|
Nobody commented on my thing from two pages ago because everyone was busy arguing about dumb image resizing semantics.  edit: Oh, a new page. Here, I'll dump it again so we can stop talking about image resizing.  Time for a test post   Max Payne 3 is a third person shooter developed by Rockstar Vancouver and published by good old Rockstar Games. It was mercilessly ripped from the hands of the makers of Max Payne 1 and the original version of 2, Remedy Entertainment- by which I mean voluntarily handed over so that they could work on Alan Wake- and is now completely theirs. There is unfortunately no Wanted Stars system in Max Payne 3. It was released on PS3 and XBox 360 simultaneously in May 2012 with a PC release a few weeks later. Recently it was ported to OSX in June as well! There's even a Linux version! This game runs on pretty much everything but the Wii. It follows the story of happy-go-lucky retired cop Anders Detling, who has come to Brazil to help the children of São Paulo find refuge outside of their run-down favelas and innoculate them to prevent the spread of malaria among the poor (and because his wife told him to get out of the house). Along the way he runs into some crazy gun-toting guy named Max Payne a couple times. But ACTUALLY, in the series' tradition of film-noir storytelling, there's not much I can say about the plot firsthand without spoiling any fun stuff. Eight or nine years after the events of the second game, good ol' Max Payne has been hired to bodyguard a rich family in the quaint little town (read: massive sprawling city) of São Paulo, Brazil and it takes him about ten minutes to learn that things may not be all that they seem among the Branco family... and it only gets more complicated from there. There's also multiplayer! It's basically dead now save for a few nondescript communities (Something Awful once had one!) but a recent sale has spiked interest once more. I might do a few videos of it if there is enough interest to get a band together.  This game's art style has changed wildly from Max Payne 1 and 2's. While those prior to Max Payne 3 used a 'graphic novel' style of cutscenes and story presentation, this one uses live action cutscenes (that is, not in comic book form). One of the changes made was to the game's text and how it appears; I have incorporated these into the OP so it looks neat and stylistic.  Max Payne 3 is a game with a lot of problems. It is a brilliant addition to the series and an equally brilliant game on its own, but that brilliance comes at a cost. The PC version is plagued with Rockstar's Social Club Steam-alike program and bugs and crashes and all kinds of horrible things that may turn you off of it from the get-go. At times the story can have pacing issues and Max's noir-style narration is a bit more grinding than the writing of the previous two games; but I feel that despite all those issues, it is a great video game worth a playthrough- and if not a playthrough, a watch.  Something important to note is that there are two versions of every video. If you click on the chapter's name in the video list you will get a text commentary version, and if you click on the chapter's number you will get a vocal commentary version. The text commentary videos are regarded as the 'real' let's play; the vocal ones are just me and a buddy or two knocking back beers while we make fun of the game. Please watch the text videos if you are interested in preserving the game's tone!  No. I would very much prefer if you didn't talk about things we haven't seen yet in the game. This is a very story-focused game and I'd hate to see someone complain about having the giant dinosaur mini-boss in Chapter 15 spoiled for them because the accidentally moused over a post talking about it.     [TEST POST] And here is the title card image that goes with this update (for test post purposes):    Let's protect the Brancos! [TEST POST] Here are a couple issues I am aware of as well: + If your browser window is not big enough or you're on mobile, the OP images won't be squared up correctly (there's nothing I can do about that, sorry) + There is some interlacing on the first video because I didn't deinterlace it during rendering (oops) + My audio clips a fair bit during the vocal video (mic was too close to my face, oops again)
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
CJacobs posted:[TEST POST] Here are a couple issues I am aware of as well: Your video quality is pretty poor. Why would there be interlacing if you're playing this on a PC? Your subtitles are also huge and 3 lines per subtitle is really bad. You might want to outline your workflow in the tech support fort. edit:...Never put subtitles in the middle of the screen... 
