default header

Hardware

Displaying Pixels (III)

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 01:27

http://nfgworld.com/mb/thread/660

So many lols involved there. A pity the better ones can only be found out by those with staff privileges here.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 01:37

I have moved some of them out in the open:

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2212

And I will move the rest later.

As for the article, I actually saw it earlier today, and apart from the nonsensical jabs at you in the beginning, I actually liked it enough to ask NFG to let me repost it here. It's a long story. We had an exchange of about a dozen long emails today, all of which will be published here.

Basically, I am going to give his side of the story, then our side of the story (via linking your article on the subject, as well as the threads in which we discussed it with NFG), and then let the reader make up his mind.

This will have to suffice until I have a clear grasp of all aspects of the problem, and write my own article. Because unfortunately there are still several things (whether they are mere details or not I can't say) which I don't get.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 01:59

"His side of the story"? Kidding, right? He wrote lines like this:

You're still maintaining that there's some value in displaying pixels 'as the creator intended'. Personally I think this is elitist bullshit


...and yet you think his has "a side" of the story? He couldn't even say that those CP-S games he now writes about had an incorrect aspect ratio in the emulator direct screenshots and you're reposting his overwhelming pile of shit on Insomnia? Do it and I'll say good bye. I'm sorry.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 02:12

Recap, NFG's arguments, and my rebuttal of his arguments, are valuable. They are valuable reading material for all those people who don't understand the value of proper displays -- i.e. for all the readers of this website. I have spent over an hour sending him emails today on this subject, and I want to publish those emails on my goddamn website, as well as all the material that those emails are based on.

And now you are coming along and telling me that I can't?

You have to be joking.

This has got to be a bad joke.

Remember the time I told you what to publish and what not to publish on your website? Right, you don't, because I never did that, and I never will. I respect you too much to do that, and I was under the impression that the feeling was mutual.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 02:23

"Respect"? That article is an insult to myself --to anyone with a proper knowlegde on the subject indeed--. The amount of horseshit I can tolerate in the sites I contribute has a limit, I'm afraid. You have the IC example. I'm not telling you what to publish and what not on your website. Let me decide where I must contribute and where not.

I'm doing it because indeed, you know, I love your website, anyhow.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 02:37

Recap, as far as I can tell, with my limited knowledge of the subject, his article is interesting and contains many useful explanations.

Are some -- or all -- of those explanations wrong?

Perhaps, but if so, someone needs to come in and explain to me, in detail, why that is so. Because, right now, I cannot see much wrong with the factual part of the article -- only with the conclusions drawn from those facts.

So, what I am saying to you, is that if you have something to say, please say it either in an article (which I'll be more than happy to publish along NFG's), or in the appropriate forum threads (which, with appropriate linking, I'll make sure will be read by all those who take an interest in the subject). That is the ONLY way to help me -- to help me understand. Because freaking out and threatening to desert me if I run a single fucking article you don't like is NOT helping me -- it's making the situation even more difficult for me -- even unbearable.

So please. NFG is my friend and I value his contributions and opinions. If you want to counter him, do it the correct way -- in your writings. Forcing me into an uncomfortable situation with my friend is not the correct way to do anything.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby JoshF » 20 Apr 2009 04:08

Well, this is pretty much the ideal way to view old games on a fixed res, high-res screen:

Wow.

NFG still playing with his Legos.

Image
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 04:22

Yes, that part perplexed me.

Josh, if you have some specific arguments to make, please do so -- preferably in the appropriate thread. Do you also think NFG's article is worthless? I seriously do not think it's worthless. His explanations and his illustrations helped me understand more than Recap's article did. Call me stupid or whatever -- I am only trying to understand all the aspects of this issue, and right now I find neither Recap's nor NFG's explanations 100% satisfactory. This is how I feel about them:

icycalm wrote:There is only one thing you are convincing me with these comments, and that is that neither of you has a strong grasp on the issues involved. Resorting to namecalling and barb-throwing is a sign of weakness. If you or Recap had a firm grasp on the subject, you'd have posted a clear, lucid, succinct explanation whose truth would be immediately apparent.

So neither of you have the full answers to the questions we are asking here, but what you do have is arguments and observations which you've accumulated by thinking about this subject for years. So post them in as clear and concise a manner as you can manage and spare us the histrionics.


http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=4207#4207
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby JoshF » 20 Apr 2009 05:14

Not worthless, but I've obviously changed my mind on the "clarity" argument since 2007. CRT blur is the old-school equivalent of anti-aliasing as far as I'm concerned (remember people praising how much clearer the jaggie-ridden PS2 DOA2 port was? They must've been the true polygon art fans.), and scanlines do give the image crispness, so it's a nice balance. It would be hard for me to find an argument to persuade a "pixel art" fan (NFG-style, not Recap) of anything, because 1: sprite rippers have been using raw digital output as a standard for a decade, 2: F12 = raw digital output, and 3: pixel artists use computer monitors, and they aren't publishing their work on CRTs either. Their eyes are too used to things looking a certain way, so anything else is elitism. When I do stuff on PixelJoint, I don't use scanlines either, but I also wouldn't dream of playing Kaitei Daisensou on anything other than a CRT. Weird.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 05:38

JoshF wrote:Not worthless


That's all I wanted to hear. And the ensuing conversation is even more worthwhile than the article, especially because it touches on more general, and thus more important aspects than just pixels.

