| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2726 |
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 |
|
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
The easiest way is CCS64. Alt+F2 creates a 256 colour screenshot of two consecutive screens. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Personally I don't really like those merged screenshots produced by CSS, as you lose all the dithering and don't see the way it was truly pixelled. They also look a little blurry.
I make screenshots by taking grabs of each individual screen in an emulator, then loading both into photoshop in two seperate layers and clearing every other vertical line from the top layer. You then have a true 320x200 image. |
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
Ehr,IFli screenshots never show how they were pixeled. ;)
Interlace is not that good for blurring colors anyway.
Hint hint... ;P
|
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1051 |
Other crappy suggestions...
- Anim-gif
- Use a real c64 instead, and take a screenshot of the monitor/tv with a camera that has a closing time (or what it's called) of 1/25th sec
- Only grab one of the screens, then the user will get a positive surprise when viewing the demo
|
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 707 |
1. Run Photoshop
1. Select Pal Emulation under vice + double screen
2. press the printscreen button or use a screen grab prog
(Do not use 'save screenshot' this will only save a
indexed color non stretched non pal emulated snapshot).
quickly pause the emulator
3. paste clipboard contents into photoshop, then repeat
step 2 until you have two images with (hopefully two
individual screens. If not repeat the process
4. Merge the two screens together. If there is a standard
scrolly, you can shift it seperately so that they will
both merge at the same spot
|
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
That's all nice... when you need a blurred screenshot! The question is, is that what Bugjam wants?
Personally I prefer taking a screenshot the way Deev mentioned (Lost) as it's more adequate when you see the dithering instead of a blurry image.
I was using Vicshow+palette remap for that, seems to me like the easiest way. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1051 |
Btw, I think a blurry image is the most correct way of displaying it, since then it looks like IFLI. If you do it the "Jailbird way" it will look like some kinda sprites + hires FLI mode, and then you get negatively surprised when seeing the pic live. |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
Yup, totally agree with Cruzer. The blurred way is the correct way and it is also the result if you take a picture of the screen when photographed with a closing time of 1/25 second.
If you watch an IFLI on a real C64 without zoom-mode, then you'll notice that the dithering is no dithering at all. A chessboard-like dithering is displayed as flickering horizontal lines. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
I think that a blurry image differs much more from the original as a dithered one, but what do I know, I'm just a graphician, not a coder ;D
|
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quote: Btw, I think a blurry image is the most correct way of displaying it, since then it looks like IFLI. If you do it the "Jailbird way" it will look like some kinda sprites + hires FLI mode, and then you get negatively surprised when seeing the pic live.
First of all, the blurring of C64's interlace (if done well, that's it) always made the pictures much smoother on the real thing. That looks better than a PC screenshot, dithered or blurred, whatever. So I don't get why would be someone negatively surprised in any way when seeing the picture "live".
Secondly, while pixelling, I put down exact pixels from a 16 colors pallette, not blurred interlaced dots. If I compare a blurred picture with the thing I've pixelled, I still found the dithered screenshot much closer to the original than the trashy mess Vice or CCS64 produces. If you zoom the dithered screenshot, yes, you'll se the dots. But if you zoom the c64 image, you'll see the dots as well. Not zoomed, IMHO the dithered images looks *much* better than a blurred one. Look at Deev's picture as an example - you'd hardly tell it's blurred or dithered without zooming.
Perhaps it's my very subjective, non-technical, fledgeling view on IFLI emulation but after pixelling a heavy bunch of IFLIs and seeing them on PCs afterwards, I still think that blurring looks like shit, sorry. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
I agree with Jailbird. Graham's description of how IFLI looks on a real C64 sounds pretty accurate to me, but a dithered image and a merged image on the PC both fail to accurately create that look in my eyes. This being the case, I much prefer to see the dithered version that shows exactly how the graphician has set the pixels. It does show the image more sharply than a real C64 with a mere simulated 300x200 resolution can manage, but it also shows the image using only the C64's palette, rather than incorperating several dozen colours that the 64 could never actually display. |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
You know that the monitor hardly displays those 16 colors you pixel :) |
| |
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. |
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
Quote: Or...just use some tacky gfx-format that doesn't flicker :)
Absolutely agree with this.
Interlace is kinda annoying nomatter how good it is pixeled.
And it is not like there are no alternatives. ;)
|
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2726 |
First of all, THANK YOU everybody who posted a reply here! It is amazing how fast a vital discussion comes up on a question I hoped I would get a short, simple answer on! ;-)
But nevertheless, I will try some of the supposed methods when I am in the mood for it. All take their time, but are also interesting.
Actually the picture is not really worth spending so much time on it (it is really old and I did not use the IFLI mode well), but you know how it is when you want to have your stuff complete... ;-) |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
>> The TV blurring is the mixing of luminances... The PAL blur is the mixing of chrominances. <<
No, I mean the ugly blur caused by the TV's bad contrast, I guess that has nothing to do with luminance factors, mixing or whatever similar... |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
>>Interlace is kinda annoying nomatter how good it is pixeled.<<
@Tch: well, that's a very subjective opinion and a matter of taste, just like music genres you love or hate... Some people like it, some dislike it, but every of them has it's pros an cons.