MEAT! fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
MEAT! posted:edit:...Never put subtitles in the middle of the screen... Oh my god. Outline your subtitles in black, for gently caress's sake. That's borderline unreadable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
The subtitles are outlined in black. I guess it's not thick enough. And also I put that there so that you could see Max falling on his neck at the bottom, which was happening at that exact moment (because otherwise the caption would be in the way of what it's talking about!). In hindsight I probably should have squeezed that caption in before the jump. Alright then, things to do: 1. Make the subtitles smaller and give them a bigger outline 2. Render the video in a way that isn't as blurry (I figured out what I did wrong, the source video is perfectly smooth I swear) 3. Space subtitles out more so that they aren't 3-ish lines What else should I fix? edit: Went from this To this And I think it looks better! I changed the font from 14 to 10 point and gave it a 5-px-thicker outline. edit 2: Here's the 'new and improved' version of the screenshot from MEAT! above for comparison. I've made the caption smaller and the outline thicker so it's more readable.  Would it benefit from a drop shadow, maybe? CJacobs fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Just chiming in to say that extra repeated lines of pixels are immediately visible to me and would bother me to the point of "vote 1, close LP tab" reaction. Yes, some people do have a problem with that. (On the other hand, I didn't realize that others mind the filters)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
Posting this here to check that the format is okay and that I don't stink too bad. I've divided the OP from the first update with a line of ##### http://lpix.org/sslptest/index.php?id=16887 VVV Thanks very much, done now. Fizzicist fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
http://lpix.org/sslptest/index.php Use this
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Edited my post, sorry 'bout that
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Fizzicist posted:Posting this here to check that the format is okay and that I don't stink too bad. I've divided the OP from the first update with a line of ##### With full understanding that each one of us has a different style, I'm still going to say this: take a look at (link needs archives) this LP of the same game (it was abandoned but it did go a fair bit into the game) and ask yourself where your test post fits quality wise. Also have in mind the following: 1) we have already seen two abandoned but extremely high quality LP attempts of this game 2) this game is extremely long winded which means it will take a LOOOONG time until you reach the point where the previous thread stopped If you still want to go ahead then at least make your images double sized so we don't have to squint. Not trying to discourage you, or anything...  P.S. Since it's not mentioned anywhere in her post, the game is Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney (the first one).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
First off, i apologize for starting the mini-war that went on over proper image resampling. 800x600, aspect ratio preserved, Hermite resampling, Apply sharpen after resample, only hitch is that the filesize is rather large, 500 kb, i think that's way too much. it loads instantly on my pc, but not necessarily for everyone. Two more, just for the sake of doing my homework here, i re-took the screenshot with the circles, and resampled it the same way  And this one, with a messy spell effect on the screen, just to see how it would turn out..  Edit: Here's one 640x480, dropped this particular shot to 377 down from 500  Aishlinn fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Aishlinn posted:First off, i apologize for starting the mini-war that went on over proper image resampling. Eh, it's not like you did the warring. I'd recommend using 640x480 rather than 800x600. By going to an 800 horizontal resolution you're introducing a need to resample in that dimension as well which will cause artifacts (blur, in this case) and inflate the file size by, apparently, 300 kB or so per image. 640 is a straight multiple of 320 and will be crisper and compress better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
ivantod posted:With full understanding that each one of us has a different style, I'm still going to say this: take a look at (link needs archives) this LP of the same game (it was abandoned but it did go a fair bit into the game) and ask yourself where your test post fits quality wise. HelloWinter hasn't completely abandoned her LP. I think personal stuff came up, but I believe she's expressed an intent to continue it next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Aislinn, you're running this in DOSBox, right? So, the question is, if you're running it in DOSBox, and you don't want it to be blurry and poo poo... Why don't you resize the window to 640x480 and use a hq2x filter? Gimme ten minutes, and I'll edit in a JPG result from doing just that, we'll see what's going on. Also, more about the game, less reaction talk. For example, it uses butchered AD&D rules. EDIT: Right, no compression, using FRAPS JPG capture, DOSBox window of 1024x768, hq2x filter. 89K, and you can compress dat poo poo. 
