BSNES Blur
Moderator: General Mods
BSNES Blur
Once upon a time on a forgotten OS using a forgotten version of ZSNES I had ZSNES set to use 2xSaI and gave the ideal look (for me) out of all the settings available. I assume this look was achievable under Windows 98 and XP. I've been using Vista 64 for quite a long time now and when I use those same settings it quite simply looks like crap.
Recently I decided to try out BSNES to see how far along it's come and I noticed it has an option called 'Smooth Video Output' which looks very much like ZSNES' interpolation filter. When combined with 2xSaI it gives that appearance which I wanted to use.
Here is a pic:
So I'm wondering if someone can explain to me what this smoothing option in BSNES is exactly and why ZSNES no longer gets that look in Vista?
Recently I decided to try out BSNES to see how far along it's come and I noticed it has an option called 'Smooth Video Output' which looks very much like ZSNES' interpolation filter. When combined with 2xSaI it gives that appearance which I wanted to use.
Here is a pic:
So I'm wondering if someone can explain to me what this smoothing option in BSNES is exactly and why ZSNES no longer gets that look in Vista?
Yeah, I can do that.
There's both hardware and software filters involved. Software is 2xSaI, and is what stretches the 256x224 input to 512x448. After that, you have to fit it to your output window, say 1024x768. This is where the hardware filter comes in.
There are two types of hardware filters: pixellated (point) and smooth (linear). What you want is smooth, but what ZSNES is giving you is pixellated.
ZSNES uses DirectDraw to render video. DirectDraw doesn't let you choose whether to use point or linear. It seems like up to Windows XP it always used smooth, but many drivers, including yours, use point as of Vista and later. Don't ask me why they changed it, and no, it's not a setting you can control.
bsnes uses Direct3D and OpenGL, which let you choose whether to use point or linear. Hence the "Smooth video output" option.
No workaround, sadly.
There's both hardware and software filters involved. Software is 2xSaI, and is what stretches the 256x224 input to 512x448. After that, you have to fit it to your output window, say 1024x768. This is where the hardware filter comes in.
There are two types of hardware filters: pixellated (point) and smooth (linear). What you want is smooth, but what ZSNES is giving you is pixellated.
ZSNES uses DirectDraw to render video. DirectDraw doesn't let you choose whether to use point or linear. It seems like up to Windows XP it always used smooth, but many drivers, including yours, use point as of Vista and later. Don't ask me why they changed it, and no, it's not a setting you can control.
bsnes uses Direct3D and OpenGL, which let you choose whether to use point or linear. Hence the "Smooth video output" option.
No workaround, sadly.
Thanks for the explanation.byuu wrote:Yeah, I can do that.
There's both hardware and software filters involved. Software is 2xSaI, and is what stretches the 256x224 input to 512x448. After that, you have to fit it to your output window, say 1024x768. This is where the hardware filter comes in.
There are two types of hardware filters: pixellated (point) and smooth (linear). What you want is smooth, but what ZSNES is giving you is pixellated.
ZSNES uses DirectDraw to render video. DirectDraw doesn't let you choose whether to use point or linear. It seems like up to Windows XP it always used smooth, but many drivers, including yours, use point as of Vista and later. Don't ask me why they changed it, and no, it's not a setting you can control.
bsnes uses Direct3D and OpenGL, which let you choose whether to use point or linear. Hence the "Smooth video output" option.
No workaround, sadly.
While I'm at it, rather than start a new thread I might as well ask about one more thing about the appearance. The default aspect ratio for SNES games seems to be 8:7 and the emulators have the option to stretch them out to 4:3. What is the proper ratio supposed to be? As in was the 8:7 made the way it was to look proper when stretched to 4:3? Or is the option to stretch it to 4:3 is just there in emulators to simulate TVs, meaning TVs ruined the proper look? Wow I worded that awkwardly.
-
- Buzzkill Gil
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
You've really answered your own question there.Cyrus wrote: Or is the option to stretch it to 4:3 is just there in emulators to simulate TVs, meaning TVs ruined the proper look?
Do you REALLY think the games were designed for you to stick your finger in a socket and read bits straight off of RAM?
Or were they designed to be displayed on a TV?
Spoilers: They were designed to be viewed on a TV. Stretching to 4:3 is The Right Way To Do Things.
KHDownloadsSquall_Leonhart wrote:DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
Well they don't look designed to be viewed at 4:3 because things seem to be out of proportion at 4:3. Like the portals in CT are ovals at 4:3 but perfect circles at 8:7. Seems more like they said "Fuck it, no one will notice that it's stretched out a bit".Gil_Hamilton wrote: You've really answered your own question there.
Do you REALLY think the games were designed for you to stick your finger in a socket and read bits straight off of RAM?
Or were they designed to be displayed on a TV?