So I would advise everyone to save their arguments for the new thread, and leave this one for less controversial lols.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 14:00

Recap, as far as I can tell, with my limited knowledge of the subject, his article is interesting and contains many useful explanations.

Are some -- or all -- of those explanations wrong?

Perhaps, but if so, someone needs to come in and explain to me, in detail, why that is so. Because, right now, I cannot see much wrong with the factual part of the article -- only with the conclusions drawn from those facts.


Laughs. You at least see the conclusions are wrong. Even yet, you find the article "interesting" and "worth posting", and that's despite admitting that you don't have the proper knowledge to make sure the factual part isn't wrong. (...) Astounding nonsense, if you ask me. Not the type of stuff I'd expect from Insomnia nor the line of reasoning I'd expect from Icycalm.

But whatever. You're aware this fella is clueless, while, oh, noes, he thinks he isn't. You have the original thread (I'd love to have it in its integrity, though) with his impertinent and pointless condescension and insult attempts where even yourself had to explain to him some elementary facts. And now you're posting on the frontpage an article of his on the subject I am warning you is HORSESHIT and where, despite using the stuff he learned thanks to me, the introduction is a lame attempt at an insult towards myself.

"Respect me so much" my ass, I'd say.


So, what I am saying to you, is that if you have something to say, please say it either in an article


http://postback.geedorah.com/informes/i ... rte_i.html

For Christ's sake.




So please. NFG is my friend and I value his contributions and opinions. If you want to counter him, do it the correct way -- in your writings.


The guy is already "countered". He or what he has to ever say is not of my concern. I was "countering" Icycalm's nonsensical behaviour.




If you or Recap had a firm grasp on the subject, you'd have posted a clear, lucid, succinct explanation whose truth would be immediately apparent.

So neither of you have the full answers to the questions we are asking here,


"Firm grasp on the subject"? Man, I even forced myself to do it in [crappy] English. You must have read the article 4 or 5 times now. Let's see once again: which were the questions you're asking there you think are not addressed?




1: sprite rippers have been using raw digital output as a standard for a decade, 2: F12 = raw digital output, and 3: pixel artists use computer monitors, and they aren't publishing their work on CRTs either.


Who-gives-a-shit about sprite rippers or pixel artist wannabes. We're talking about 20-years-old games there.
Last edited by Recap on 20 Apr 2009 14:22, edited 1 time in total.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 14:22

Recap wrote:Laughs. You at least see the conclusions are wrong. Even yet, you find the article "interesting" and "worth posting"


Exactly. These conclusions need to be refuted, and you better believe that that is exactly what I'll be doing.

Recap wrote:and that's despite admitting that you don't have the proper knowledge to make sure the factual part isn't wrong.


I have enough knowledge to make sure that at least SOME of it is correct. The same goes for everything posted on this site. It is impossible to verify every claim every single one of the contributors make. Half of the games they write about I haven't even played -- nor will I ever. Not to mention that there's already loads of stuff on this site I plainly disagree with. That's how publications work, I am afraid, except those that are the work of a single person -- and this one isn't.

Recap wrote:Astounding nonsense, if you ask me. Not the type of stuff I'd expect from Insomnia nor the line of reasoning I'd expect from Icycalm.


There is no nonsense in my approach. It is the best approach to take on this matter at this time, and it will only raise the esteem my readers already hold me in and this website.

Recap wrote:But whatever. You're aware this fella is clueless


He is not clueless. I have already told you several times that I don't think he is clueless. I have learned a lot over the years by reading his half a dozen websites -- as much as I have learned by reading yours.

Recap wrote:And now you're posting on the frontpage an article of his on the subject I am warning you is HORSESHIT


And what am I supposed to do with this warning? It is useless to me, as is all the childish arguing and bickering between the two of you. I want facts, explanations, details, elucidations -- I WANT TO UNDERSTAND EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THIS ISSUE -- how on earth is your warning supposed to help me do that?

Recap wrote:and where, despite using the stuff he learned thanks to me, the introduction is a lame attempt at an insult towards myself.


I realize this, and if it were anyone other than NFG I would have edited it out. However, there are a few contributors to this site whose writings I will not edit, and those include you and NFG. What I will do instead is make clear to everyone reading this site that I think NFG's introduction to this article is indeed a lame attempt at an insult towards you.

Recap wrote:You "respect me so much"? Are you sure?


Yes, I am sure, just as I respect NFG. It's a tough sort of respect, because I can see glaring faults in both of you (as you both see in me, no doubt), but I wouldn't change either of you for anything. What I will do is post both your opinions on my site, then my own half-formed opinions, and leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind. Once I have fully made up MY OWN mind, I will post an article that will explain everything and that will be the end of that.