JamieTheD fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:Aislinn, you're running this in DOSBox, right? Thanks, trying that out as well. And there will be a lot of me talking about the wacky AI and totally broken rules. gonna get this right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Aishlinn posted:Thanks, trying that out as well. And there will be a lot of me talking about the wacky AI and totally broken rules. gonna get this right. Good, and also a friendly warning: Follow the walkthrough exactly, there's a game-breaking bug they never actually patched out that will hang the game when you get to Wyrmias if you don't do it exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:HelloWinter hasn't completely abandoned her LP. I think personal stuff came up, but I believe she's expressed an intent to continue it next year. Great, thanks for the correction, looks like I missed that bit of info. Well in that case the two questions I asked become even more relevant, in my opinion. Yes I know multiple parallel LPs are not against the rules but I still think there's not much point in doing it unless you are bringing something new/different to the table, really. And to be brutally honest, I do not see what this test post is bringing to the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
ivantod posted:Yes I know multiple parallel LPs are not against the rules but I still think there's not much point in doing it unless you are bringing something new/different to the table, really. And to be brutally honest, I do not see what this test post is bringing to the table. Before we start our weekly digression on this, I'm just going to say LP what you want. You're aware that another LP is ongoing and don't need us or the table of judgement to tell you how to have fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Try bringing something to the counter instead of the table. Or the chair maybe? Not sure, I don't normally do screenshot LPs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:Good, and also a friendly warning: Follow the walkthrough exactly, there's a game-breaking bug they never actually patched out that will hang the game when you get to Wyrmias if you don't do it exactly right. Heh, thanks for the warning. i've played (and beaten) this particular gem several times, without trouble. the only thing i've ever missed out on was What is the sword blank for? Now on for an actual question, i've tried changing all these settings in the dosbox config file, changing the scaling to hq2x, telling it fullresolution=1024x768 windowresolution=1024x768 Render: aspect=true scaler=hq2x doesn't seem to be doing anything, screenshots still are popping out at 320x200. i'm also just using the built in screen capture inside dosbox, is that just straight up no good? Edit: Probably not, saw a line in there that they will be output in 320x200, so i'll have to get something else. Aishlinn fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:EDIT: Right, no compression, using FRAPS JPG capture, DOSBox window of 1024x768, hq2x filter. 89K, and you can compress dat poo poo. I think most people on the forum aren't huge fans of the hq2x, 2xSaI, 2xEagle and similar interpolation algorithms. They basically try to guess at what data lies underneath the pixel in some smart way that the creators feel looks good for pixel graphics. Fair enough if you like the result, I suppose. Regardless of what your think of the look, they are definitely 2x integer scalings. For this game they will output a 640x400 image, wrong aspect and all. Dosbox will then magnify that 640x400 image when drawing using the same sort of filters we've been talking about (specifically: it'll do bilinear filtering, which corresponds to a triangle kernel in e.g. irfanview) to get it aspect correct and at whatever window resolution you use, which will still introduce blur and other artifacts. Those filters are not some sort of magic bullet that makes the problems go away: you are still taking a 320x200 image that expects its pixels to be rectangular and then magnifying it for use on a square pixel display and that magnifying cannot be done without introducing flaws. If you do decide to use hq2x, and I don't personally recommend it, you should still: 1: Capture images at the hq2x integer scaled 640x400. 2: Resample to 640x480, to avoid unnecessary horizontal blurring. 3: Save as PNG if the size isn't excessive, to avoid JPG artifacts. JPGs will certainly compress more than PNGs, because JPGs are lossy. This loss may or may not be worth it, but it shouldn't be your first choice. Xerophyte fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Aishlinn posted:800x600 Why are they 800x500 and 640x400 then? And squashed vertically? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
I may have found a happy medium here, 58kb file size, pretty sharp looking text, unless you try and zoom way in. Acceptable?  There's it at 640x480, i kinda think it makes the game look wonky. the other sizes were kept proportional.  though maybe not that bad. And the files are all around the same size. that should work. Edit again: I'm doing this in IrfanView, if there's anything else that can be suggested, i'm all ears. assume i have zero idea what i'm doing. saying "Oh, just do this, this and this", you may as well be telling me to go build a robot out of a toaster. Ok, Last edit: I think everything has clicked.  800x600, small file size, looks good. HenryEx posted:Why is math so hard for people. I am pretty much the worst ever at math. Aishlinn fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Dyslexiactic posted:Before we start our weekly digression on this, I'm just going to say LP what you want. You're aware that another LP is ongoing and don't need us or the table of judgement to tell you how to have fun. I don't know about a table of judgment, but we did have recently a number of people coming to this very thread to wonder why their LP is attracting so few comments. Personally I would say one of the easiest ways to end up with a low participation thread is exactly to have an LP which is not better/different than the already finished/currently ongoing one of the same game. But in the end none of this is important or against the rules, so I agree. If you really want to do an LP of a particular game, go for it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Why is math so hard for people. Only use nearest-neighbor if you resize by integer numbers in both dimensions. Otherwise, you should probably use a resampling filter. Basically, the only solution without resampling, without lovely filters, without gigantic filesizes and without incorrect aspect ratio is this: Look at the ring, prefectly circular. Look at the text, composed of square circles. Pixels are perfectly crisp, no resampling. It's also just 28.7 kB big. It's just a bit on the... large side. I resized that with nearest-neighbor, horizontal resolution time 5 (320x5 = 1600) and vertical resolution times 6 (200x6 = 1200). It's resized by integer numbers, so no wonky eye-destroying wavy doubled pixel lines, and also a 4:3 aspect ratio (1600 by 1200). Anything else will either look a little bit blurred and introduce a ton of out-of-palette colors by resampling (thus increasing file size), or only double pixel rows (nearest neightbor), keeping the original palette, but sometimes doubling twice, sometimes thrice, creating a distorted wavy and uneven look.  