Considering all of these things, I think we should either ban the use of SGB runs altogether, or wait until Snes9x can support the actual Super Game Boy cartridge and create runs on that.
I propose a third option: don't publish runs as "SGB runs", but make nice-looking encodes using VBA's SGB palette extraction (and borders for games where it looks nice). Encodes don't have to be accurate to be nice-looking.
That's certainly an option. I'm not a fan, but it's better than calling these runs SGB when they clearly aren't.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
So I've thought long and hard about this, and reached some unexpected conclusions which will probably annoy many of you.
First of all, let me clarify what the SGB actually is, since there seems to be too much misinformation and speculation in this thread.
The Super Gameboy was a cartridge for the Super Nintendo which contained a complete set of DMG hardware with its I/O tied into the SNES cartridge bus, and handled by SNES software.
The SNES software could tell the DMG to play original DMG software seemingly through the SNES I/O, with the ability to change pallet, add on borders, draw on the screen, and a couple of other cutesy things. The game itself is almost the same.
However, there were plenty of games designed for the SGB (with an SGB emblem found on the gamepak/box), which did so much more. They started with custom borders and richer colors changing on the fly, but that was really just the bare minimum. Games could make use of all the controllers plugged into your SNES. So you could have several players in the SGB Bomberman games like in the SNES ones. The game would be able to check which platform it was running under, so if it wanted to, it could make in-game changes. It could also pass on SNES code to be ran directly on the SNES. SGB Space Invaders actually contains the SNES version of the game.
What level of support emulators provide for SGB varies emulator to emulator, the most complete one at the moment to my knowledge is the one in bsnes.
The DMG/SGB game in itself, is NOT emulated on the SGB hardware, it's running in a different mode. This mode may or may not provide significant differences/improvements over the vanilla DMG version.
Since the SGB version of the game is always enhanced in some way over the DMG version, it is preferred that our runs take place using that version, unless there is a good reason on a game by game basis not to.
For our primary encodes, we should make them accurate depictions of their output. While some of us may prefer seeing a game in HQ4x, NTSC, with alternate graphic packs, or other cosmetic changes, they are not true to the native output generated by the console itself. They're also highly subjective, and what one person loves will be hated by another. Some love NTSC filtering with scanlines since it seems "authentic" to them. I think it puts "garbage" into an otherwise clean video stream. If encoders want to make alternate encodes with different filtering options, that is their prerogative, and we should not stand in their way if some of the audience wants such an encode.
Now the encodes may be looked at as for those that can't playback the run in an emulator, but I find many other reasons to have an encode.
1) If I want to see a run, I can just play it, I don't need to find just the exact emulator version and game version to play the run in question.
2) I can play it on say my cell phone.
3) Actual video format of the run allows nice seeking around.
Make up your own additional reasons.
Now, what did the designers of Pokemon design it for, how it looks on a DMG, or how it looks on an SGB? The answer is in fact: both. They had to specifically program in how it should look on an SGB, so whatever we see there is of course intended (for some accurate definition of the meaning of "intended").
Now the border for Pokemon is quite boring and useless, but on the other hand, I quite like having the "color" in our encodes. The color in the game is also clever, as the color of each city actually matches the name of the city.
Grunt brought up a good point, showing the color but not the border would be a hack. Either we should go SGB all the way, or not at all. That's an opinion I can agree with. But I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Then all of this hit upon an argument and "solution" I recall from the original Pokemon encode we had years ago. It also mirrors the "video output" point I brought up above, as well as other thoughts I've had about the site in general.
As I said above, the output aspect ratio is not defined by the console itself, but by the device that displays it. Quite coincidentally, the output aspect ratio of an encoded video is not defined by the video, but by the program that displays it. The program may choose to obey an internal recommendation on aspect ratio, but it can really do whatever it wants. Users can also force their own aspect ratios or resize the picture how they desire.
Keeping this in mind, we should make sure the primary encodes for our runs match the video stream being output, with the most accurate settings, and leave further changes up to the video players.
In terms of downloadable encodes, users can tell their program what they want. We should probably have a handy reference somewhere for commonly used settings. I recall for the original Pokemon run, we listed what MPlayer parameters to pass to crop the border from the output.
In terms of our streaming encodes, we can control how the output is displayed to some extent on our site as well. In our forum or wiki you can specify width and height when posting a video. That generally preserves aspect ratio though. We should probably add some JavaScript controls you can press to select some different aspect ratios on the fly while viewing. Since this is a player problem in the end, and not an encoding problem.