So, what I am saying to you, is that if you have something to say, please say it either in an article


http://postback.geedorah.com/informes/i ... rte_i.html

For Christ's sake.


You have got to be kidding me. I find it hard to understand some of your explanations on this subject even in English, and now you are giving me babelfished Spanish? What am I supposed to do with it?

The guy is already "countered". He or what he has to ever say is not of my concern. I was "countering" Icycalm's nonsensical behaviour.


Fair enough. If you feel you have already countered him you should be very happy about the whole business. I will link your counters in the appropriately visible place, and everyone will be able to see that you have countered him.

"Firm grasp on the subject"? Man, I even forced myself to do it in [crappy] English. You must have read the article 4 or 5 times now. Let's see once again: which were the questions you're asking there you think are not addressed?


That's part of what I will be soon posting. If you feel you can address them, or if you want to point out where you have already addressed them, you will be able to do so in the appropriate thread. And we'll take it from there.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 15:12

Exactly. These conclusions need to be refuted, and you better believe that that is exactly what I'll be doing.


How could I believe that if after dozens of forum posts of myself everywhere, an entire English-language article and several e-mails on the subject you STILL think there're questions which haven't been addressed? YOU can't do that! Just by posting horseshit on the frontpage you're giving it some extent of credibility. I think it's that you still fail to get the dimension of the word -- "HORSESHIT".



The same goes for everything posted on this site. It is impossible to verify every claim every single one of the contributors make. Half of the games they write about I haven't even played -- nor will I ever. Not to mention that there's already loads of stuff on this site I plainly disagree with. That's how publications work, I am afraid, except those that are the work of a single person -- and this one isn't.

Recap wrote:And now you're posting on the frontpage an article of his on the subject I am warning you is HORSESHIT

And what am I supposed to do with this warning? It is useless to me,



2D consultant

Raúl Sánchez


http://insomnia.ac/contact/

?




Recap wrote:But whatever. You're aware this fella is clueless


He is not clueless. I have already told you several times that I don't think he is clueless. I have learned a lot over the years by reading his half a dozen websites -- as much as I have learned by reading yours.


He couldn't even notice that the emulator's direct CP-S II screenshots had a prominently incorrect aspect ratio. FOR FUCK'S FUCK.





Recap wrote:and where, despite using the stuff he learned thanks to me, the introduction is a lame attempt at an insult towards myself.


I realize this, and if it were anyone other than NFG I would have edited it out. However, there are a few contributors to this site whose writings I will not edit, and those include you and NFG.


If you're placing me in the same room with that guy I'm banning myself. Again, I'm really sorry.



What I will do is post both your opinions on my site, then my own half-formed opinions, and leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind. Once I have fully made up MY OWN mind, I will post an article that will explain everything and that will be the end of that.


Read, Icycalm: That's a dumb thing to do. This all is not a matter of "opinions". His article is full of shit, misinformation hence it's totally misleading given that most won't understand the technicalities involved. Additionally, It's also unrespectful towards myself.

I don't have any more to say.



You have got to be kidding me. I find it hard to understand some of your explanations on this subject even in English, and now you are giving me babelfished Spanish? What am I supposed to do with it?


Use your human translators and, for more color, wait for the second part?
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 16:23

Recap wrote:
Exactly. These conclusions need to be refuted, and you better believe that that is exactly what I'll be doing.


How could I believe that if after dozens of forum posts of myself everywhere


You are not required to believe me -- I am not asking you to believe anything -- that was just an English expression which is meant to show that the person who used it feels very strongly about what he is saying. So you can read my words once they have been posted, or you can not read them. It is your choice. But I am certainly not going to throw my words in the trashcan just because you perhaps don't believe that they will be valuable or that they will provide an adequate refutation. They are valuable because I say they are valuable and that's the end of that. If you have a problem with them you can state your problem in the appropriate thread after I have posted them -- or write even more articles on the subject if you deem it necessary.

Recap wrote:Just by posting horseshit on the frontpage you're giving it some extent of credibility.


Meh. I post horseshit on the frontpage all the time. I have entire articles which contain nothing but horseshit -- and my refutations of it. I constantly link to horseshit both in my articles and in forum posts. If I tried to hide horseshit under the carpet I would almost never have anything to write about. -- And I would certainly never have started this website in the first place.

2D consultant

Raúl Sánchez


http://insomnia.ac/contact/

?


I don't understand what you mean. I have several dozen consultants -- and even people who are not mentioned in that page. That doesn't mean I take their word as the gospel.

Recap wrote:But whatever. You're aware this fella is clueless


He is not clueless. I have already told you several times that I don't think he is clueless. I have learned a lot over the years by reading his half a dozen websites -- as much as I have learned by reading yours.


He couldn't even notice that the emulator's direct CP-S II screenshots had a prominently incorrect aspect ratio. FOR FUCK'S FUCK.


And there are surely many more things he can't notice. But there are also a crapload of things he CAN notice. Why is this so difficult to understand? Even artfags and academics can notice things on occasion, and provide some valuable comments -- I have pointed this out several times in this forum.

