :)
I'm sorry, but who disables JS these days... |
| |
Gordian
Registered: May 2022
Posts: 80 |
I've prepared again some examples.
Please check which one looks best on your computer (maybe comparing to real hardware/VICE) and let us know. Please also refresh rate of your monitor.
https://kawalekkodu.pl/leon.html |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting Gordianhttps://kawalekkodu.pl/leon.html
Firefox on macOS with ProMotion:
6 looks best by a mile, 8 is pretty good. 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 all have lots of judder, 1-4 are static.
Safari on iPhone:
8 looks good, the others are wonky in various ways. |
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 369 |
Well,
i can only say which looks not so good to me personally:
1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11
Monitor: 60 Hz / FullHD / 1920x1080
Chrome |
| |
Gordian
Registered: May 2022
Posts: 80 |
Quoting MagerValp
Firefox on macOS with ProMotion:
6 looks best by a mile, 8 is pretty good.
What is refresh rate of your monitor? |
| |
Dano
Registered: Jul 2004
Posts: 234 |
Interestingly they behave differently on Firefox and Chrome, where Chrome flickers way more.
Win11 here, WQHD.
I'm with MagerValp here, 8 is the sweet spot for me with looks best. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
Quoting GordianQuoting MagerValp
Firefox on macOS with ProMotion:
6 looks best by a mile, 8 is pretty good.
What is refresh rate of your monitor?
"It depends." ProMotion dynamically switches between anything from 1 Hz to 120 Hz depending on screen activity.
Subjectively it looks like it's displaying at 60 Hz to me when viewing your test page, but it isn't possible to know for sure. |
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 369 |
I agree with the others ... 8 seems to be the best. |
| |
Gordian
Registered: May 2022
Posts: 80 |
Hmm...8 is method used currently on c64gfx.com :)
Guys, do you see any difference between 6 and 6b. I added 6b as example which uses Web Animations API. |
| |
Dano
Registered: Jul 2004
Posts: 234 |
To me both look identical flickery. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Next |