Spoilers: They were designed to be viewed on a TV. Stretching to 4:3 is The Right Way To Do Things.
On the other hand; do you really think they did not intend for the moon to be round?Cyrus wrote:Well they don't look designed to be viewed at 4:3 because things seem to be out of proportion at 4:3. Like the portals in CT are ovals at 4:3 but perfect circles at 8:7. Seems more like they said "Fuck it, no one will notice that it's stretched out a bit".
You're probably just too used to the wrong ratio.
Lol, I never even noticed that, I just loaded up stuff so anything I've seen recently would be at the start of the game. But as for an actual answer, who knows, I wouldn't put it past them to design things without proper proportions in mind. I probably am just used to the wrong ratio.Johan_H wrote:On the other hand; do you really think they did not intend for the moon to be round?Cyrus wrote:Well they don't look designed to be viewed at 4:3 because things seem to be out of proportion at 4:3. Like the portals in CT are ovals at 4:3 but perfect circles at 8:7. Seems more like they said "Fuck it, no one will notice that it's stretched out a bit".
You're probably just too used to the wrong ratio.
-
- Buzzkill Gil
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
I'mma have to fire CT up again...Cyrus wrote:Well they don't look designed to be viewed at 4:3 because things seem to be out of proportion at 4:3. Like the portals in CT are ovals at 4:3 but perfect circles at 8:7. Seems more like they said "Fuck it, no one will notice that it's stretched out a bit".Gil_Hamilton wrote: You've really answered your own question there.
Do you REALLY think the games were designed for you to stick your finger in a socket and read bits straight off of RAM?
Or were they designed to be displayed on a TV?
Spoilers: They were designed to be viewed on a TV. Stretching to 4:3 is The Right Way To Do Things.
*does so*
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle-in-law.... you're right, they AREN'T circular!
My bet is it was a considered sacrifice. Treating the pixels as square makes the opening/closing animation far easier to draw/calculate(depending on how they generate the effect).
KHDownloadsSquall_Leonhart wrote:DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
It doesn't really matter much comparing individual sprites.
Some developers probably designed with square pixels in mind, while others took the aspect ratio into account. Maybe they did the former and noticed the problem only on gigantic images like a fullscreen moon graphic. We can't know how the original artists intended things to look.
But what we do know is how it looked to 99.9% of people actually playing SNES games in the 90s, and that's what correct aspect ratio does ;)
Some developers probably designed with square pixels in mind, while others took the aspect ratio into account. Maybe they did the former and noticed the problem only on gigantic images like a fullscreen moon graphic. We can't know how the original artists intended things to look.
But what we do know is how it looked to 99.9% of people actually playing SNES games in the 90s, and that's what correct aspect ratio does ;)
-
- ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: PAL50, dood !
gzzzzzzzzzzzztGil_Hamilton wrote:Do you REALLY think the games were designed for you to stick your finger in a socket and read bits straight off of RAM?
Hey, are you insinuating that PAL50 doods represented 0.1% of the people actually playing SNES games in the 90s ?byuu wrote:But what we do know is how it looked to 99.9% of people actually playing SNES games in the 90s, and that's what correct aspect ratio does ;)
Cause that's a nice one.
If by nice you mean raeg.
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54
Code: Select all
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)
Obviously byuu doesn't count Europeans and Australians as people!grinvader wrote:Hey, are you insinuating that PAL50 doods represented 0.1% of the people actually playing SNES games in the 90s ?byuu wrote:But what we do know is how it looked to 99.9% of people actually playing SNES games in the 90s, and that's what correct aspect ratio does ;)
byuu, you racist! >:U
-
- Buzzkill Gil
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
PAL doesn't exist. Stop tormenting me with your filthy lies of inferior TVs that flicker!grinvader wrote:Hey, are you insinuating that PAL50 doods represented 0.1% of the people actually playing SNES games in the 90s ?byuu wrote:But what we do know is how it looked to 99.9% of people actually playing SNES games in the 90s, and that's what correct aspect ratio does
KHDownloadsSquall_Leonhart wrote:DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
-
- ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: PAL50, dood !
but our colours didn't change while scrolling horizontally lawl
oh yeah i just saw an ad for a stupid expensive 600Hz plasma screen
yay for blast processing
oh yeah i just saw an ad for a stupid expensive 600Hz plasma screen
yay for blast processing
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54
Code: Select all
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)
I feel old for getting that.grinvader wrote:but our colours didn't change while scrolling horizontally lawl
oh yeah i just saw an ad for a stupid expensive 600Hz plasma screen
yay for blast processing
Okay, so the final conclusion is that the developers fucked up and there is no proper ratio, huzzah.
-
- Seen it all
- Posts: 2302
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:04 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
-
- ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
- Location: PAL50, dood !
only if it is bbwpsylocke
also the word is 'plump'
also the word is 'plump'
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54
Code: Select all
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)