If you're placing me in the same room as this guy I'm banning myself. Again, I'm really sorry.


I don't know what you mean. I am not placing anyone in the same room with anyone else -- everyone is in his own room and that's the way it should be. Please stop giving me ultimatums on how to run my website -- I have never done this to you and I will never presume to do it. You have your site and I have my site, and we can only make SUGGESTIONS to each other -- suggestions which can, and should, be ignored if we do not feel they are valid. What would you do if I suggested that you remove the silly percentage scores from your site and replace them with a 1-5 rating scale? (And do it immediately because if you don't I'll never talk to you again.) -- You would of course ignore me, and I wouldn't expect anything less from you. So please allow me the same courtesy.

So apart from that we are also currently collaborating on getting your site translated into English, and hosted as a distinct subsite of Insomnia. If for whatever reason you no longer want to go ahead with this, just say so. I will be sad to see this happen, but the choice is not mine to make. I can only make my website the best that I can make it -- if that is not enough for you there's nothing I can do about it.

What I will do is post both your opinions on my site, then my own half-formed opinions, and leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind. Once I have fully made up MY OWN mind, I will post an article that will explain everything and that will be the end of that.


Read, Icycalm: That's a dumb thing to do.


Personally, I think it's very clever. I wouldn't be doing it otherwise.

This all is not a matter of "opinions". His article is full of shit, misinformation hence it's totally misleading given that most won't understand the technicalities involved.


Same old same old. Instead of taking his article apart line by line, as I do in this forum with shit articles all the time, you keep giving me these useless generalities, that the article is "shit", that it contains some vague "misinformation" etc. etc. All this does for me is reinforce the conviction that you are not capable of taking his article apart.

Additionally, It's also unrespectful towards myself.


The only disrespectful comments I see are:

1. "He was obviously deranged."

2. That you and I are "elitists".

Number 1 is a joke -- NFG calls me deranged too all the time, and he is probably right. In fact we are all deranged, and it's about time we accepted it and learned to live with it.

And number 2 is only disrespectful in the eyes of idiots -- smart people know that "elitist" is not an insult but a compliment.

In any case, if you still feel that he insulted you, and if you cannot live with the massive shame caused by this, you are more than welcome to write an article filled with insults towards him. I will post it on the frontpage next to NFG's article, and that will be the end of that.

Use your human translators and, for more color, wait for the second part?


My translators are busy right now. And I am of course still waiting for the second part, and as many more parts after that as you are planning to write. My posting of NFG's article on the frontpage, as well as the posting of my response to his article, has nothing to do with my ability to wait patiently for your own articles, and for their translations.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby JoshF » 20 Apr 2009 16:50

Who-gives-a-shit about sprite rippers or pixel artist wannabes.

I wasn't saying those points gives them validation, but it does in their head. Give the best argument in the world and they can still hide behind some old Amiga artist's DeviantArt page.

To be more precise, the parts I thought were worth something were the technical facts, but I agree with Recap that the premise is a bit nonsensical ("here's how old games were displayed, now here's some Legos.") I don't dislike the guy though (used to visit the site quite a bit) and didn't want to look like I'm trying to control Insomnia's content.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby Recap » 20 Apr 2009 18:58

icycalm wrote:Meh. I post horseshit on the frontpage all the time. I have entire articles which contain nothing but horseshit -- and my refutations of it. I constantly link to horseshit both in my articles and in forum posts. If I tried to hide horseshit under the carpet I would almost never have anything to write about. -- And I would certainly never have started this website in the first place.


The way you're explaning you're posting his write-up is not at all as if you ackowledge it is horseshit (because, indeed, you don't think so, it seems).



2D consultant

Raúl Sánchez


http://insomnia.ac/contact/

?


I don't understand what you mean.


I'll ask it more directly: Why my warning is "useless to you" and at the same time you have that line on the staff page? I mean, you don't rely on your "consultants" even when you admit to not totally understanding the subject? Don't you see that's kind of insulting?




He is not clueless. I have already told you several times that I don't think he is clueless. I have learned a lot over the years by reading his half a dozen websites -- as much as I have learned by reading yours.


About actual dot art you have learned shit by reading him. Everything else is out of this discussion and I don't really care.




He couldn't even notice that the emulator's direct CP-S II screenshots had a prominently incorrect aspect ratio. FOR FUCK'S FUCK.

And there are surely many more things he can't notice. But there are also a crapload of things he CAN notice.


You kidding again, right? The fucking subject of the discussion was how dot art is intended to be displayed. Not getting that bit revealed he just missed the whole point for a clear lack of proper education. The whole fucking point. Fuckingly miseducated. As say, the idiots who programmed PS2 Mushihime-sama. What else do you need, seriously.



Please stop giving me ultimatums on how to run my website -- I have never done this to you and I will never presume to do it. You have your site and I have my site, and we can only make SUGGESTIONS to each other -- suggestions which can, and should, be ignored if we do not feel they are valid.


