[ShOcK] I just found out that the HD generation isn't really that HD [/sHoCk]
category: general [glöplog]
Half Definition?
texel: how did you scale that shot up so well?
kusma, nah... 256x192 for real HD - and twice the fun!
rc55: It is hand-made in photoshop... the problem is that I can render very few fps that way... 1 frame every 15 or 20 minutes...
firefox 3.0 beta is getting HD too, it doesn't seem to reduce big pictures in pouet tables anymore :>
Is there the source code for second reality? It would be awesome to see it working in hd...
320x200 FTW \o/
15.625 kHz / 50 Hz
15.625 kHz / 50 Hz
texel: I'm afraid you'd be very disappointed :)
rc55 : you could probably achieve the same thing by vectorizing the original screenshot
In a related topic: do you know any software that searches for the number of real pixels (scalings) in an image? I know ppl use that in camera reviews.
who fucking cares.
hd is a stupid marketing farce anyway.
hd is a stupid marketing farce anyway.
xernobyl, I don't really understand your question, but maybe the number of real sensor elements in a camera is got from the sensor array technical details. Taking a look of the raw output files of a camera could be useful too... I don't think an scaled up image with jpeg compression would be possible to calculate with preccision the original size... maybe is possible an estimation.
By other hand, most of the cameras save EXIF information in the jpg file, maybe there is enough info...
By other hand, most of the cameras save EXIF information in the jpg file, maybe there is enough info...
plek: customers care, you know :)
Most of them buy numbers, not actual useful or entertaining products. They want to feel good about the way they spend their money: it has to make them grow balls and not give them the sensation that their anus dilated a bit during the money loss.
Most of them buy numbers, not actual useful or entertaining products. They want to feel good about the way they spend their money: it has to make them grow balls and not give them the sensation that their anus dilated a bit during the money loss.
Looking at the new FR demo for PS3 screenshots...
Why are those red things rendered in such a low res target, without linear interpolation? :|
Why are those red things rendered in such a low res target, without linear interpolation? :|
What a bump.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/05/01/introducing-detuned/
Screenshots there, BTW.
Screenshots there, BTW.
it's called jpeg, moron
FARBRAUSCH FTW!
I prefer hplus.
interesting. i didn't know about this and i'm pretty certain chaos didn't, either :)
about the blog post, i mean. detuned i know about, even though i'm (happily) not involved :)
Quote:
it's called jpeg
It does look that way on OTHER screenshots... hmm.
Somewhat semi on-topic.. ish.. I saw something lately about emulating CRT effects on an LCD. Can't remember where I saw it, but it was about an old atari emulator. The old superlow-D games look really blocky on LCD of course, but with the effects enabled it looked a lot better (tons of old stuff looks better on CRT really).
Anyway, it got me thinking.. I'd much prefer watching oldschool stuff with such effects to watching a HD remake. Maybe it's worth doing a video player to watch captures too?
Anyway, it got me thinking.. I'd much prefer watching oldschool stuff with such effects to watching a HD remake. Maybe it's worth doing a video player to watch captures too?
i guess you mean this article here.
isn't that essentially the same method used in some other emulators (ccs64 jumps to mind) since a couple of years already?
