Author
| Can't believe
|
PingPong
msx master
Posts: 1025 |  Posted: March 29 2008, 21:53 |
|
|
Pentarou
msx user
Posts: 33 | Posted: March 29 2008, 22:15 |
"This is a SIMULATION of a conversion of some Lion King clips to 9918 frames. It is not playing on a real chip"
|
|
PingPong
msx master
Posts: 1025 | Posted: March 29 2008, 23:05 |
Even as a simulation, results are too much better than dragon's lair demo that uses msx2 palette to improve quality....
|
|
dvik
msx master
Posts: 1343 | Posted: March 29 2008, 23:26 |
I think the frames are comparable to ARTRAGs videos. If he used the same algorithm to render frame by frame I'm sure the result would be as good.
Remember that the videos are compressed very hard so the pixels doesn't show.
|
|
ARTRAG
msx master
Posts: 1747 | Posted: March 29 2008, 23:56 |
Actually this is a frame by frame conversion using a good dithering (Floyd and Steinberg).
Dragon's lair used a not so good converter, but has palette changes at each frame
The encoder of my videos does much more work apart screen 2 conversion, as a single tile set is optimized across many frames thanks to vector quantization.
|
|
Edwin
msx professional
Posts: 626 | Posted: March 30 2008, 01:37 |
The problem with videos like those is that the compression probably converted some of the dithering back into colours. Making it seems like the source was much better than it actually was.
|
|
PingPong
msx master
Posts: 1025 | Posted: March 30 2008, 11:05 |
For Sure the videos may be converted to screen 2 frame format, but without taking care of the tms palette.
This is the main reason that makes pictures look better than should be
|
|
|
|
|