I'm just giving you the reasons why I'm stopping contributing here before it happens. In deference. Would you have preferred no previous "ultimatums"? No explanations and just leaving when I felt I was not respected? That's how I usually do it, so for me, no prob!



What would you do if I suggested that you remove the silly percentage scores from your site and replace them with a 1-5 rating scale? (And do it immediately because if you don't I'll never talk to you again.) -- You would of course ignore me, and I wouldn't expect anything less from you. So please allow me the same courtesy.


A shame you can't still see the difference. In using percentage scores, where's the disrespect towards you? If there happens to be any so, I wouldn't even hesitate.



So apart from that we are also currently collaborating on getting your site translated into English, and hosted as a distinct subsite of Insomnia. If for whatever reason you no longer want to go ahead with this, just say so.


Yeah, I no longer want to go ahead with that if I'm stopping contributing here, obviously. What you had already done, it's fine, no worries.




Same old same old. Instead of taking his article apart line by line, as I do in this forum with shit articles all the time, you keep giving me these useless generalities, that the article is "shit", that it contains some vague "misinformation" etc. etc. All this does for me is reinforce the conviction that you are not capable of taking his article apart.


You're crazy if you think I'm going to scrutinize and explaining myself in English line by line an article of this guy. Especially when you have everything explained for 3 years now in an article you asked me to do (and re-explained even more carefully in another article, this time in Spanish).




My posting of NFG's article on the frontpage, as well as the posting of my response to his article, has nothing to do with my ability to wait patiently for your own articles, and for their translations.


When you're asking me to address line by line his shit, it obviously has everything to do, you can believe that.




I wasn't saying those points gives them validation, but it does in their head. Give the best argument in the world and they can still hide behind some old Amiga artist's DeviantArt page.


You know what gives them validation in their head? Finding out their articles discussed on other websites, especially on quality websites as this one.






I don't dislike the guy though (used to visit the site quite a bit)


NFG wrote:And Recap's right, I was probably the one who started dismissively insulting the other party's ideas. I called them silly and worse, but really, dear Recap, they are. =)

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=4202#4202

I think I didn't, either?





and didn't want to look like I'm trying to control Insomnia's content.


Maybe that's because you care more about your own internet "look" than about Insomnia's content. Maybe.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 20 Apr 2009 19:41

Recap wrote:The way you're explaning you're posting his write-up is not at all as if you ackowledge it is horseshit (because, indeed, you don't think so, it seems).


I don't think it's horseshit. I think there are parts that are wrong, and I will address them in my reply. But there are other parts that are very useful, so for me it's a win/win situation. I am sorry you can't see this.

But you were trying to warn me about posting horseshit on my frontpage, and I wanted to make clear to you that it is standard policy to post horseshit on my frontpage -- because without posting it I can't refute it.

I'll ask it more directly: Why my warning is "useless to you"


All warnings are useless to me. I was never interested in warnings. I am only interested in arguments that I can understand. If there are no arguments, or if there are but I can't understand them, then there is no point to the warnings.

and at the same time you have that line on the staff page?


There is no contradiction there. I have a line with NFG's name as well, and yet I don't agree with half the stuff he says on this subject, and several other subjects besides.

I mean, you don't rely on your "consultants" even when you admit to not totally understanding the subject?


I never rely on anyone. I take in the advice and explanations of people I respect, I judge this advice and these explanations to the best of my ability, with the limited intellect that God has seen fit to bestow on my poor soul, and then I arrive at the best course of action that I can determine at any given time.

Don't you see that's kind of insulting?


Not taking your word as the gospel? That's insulting to you? I wouldn't even take Schopenhauer's or Baudrillard's word as the gospel -- I wouldn't even take God's word as the gospel -- and you want me to take yours?

About actual dot art you have learned shit by reading him.


I have, and especially from this article, with its simple explanations and very helpful illustrations. I am sorry you have such a big problem with this.

Everything else is out of this discussion and I don't really care.


You are MAKING it part of this discussion by attacking his entire contribution to our hobby, when you go on about the two of you not belonging in the same room, and other such childish nonsense. So you may not care about anything else, but I do. At least NFG had the decency to not say to me "its either HIM or ME".

You kidding again, right? The fucking subject of the discussion was how dot art is intended to be displayed. Not getting that bit revealed he just missed the whole point for a clear lack of proper education. The whole fucking point. Fuckingly miseducated. As say, the idiots who programmed PS2 Mushihime-sama. What else do you need, seriously.


I have already agreed that his conclusions are wrong. I have already said that my reply in the correspondence I will publish refutes his conclusions. What more do you want from me? I have nothing more to give you. I am publishing all of this because it is useful and people will appreciate reading it. How many more times will you make me repeat this?

I'm just giving you the reasons why I'm stopping contributing here before it happens.


Your reasons are childish. But I appreciate you giving them to me anyway.

A shame you can't still see the difference. In using percentage scores, where's the disrespect towards you?