So, this is what the text is supposed to look like. Here is what happens if you nearest-neighbor without integer numbers, for example to 640x480 (x2 horizontal, x2.4 vertical) or 800x600 (x2.5 horizontal, x3 vertical).  Look at these question marks. Every other one looks different. The Y has a tiny spindly right arm and a wonky left one. The colon is tiny compared to its shadow. You also get a nice big/small effect on the slash. HenryEx fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Let's just all agree that Aishlinn should use Vector Magic and be done with this already. Holy poo poo. Wasn't nearest neighbour resizing to 2x and then using a filter to resize to 4:3 the preferred method a while back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Not anymore, apparently. It looked alright, but some people just really hate a very slightly blurred pixel for some reason. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Hey this post is A+ because it reminded me of Overkill, a game which I played the poo poo out of and then completely forgot about in the intervening years. Thanks for the nostalgia trip out of nowhere. Seriously, played so much of that thing. Shareware 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Any other comments on my Max Payne 3 thing? I realize image resizing is fascinating business but if anyone else has any other complaints I'll be sure to go over them. I've changed the way I render my videos and the quality is much better now; and as well I changed the subtitles to not be as intrusive (see above).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
This is probably the first time I've ever seen people arguing against having good image quality in this subforum. What happened? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Welcome to the LP Sandcastle, home of people fighting about literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
flatluigi posted:This is probably the first time I've ever seen people arguing against having good image quality in this subforum. What happened? Every time image quality comes up, there's one person who's bizarrely angry at the idea that people don't want to look at blurry, enormous JPEGs of sprite games. It's not the same person every time, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
flatluigi posted:This is probably the first time I've ever seen people arguing against having good image quality in this subforum. What happened? Really, it's just that we have different people optimizing along different axes since there's no perfect solution and then some people getting way more worked up about it than they should.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:Really, it's just that we have different people optimizing along different axes since there's no perfect solution and then some people getting way more worked up about it than they should. You don't understand! Someone is wrong on the Internet! THIS SHALL NOT STAND 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Honestly, it's just not enough difference for 140+ more kb. It's not like on a video where I can turn down the quality if my internet is mad at me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
DarkHamsterlord posted:Every time image quality comes up, there's one person who's bizarrely angry at the idea that people don't want to look at blurry, enormous JPEGs of sprite games. It's not the same person every time, either. Well I was wondering about a hybrid solution, but no one really addressed it as far as I saw: unfair posted:Just from a text-readability perspective the most-blurred one was actually best, though it made the images look like poo poo. That is a really terrible font. E: I guess that kind of leads to a question of why you're LPing - to accurately reproduce games, or to give the viewer the best possible experience/interpretation? unfair fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
DarkHamsterlord posted:Every time image quality comes up, there's one person who's bizarrely angry at the idea that people don't want to look at blurry, enormous JPEGs of sprite games. It's not the same person every time, either. Except nobody was talking about jpegs, ever. This isn't about using jpegs covered in artifacts. It's an entirely different situation that I have to keep restating isn't as bad as it's being made out to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Cheez posted:Except nobody was talking about jpegs, ever. This isn't about using jpegs covered in artifacts. It's an entirely different situation that I have to keep restating isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. JPEG was a poor choice of words, since this isn't about image formats (the last stupid argument about image quality was about formats though, I was thinking of it when I made my post). The part of my post you should have paid more attention to was "one person who's bizarrely angry," because you came across as being seriously loving mad about pictures on the internet. Like, comically mad. I don't even know if you're necessarily wrong, since there's no 100% perfect solution to this problem, your posts were just kind of awkward to read because they were so unusually hostile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
It's easy to be pissed off at people who are having a shitfit about a tiny amount of blur nobody would even notice, and then offer up a solution that's far worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Ed: gently caress it.
Lance Streetman fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Oh my god I hate everyone. Shouldn't this argument have gone in the tech support fort in the first place???
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:28
|
|