I've never understood this "IFLI sucks" attittude which was started by Deekay years ago in some diskmagazine. Actually it needs a huge dose of experience to pixel on an advanced level in IFLI/MCI, just as in any other C64 grapicsmode.
@Graham: IMHO, you are aproaching this matter on a too technical way. As a graphician, I don't really care about chroma/luma values of any kind, my perception is strongly visual. So I think I'm more or less competent to tell the difference between a blurred and a dithered screenshot suitably to a picture I've pixelled. I understand your reasoning, but please try to have a tiny bit of look on it from my (our) angle. I find it quite interesting that graphicians have an oposite opinion than programmers on a strictly graphical matter. :)
And for the last time, absolutely, dithering isn't the best way to "emulate" IFLI on a screenshot. But, in my eyes, it still looks closer to the original than a blurred mess.
|
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
Wow Jailbird,I ment no offence. 8)
And ofcourse my opinion is subjective..I am a graphician.
Let me explain how I feel about Interlace in general..
I made a spiral scroller with bobs some time ago,but the ORA wasn´t working as it should..
The result was: flickering dots everywhere.
It was simply distracting and the emphasis was clearly on
the BLINKING PIXELS on the screen.
They simply draw attention.
I feel the same about Interlace.
A picture must be ´still´ and not `blink`,otherwise the feeling gets lost.
(But this is from a coders point of view,ofcoz) ;P |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
>> Wow Jailbird,I ment no offence. 8) <<
Neither did I interpreted your words as an offence :D
>> I feel the same about Interlace.
A picture must be ´still´ and not `blink`,otherwise the feeling gets lost.
(But this is from a coders point of view,ofcoz) ;P <<
:)
Indeed, flickering could be disturbing. Although, if one truly masters the interlace mode and uses colors of lower brightness combined with smart antialiasing and suitable dithering, the flickering could be reduced to minimum. On a real C64/display screen, that's it... |
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
You are right when it comes to ´masters´,Jailbird.
There sure are some beautiful interlaced pictures that almost look ´normal´.
But I am dreaming of demos like "Tsunami",with ´small´
pixeled (non interlaced) graphix.
That is the future for our beloved machine. ;) |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
"No, I mean the ugly blur caused by the TV's bad contrast, I guess that has nothing to do with luminance factors, mixing or whatever similar..."
This TV blur is only the blur of luminances. Makes Hires pixels fade the stronger it is. You can 100% get rid of it if you use a seperate chroma/luma cable, but you will NEVER get rid of the chrominance blur.
"IMHO, you are aproaching this matter on a too technical way. As a graphician, I don't really care about chroma/luma values of any kind, my perception is strongly visual."
Yes and this is exactly what I told you: There is always a blur on chrominance, a VERY strong blur. But your perception (and other humans aswell since PAL was built with human perception in mind) does not notice it very much, it's a quite subtle effect which makes C64 pictures "somehow" look better without people actually noticing what it is. That's also the reason why the 10 years of search for >THE< C64 palette failed: Those 16 C64 pictures do not exist in a dithered picture, in reality you have much much more colors. The search for a palette failed because of this, since even if all colors were 100% like on c64, once you used these colors in a picture they still looked all wrong.
"I find it quite interesting that graphicians have an oposite opinion than programmers on a strictly graphical matter. :)"
This is not about opinion. If you want to have the IFLI screenshots as on C64, you would have to simulate the mentioned chroma blur. And those 320x200 pixels also do not exist in reality. It is and stays 2 * 160x200, no matter what you do. The "opinion" part is actually what you/me/others like better. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
@Graham: the "opinion" part of this topic equals with the visual interpretation of IFLI screenshots, and that's what I meant since my very first post, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is a technical matter, which I will never understand to the bone - but that's your table anyway...
In my opinion a blurred screenshot looks ugly whilst I put the technical rules aside. In your opinion, it's the correct, technical way of doing it, even if it's ugly in the eyes of a graphician. I guess we're even then :D |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: Wow Jailbird,I ment no offence. 8)
And ofcourse my opinion is subjective..I am a graphician.
Let me explain how I feel about Interlace in general..
I made a spiral scroller with bobs some time ago,but the ORA wasn´t working as it should..
The result was: flickering dots everywhere.
It was simply distracting and the emphasis was clearly on
the BLINKING PIXELS on the screen.
They simply draw attention.
I feel the same about Interlace.
A picture must be ´still´ and not `blink`,otherwise the feeling gets lost.
(But this is from a coders point of view,ofcoz) ;P
I actually quite like the blinking effect you get with interlaced modes. I feel if gives a certain life to the picture and I think can help draw the viewers eye around the screen (so long as the eye is not being drawn for the wrong reasons; there's a different between a carefully anti-aliased blinking and a black-next-to-white flickering!).
Obviously you've pushed UFLI much further than I thought was possible and it's certainly made me want to have a go at that mode for myself, but I don't think I'll neglect IFLI forever. Aside from having to do some over the top anti-aliasing to reduce flickering, it's one of the most natural modes to work in on the C64. You have very few colour restrictions, you don't have to worry about sprite/colour priorities and so on. It's just about setting the pixels exactly where your eye and your mind tell you is best. |