I could say there's disrespect towards my intelligence. But the truth is that there's no disrespect -- as there is no disrespect towards you when I publish an article on my website which I think is worthwhile, and which you have not yet demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is not so. So we can manufacture "disrespects" if we want to, or we can grow the fuck up and realize that people disagree for many reasons, part of those being, yes, sometimes ignorance, and that in a website which has many contributors and a chief editor disagreements will always arise and there is nothing to be done about that -- nor is it a bad or undesirable thing.

If there happens to be any so, I wouldn't even hesitate.


Recap, your site is your site and I have better things to do with my time than pester you to change stuff because of real or imagined disrespects. If I don't like something I will tell you what it is, and you can react however you see fit. And if I disagree strongly with something, I will post about it in the appropriate thread, or write an article about it. What I will not do is raise a gigantic stink, give you ultimatums, or get up and leave and drop a serious, worthwhile long-term project because of it.

Yeah, I no longer want to go ahead with that if I'm stopping contributing here, obviously. What you had already done, it's fine, no worries.


Okay then. If you ever change your mind I'll be ready to pick up where we left off. Hopefully, ChaosAngelZero will be too.

You're crazy if you think I'm going to scrutinize and explaining myself in English line by line an article of this guy. Especially when you have everything explained for 3 years now in an article you asked me to do (and re-explained even more carefully in another article, this time in Spanish).


I have had nothing explained to me for three years. I don't understand half the things you are saying in the English article, and nothing you say in the Spanish ones. If you can't be bothered to take apart his article line by line then someone else will have to do it, and I guess that someone else will be me. I'll do my best with my limited knowledge, and once my knowledge increases I'll try again, and again, and again, until I get it right.

When you're asking me to address line by line his shit, it obviously has everything to do, you can believe that.


I am not asking you to do anything. YOU are the one who is asking me to do something. All I am saying is that your namecalling is not helping me in the least, and that instead of that it would be better if you used your time to pick apart his post line by line, in the time-honored Insomnia tradition. You don't want to do that? Fine. But let me then deal with this matter in the best way I see fit.

You know what gives them validation in their head? Finding out their articles discussed on other websites, especially on quality websites as this one.


I don't care about that. The content of my frontpage is not determined by what would give or what would not give validation to random people. I have far more interesting issues to resolve than that.

Maybe that's because you care more about your own internet "look" than about Insomnia's content. Maybe.


This is a fair comment. Lots of people are like that. But no one can care more about the content of my site than me -- at the end of the day I will simply not allow it. It's the same kind of thing with having your mother care more about you than you yourself do. It can be suffocating, and it is ultimately intolerable.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Recap » 21 Apr 2009 17:43

Alright. In the time-honored Insomnia tradition:

A couple of years ago I got into a fiery argument on a forum with someone who thought he knew the 'right way' to display a video game, and all other ways were simply wrong 'cause the designers wouldn't want it that way.. He went through great lengths to add screen curvature, scanlines and even reflections of overhead lights to try and replicate the appearance of gaming on a CRT monitor.

He was obviously deranged.

Still, there was a hint of fact in there: modern fixed-resolution displays don't do a very good job of displaying older games. No matter how they're displayed, some changes are made and compromises have to be accepted.

First, a crash-course in TVs:

Older CRTs (the big, heavy, glass tube-style TVs (basically everything pre-LCD and pre-plasma)) use a firehose approach to drawing images on the screen. Imagine three big, sweaty firemen spraying their three hoses back and forth along the back of a giant drive-in movie screen that's been painted with red, green or blue stripes. There's a grid in between the firemen and the screen, so that each fireman's hose will only spray one colour, the grid prevents their stream from hitting any other colour. They spray in sync: special signals tell them when to start again on the other side of the screen, and when to start at the top. For their entire working lives they zigzag right and left, from top to bottom, over and over and over.

Basically, that's how the old TVs worked: three electron guns sprayed electrons at different coloured phosphors, which would light up based on the intensity of the beam. It was never very accurate: sometimes the beams would drift out of alignment, failing components caused all kinds of undesired visual artifacts, and even the Earth's magnetic field would wreak havoc on the display.


Laughs. Ancient-Egypt sundials were not very accurate, either. Especially at nights.



For all these problems,


Weight and size. And a dead-end for the makers to keep minimizing production costs. Those ARE "problems".




they had some capabilities that the modern fixed-resolution LCDs and plasmas can't match. While modern displays have caught up or surpassed CRTs in many respects,


Weight and size. And a whole new area for the makers to keep minimizing production costs and fill their pockets. No ghosting issues anymore but a whole new range of technical issues. "Many respects", my ass.




in two specific criteria the old units are better than modern displays: image scaling and refresh speed.


Hum. Color fidelity, no per-angle degradation, no block errors, etc. etc. But hey.




I'm going to focus on the former, for now.

Generally speaking, older screens used a 4:3 horizontal:vertical aspect ratio. In other words, the screen was one third wider than it was tall. Most modern TVs are widescreen, which presents a simple problem: what do you do when you have an image 1/3 wider than its height, on a TV that's nearly twice as wide as its height? If you leave it the same ratio, it'll have unused black space on the sides (fig. 1).