Feel free to get out your torches and pitchforks and attack me. In closing, I think Grunt's view of the matter is the one most true to what we should be doing, but I personally would like to get the best of all worlds if possible.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Quite coincidentally, the output aspect ratio of an encoded video is not defined by the video, but by the program that displays it. The program may choose to obey an internal recommendation on aspect ratio, but it can really do whatever it wants. Users can also force their own aspect ratios or resize the picture how they desire.
Keeping this in mind, we should make sure the primary encodes for our runs match the video stream being output, with the most accurate settings, and leave further changes up to the video players.
In terms of downloadable encodes, users can tell their program what they want. We should probably have a handy reference somewhere for commonly used settings. I recall for the original Pokemon run, we listed what MPlayer parameters to pass to crop the border from the output.
Very well then, I can see where your point is coming from, and I have to say that I somehow agree even though I remain against stretching. If you allow me, I can start this list of common settings with Media Player Classic which is what I use:
From the View -> Video Frame menu, if "Keep Aspect Ratio" is NOT selected (like it is in my screenshot) then no aspect ratio correction will be applied. If the video is 320x224, it will display black bars at the top and at the bottom of a 4:3 screen, no matter how the flag has been set in the mkv.
If "Keep Aspect Ratio" IS selected, then the "Override Aspect Ratio" menu takes effect. "Default" will use whatever setting is saved in the flag of the mkv (in the example above, if the mkv has a flag of 4:3 aspect ratio, it will be stretched to use a whole 4:3 screen, without black bars). The other aspect ratios in the "Override Aspect Ratio" menu will (as the name imply) override the aspect ratio flag. I've seen people stupid enough to horizontally stretch Sonic games on 16:9 screens and claim it looks better, well, this is their chance to do it wrong.
I know, this isn't the most appropriate place to post such a guide, but I am too scared to start a new thread. Feel free to move where appropriate and reword in a better English :)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Well, we should get this info out somewhere, nice start.
For MPlayer:
-aspect <ratio> (also see -zoom)
Override movie aspect ratio, in case aspect information is incorrect or missing in the file being played.
EXAMPLE:
-aspect 4:3 or -aspect 1.3333
-aspect 16:9 or -aspect 1.7777
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
From my limited understanding, SGB mode isn't emulating like it would on a real SGB, Nach. Did you address this issue about a real SGB being faster than a normal Game Boy game?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Brandon wrote:
From my limited understanding, SGB mode isn't emulating like it would on a real SGB, Nach.
SGB mode in VBA isn't 100% accurate to how a real SGB would run.
Brandon wrote:
Did you address this issue about a real SGB being faster than a normal Game Boy game?
Nach wrote:
The game itself is almost the same.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
From my limited understanding, SGB mode isn't emulating like it would on a real SGB, Nach.
SGB mode in VBA isn't 100% accurate to how a real SGB would run.
Brandon wrote:
Did you address this issue about a real SGB being faster than a normal Game Boy game?
Nach wrote:
The game itself is almost the same.
I can't imagine it even comes close to accuracy if it doesn't address this speed issue. From what I've heard, all the mode does is extract the borders and change the colors.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Flygon wrote:
If I played Space Invaders on Visual Boy Advance, would it play the SNES version? :p
VBA hardly emulates the SGB, so no.
Brandon wrote:
Nach wrote:
Brandon wrote:
From my limited understanding, SGB mode isn't emulating like it would on a real SGB, Nach.
SGB mode in VBA isn't 100% accurate to how a real SGB would run.
Brandon wrote:
Did you address this issue about a real SGB being faster than a normal Game Boy game?
Nach wrote:
The game itself is almost the same.
I can't imagine it even comes close to accuracy if it doesn't address this speed issue. From what I've heard, all the mode does is extract the borders and change the colors.
Of all the SGB can do, VBA emulates like 5-10% of it. Some other Gameboy family emulators get closer to 25%. bsnes does upwards of 90%.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Nach, do you really think most people would even bother following some guides to override aspect ratio, or even discover there are such guides on the site in the first place? Especially if they're using the default video players in their operating systems that don't always provide a [convenient] way to override aspect ratio?
Nach wrote:
Of all the SGB can do, VBA emulates like 5-10% of it.
Of all the SGB can do, we're maybe using 5-10% of it (just the default values, no less), while many of the features (the multiplayer capabilities, for one) are just useless to us.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
Nach, do you really think most people would even bother following some guides to override aspect ratio, or even discover there are such guides on the site in the first place? Especially if they're using the default video players in their operating systems that don't always provide a [convenient] way to override aspect ratio?
