Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > C64 Pixeling > new ifli editor
2007-10-07 18:12
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 510
new ifli editor

As the existing editors drive me nuts more and more (most of all Funpaint, due to corrupted files when packer is on, buggy color-clash handling, sucky load/save-routines, ...) i decided to do a new editor, lean but working.

yet implemented functions:
- working color-clash handling
- optimizing of block, if colors are wasted
- exchange color in blockline/block
- draw single color/pattern
- load/save (kernalroutines only, so that it will also work with all kind of fancy drive hardware)
- quick color selection by 0-f (col1) and shift+0-f (col2)
- copy/paste block
- blockwise movement by cursor, pixelwise movement by joystick

Is there anything else that would be reasonable to be implemented? Otherwise, i'd release that tool soon, including source.
Btw. a MCI-mode would be more or less easy to implement aswell.
 
... 29 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
2007-10-24 22:04
Copyfault

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 479
Quote: copyfault: after having written an ifli editor /p1/ its priceless to get told finally what ifli really is. thanx man!

1:0 for you, Oswald! Sorry, didn't mean to offend you.

I was (and somehow still am) just bugged by the approach that all the IFLI-editors take when it comes to render pixels for the zoom-mode. I've also been working on some kind of IFLI-editor and tried to find another solution - but failed up to now. Then again, the work on this project is 'parked' for more than a year now (at least! - maybe even two).

Maybe you're just right and a Hires/MC-interlace-mix is not-at-all-wanted by the gfx'ers. I always assumed that higher res in combination with MC would be attracting.

Instead of being 'bugged' of the zoommodes in existance -and just writing about this fact in forums like this- I should rather be active *advicetomyself*
2007-10-25 05:52
Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5103
copyfault, $55/$aa into the bitmap and you can represent the mixed pixels, but imho the 'fake hires' zoom mode is the easyest to handle. mixing hire/mc wont work because, well I dont see any advantage of it :) ie. the percieved (?) resolution wont increase rather decrease compared to ifli and you get more cruel color limits aswell.
2007-10-25 08:10
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 510
Well, if anyone comes up with an idea how to handle things better in a zoom mode, i'd give it a try. Overall i think i can decode teh ifli in teh same way, just display of teh decoded information should be different? But i guess interlacing already in zoommode is something that will hurt your eyes? :-)
2007-10-25 17:24
algorithm

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 707
Hi its me after a long time. How accurate is the vice pal emulation in comparison to the real thing. I could imagine how conveniant it would be to use a PC to do all the pixeling with pal emulation as the preview (I believe mirage is working on such a thing). If the pal emulation was extremely accurate, then why bother with using the C64 to do the gfx?
2007-10-25 17:40
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 510
it is not only about the bit blurry pal signal that helps you doing good pixelling on a real c64. It is also, that your screen needs to refresh with proper 50Hz to have a perfect interlacing. This is already a problem when showing iflis and such on a bigscreen at partys when you have no direct s-Video to the beamer. The other thing is: I have a tiny tft that is just perfect for partys and that allows me to use s-video together with my c64. Interlaced graphics doesn't flicker much on that tft due to the latency of the display (pixels glow quite long compared to a crt). Thus the pic looked really good on the tft, but flickered awfully on a real crt. You see, using the real thing gives you real experience. Using an emulator only and expecting others to see the same result may end in visual pain or bad surprises, when using a real machine.
2007-10-25 17:42
algorithm

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 707
of course interlaced displays will cause a problem. i was referring to non interlaced gfx (eg ufli,fli etc)
2007-10-25 19:01
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 510
Well, in any case, it is up to you what you choose for doing pics. I prefer the real thing (that is also why i have a bunch of tools for painting), as i am used to it since childhood. Emulator is a good substituite when you lack a real machine, or a real machine would be too much of an eye-catcher (e.g. when doing some c64-coding at work, the emu-window is easier to hide, hehe)
2007-10-25 20:40
MagerValp

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1080
Quote: Hi its me after a long time. How accurate is the vice pal emulation in comparison to the real thing. I could imagine how conveniant it would be to use a PC to do all the pixeling with pal emulation as the preview (I believe mirage is working on such a thing). If the pal emulation was extremely accurate, then why bother with using the C64 to do the gfx?

With groepaz experimental VICE patch PAL emu is very accurate:

VICE PAL Emulation Patch

Interlace still only works well on genuine hw though (anyone care to implement lace suppression with configurable 0-50% blend with previous frame? :).
2007-10-25 20:52
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11434
Quote:

Interlace still only works well on genuine hw though (anyone care to implement lace suppression with configurable 0-50% blend with previous frame? :).


if you remove all the videocaching bullshit from vice before, i will do it =)
2007-10-26 05:15
Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5103
Quote: it is not only about the bit blurry pal signal that helps you doing good pixelling on a real c64. It is also, that your screen needs to refresh with proper 50Hz to have a perfect interlacing. This is already a problem when showing iflis and such on a bigscreen at partys when you have no direct s-Video to the beamer. The other thing is: I have a tiny tft that is just perfect for partys and that allows me to use s-video together with my c64. Interlaced graphics doesn't flicker much on that tft due to the latency of the display (pixels glow quite long compared to a crt). Thus the pic looked really good on the tft, but flickered awfully on a real crt. You see, using the real thing gives you real experience. Using an emulator only and expecting others to see the same result may end in visual pain or bad surprises, when using a real machine.

it should be noted that the picture quality, looks, etc highly depends on the crt type aswell. there's no defacto real thing.
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
Holy Moses/Role
syncroman
GuyGavin/HF
kbs/Pht/Lxt
REBEL 1/HF
Hok/Remember
Apollyon/ALD
Guests online: 137
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.7)
2 13:37  (9.7)
3 Codeboys & Endians  (9.7)
4 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
5 Mojo  (9.6)
6 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
9 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
10 What Is The Matrix 2  (9.6)
Top onefile Demos
1 Nine  (9.7)
2 Layers  (9.6)
3 Party Elk 2  (9.6)
4 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
5 Copper Booze  (9.6)
6 Libertongo  (9.5)
7 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
8 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
9 Onscreen 5k  (9.5)
10 Morph  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Oxyron  (9.3)
2 Booze Design  (9.3)
3 Performers  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.2)
5 Triad  (9.2)
Top Original Suppliers
1 Derbyshire Ram  (9.7)
2 Fungus  (9.3)
3 Black Beard  (9.2)
4 Baracuda  (9.2)
5 hedning  (9.1)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2025
Page generated in: 0.057 sec.