How's that an actual "problem" and what does it have to do with the resolution? There're 16 : 9 CRTs too.





If you zoom in, you lose the top and bottom of the image (fig. 2), and if you stretch it horizontally, it looks a bit funny (see below).


Nobody but a miseducated pervert would even think of doing that.





LCDs and plasmas (and DLP projectors) are fixed resolution displays, and they don't scale images well.


Finally!




Photographs and TV shows and movies look just great when you zoom in or stretch them a little. They use a technique called resampling to create an image that's not quite entirely unlike the original, but bigger.

Pixels, however, are hard-edged pointy little things which look really terrible if you stretch them at all. Resampling a pixel makes it blurry, and half the appeal of pixel art is its clarity... Even if you're not a pixel-art fan, they often look out of focus.


Quite a poor attempt of an explanation of the digital display problem. He doesn't even clarify what a digital picture is and throws there the "pixel" concept as if it had nothing to do with "photographs", "TV shows" and "movies".




Many people won't notice, or won't care, and they might as well stop reading here.

The alternative method of making them larger is hard-scaling. Rather than stretching them, you simply duplicate one horizontal or vertical row at a time until the proper size is reached. The problem with this approach is... Well, it's really ugly. The only appealing option on a fixed resolution display is to hard-scale an integer value: 2x, 3x, 4x etc.


"Appealing", my ass.




Image


"Original", my ass, too.

This is where one would normally stop reading the aticle in order to not waste any more time. Taking the original sprite, cuadruplicating its lines and stamping it there with a footnote which calls it "original" is such a conceptual error that anything else he can say from now on --"factual" [laughs] or not-- just can't matter.




Rarely though will this ever fit your screen without leaving gaps, and filling the gaps is what CRTs do best.

CRTs had a little secret skill: when an image needed to be stretched vertically, the firehoses just moved from top to bottom a little quickerr, adding just a tiny fraction of a millimeter between each sweep of the beams. If you needed to fill the horizontal screenspace with a smaller image, you just updated the signal a little slower, so as the beams swept side to size (you couldn't change this speed) a pixel might cross one red phosphor, or two, or maybe two and a bit.


See? This, of course, has nothing to do with the problem of scaling low-res pictures for hi-res (or HD) displays, but given that the guy thinks of line-doubled/-tripled/etc. pictures as "the original" --or "appealing" enough-- and takes this misconception as the premise, you could expect ay shit.

The analog display of a CRT only allows for a very small scaling. That's why you can't use 31 kHz CRTs for a proper display of low-res (15 kHz) games. It's that simple. What he tries to explain there (quite awfully, must I say) is why CRTs can display multiple horizontal resolutions. For a proper approach, in case you think you need the technicalities: http://easymamecab.mameworld.info/html/monitor1.htm



The thing is, a CRT's never really looked pixel-perfect to start, so a little bit of futzing with the image was rarely noticed by the user.
Image


Nonsense. The "original" aspect ratio for a sprite is the one you see on screen. There's no "stretching" involved AT ALL when displaying a 256 px-wide picture in your 4 : 3 TV. The "aspect ratio" it had in the design stage is totally unimportant, and, indeed, unknown in the first place. I explained why in English here: http://www.gamengai.com/forum/viewtopic ... 0521#10521



Arcade games, consoles and even computers often took advantage of this, and created a RAM- and CPU-friendly smaller image that would be stretched out to fill the screen with no more effort than a tweak of the synchronization signals.


The only "fact" he gets right in the whole text. Shitty wording there, though -- it's not "stretching" as I said and it's a "smaller image in resolution".



The vast majority of SuperNES games created a 256-horizontal-pixel image, but TVs felt most comfortable displaying a 320-pixel image.


My ass too.




No one playing SuperNES back in the day ever complained about this 25% difference in size, they simply never noticed.

It was very common. Almost all NES and SuperNES games did this. Most PC Engine games did too, and many MegaDrive games. In the arcade, Ghosts n Goblins used this effect. The sequel, Ghouls n Ghosts, used a higher-resolution screen. Even though the firehoses were spraying at the same speed, more pixels were pumped out for every line in the sequel, ultimately resulting in more detail.


So which is it? People "simply never noticed" the difference in "size" [laughs] or it indeed "resulted in more detail"?





On the SuperNES, games like Super Ghouls n Ghosts and R-Type II had to re-draw the arcade sprites to be 20% smaller, so when stretched on the SNES TV screen, they'd look right to the player. If you didn't know it was being done, you'd likely never notice.


Oh, it's you'd never notice. Laughs.




I have to assure you, on a CRT it's just invisible,


My ass is invisible too, I assure you.




unlike how these examples appear on your LCD monitor.

Image

In the images above, you can see how the SuperNES sprites are nearly identical to the arcade.


In the images above I only see the vomit-inducing result of a miseducated pervert toying with Photoshupp.





They're a little bit blurry, but you'd never notice the difference on a CRT.


What.




This little visual trickery confers an immediate 20% savings in required storage space, which is a very valuable savings in the days of cartridges.


Again, the only "fact" he gets right.





In the Castlevania images above you can see 'scanlines'. These black gaps between each each illuminated line are a key feature of older games and CRTs. To my old-gamer eyes the graphics of old look much better with scanlines applied.


Laughs.



Modern fixed-res displays have trouble displaying pixels that aren't exactly the same number they were designed for and they can't easily manage the scanlines between 'em. You can fake the appearance of these scanlines, but like the pixels themselves, it tends to work best at when enlarged by a whole number (2x, 3x). Consider these two examples:

The scanlines above are not quite accurate. On a real CRT the illuminated lines are slightly thicker than the scanlines. If you enlarge the pixels 3x and apply a 1x scanline on every third row... Well, this is pretty much my ideal way to view old games on a fixed res, high-res screen:


"If you enlarge the pixels 3x and apply a 1x scanline on every third row..." have NOTHING like a real CRT picture. NOTHING. His ideal way is ridiculous and awful.




Trying too hard to replicate the failings of old hardware is probably a sign of mental illness, but we do it anyway. I can't abide the idea that it's better or that the games were designed that way, or even that the designers intended them to be played with scanlines... It's just a silly pursuit which we engage in because we are chasing a personal ideal, a fleeting and enjoyable memory. I love this stuff. =D


Yeah, lovely. He doesn't even know what he likes nor the point of his text. A sign of mental illness, indeed.




While peaking of aspect ratios so far I've focused on older games that stretched themselves horizontally to fill the screen, but there were other examples of designers taking advantage of the CRTs capabilities. Capcom's CPS-1 and CPS-2 arcade platforms used images 20% larger than most, and compressed them to fit the screen.

You may ask why, but Capcom more likely asked why not.

There was no compelling reason not to. Their arcade hardware was world-beating at the time, with gobs of power to spare, and with as much storage space as they could ever use.


It's funny he picked Vampire Saviour as his example for this, though. The very first CP-S II which made evident the lack of storage space of this platform and forced Capcom to release another two alternate versions of the game in order to include the characters which were left behind for "storage" reasons. Not to mention the CP-S III.

But good try.




There was no reason to skimp like there was on the consoles. Second, it looked better. Any arcade running a good quality monitor could display more than 320 pixels on a horizontal line,


Yet more misconceptions which indeed had already emerged in his previous thread here. Any bad quality TV could display more than 320 pixels on a horizontal line, too. There are no differentiations AT ALL between good/bad quality, arcade monitor/TV in this regard. That's why he could play his Sega Saturn whichever the TV he had, if he needs proof.



and by feeding a top-quality signal to the display, the games would scintillate with detail that a lower resolution game simply couldn't match. Arcades with old, cheap monitors would not suffer, as the extra detail in the firehoses would automatically be shown to the monitor's maximum capacity. Remember that the old systems weren't digital. Analogue displays could be very forgiving. An LCD or Plasma monitor has one signal for each pixel, everything calculated and pre-determined long before the signal ever reaches the glowy side of the monitor. On a CRT, the additional detail would be sprayed against the phosphor with absolutely no regard to their landing point. Sometimes the signal would change from one pixel to another while the beam was still on a single phosphor, but this would just change the colour shown, blending the two pixels together as the beam moved on.


Nonsensical, filler paragraph like no other.



So your learned SHIT about dot art by reading him.
Last edited by Recap on 21 Apr 2009 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby Recap » 21 Apr 2009 17:49

Keep in mind I'm leaving anyway. Not only because this indecent child within myself wouldn't allow me to do otherwise, but because I can't waste another full morning with things I've already explained and horseshit I'm not interested in only because Icycalm doesn't rely even on his fucking mom. I have a website to make too, you know.
Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.
Recap
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 22:18

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Apr 2009 18:13

Recap wrote:Keep in mind I'm leaving anyway.


Good riddance. If you had not acted like a prick from the very beginning, and simply posted your objections immediately, as everyone else is REQUIRED to do on this forum so as not to be banned, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and we wouldn't have had to go through all this childish bickering.

It was a mistake on my part to not be as strict with you as with everyone else. Live and learn I guess.

And I'll be replying to some of your objections shortly, for the benefit of everyone else.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Apr 2009 18:26

And lol at this retarded shit:

Recap wrote:but because I can't waste another full morning with things I've already explained


And I have explained the meaning of life in Sanskrit on my website. So now I'll start going around the internet, warning people from posting articles about the meaning of life on their websites, incessantly linking my Sanskrit articles as if anyone other than me actually spoke that fuckin' language, and threatening to stop talking to them like an autistic little child if they refuse to obey me!

Recap wrote:and horseshit I'm not interested in


AND WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP POSTING ABOUT IT FOR PAGES AND PAGES AND WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME IF "YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN" IT? IS IT SO HARD TO STOP LYING EVEN FOR A SECOND? FUCKING PRICK!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands


Return to Hardware