The guide should probably be linked to from each movie box.
The most common default player also doesn’t provide H.264 decoding by default, so the point is moot.
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
Of all the SGB can do, VBA emulates like 5-10% of it.
Of all the SGB can do, we're maybe using 5-10% of it (just the default values, no less), while many of the features (the multiplayer capabilities, for one) are just useless to us.
I really don't know enough about all the games for the SGB to make that determination. But if there are any that do anything similar to Space Invaders, then it's simply not true.
There may also be some games that allow multiple players to play the normal game together, I really don't know. I'd look into the Bomberman series, especially the Japan only releases.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The guide should probably be linked to from each movie box.
I lol'd.
Pointing you to this post, because it's all that needs to be said.
Dada wrote:
You can't expect people to correct the problem on their end, and not correcting the video's aspect ratio doesn't make it look better.
Furthermore it raises some serious questions about encodes that switch resolutions, like Final Fantasy VIII.
I honestly don't get why anyone would come up with a solution like this which puts the entire burden on the end user. It strikes me as the kind of autistic "not my problem" ivory tower attitude that's indicative of a highly technical community that, frankly, doesn't care if others can't figure out how to do it.
This is specifically something that we should fix on the encoding end.
Grunt wrote:
I view this as inconsistent with what I believe to be the primary purpose of providing encodes, which is to help those that don't have the technical skill or patience to configure emulators to play back our runs to be able to view them easily. By this logic, we should be showing the unscaled video.
I think it's incongruent to recognize that we do these encodes to help people without the technical know-how view the runs, and then expect them to manually do aspect ratio correction every time they view one.
Nach wrote:
The most common default player also doesn’t provide H.264 decoding by default, so the point is moot.
That player supports DirectShow, meaning it can play pretty much everything. On the other hand, aspect ratio correction remains just as inconvenient (I don't remember if it's at all possible in WMP or QT, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The guide should probably be linked to from each movie box.
I lol'd.
Pointing you to this post, because it's all that needs to be said.
Dada wrote:
You can't expect people to correct the problem on their end, and not correcting the video's aspect ratio doesn't make it look better.
Furthermore it raises some serious questions about encodes that switch resolutions, like Final Fantasy VIII.
I honestly don't get why anyone would come up with a solution like this which puts the entire burden on the end user. It strikes me as the kind of autistic "not my problem" ivory tower attitude that's indicative of a highly technical community that, frankly, doesn't care if others can't figure out how to do it.
This is specifically something that we should fix on the encoding end.
Grunt wrote:
I view this as inconsistent with what I believe to be the primary purpose of providing encodes, which is to help those that don't have the technical skill or patience to configure emulators to play back our runs to be able to view them easily. By this logic, we should be showing the unscaled video.
I think it's incongruent to recognize that we do these encodes to help people without the technical know-how view the runs, and then expect them to manually do aspect ratio correction every time they view one.
Thanks for misunderstaning the point.
The aspect ratio set should be the most common one for the use case as explained above. If the user wants something else, they can change it manually, just like with a television.
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The most common default player also doesn’t provide H.264 decoding by default, so the point is moot.
That player supports DirectShow, meaning it can play pretty much everything. On the other hand, aspect ratio correction remains just as inconvenient (I don't remember if it's at all possible in WMP or QT, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt).
It can support DirectShow all it wants, H.264 decoding is still not supplied by the OS.
In any event WMP does support aspect ratio changing, but it's buried in device properties.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The aspect ratio set should be the most common one for the use case as explained above.
And what should that be then in the SGB's case?
Whatever is the most common aspect ratio for the SGB.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Nach wrote:
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The aspect ratio set should be the most common one for the use case as explained above.
And what should that be then in the SGB's case?
Whatever is the most common aspect ratio for the SGB.
That's slightly confusing. The SGB passes games through to the SNES, which displays a 256x224 image meant for 4:3 output. There are no variations.
But the point that others and I have been trying to make is that the games themselves were made for the GB, and that therefore it would be better to use a square pixel aspect ratio.
Do you mean that we should decide on a case-by-case basis? Because if so, all cases that I know of should not have aspect ratio correction because all games were undoubtedly made with the GB in mind in the first place. The SGB's aspect ratio correction is solely a result of the fact that 4:3 is a necessity when not providing a custom display.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dada wrote:
Nach wrote:
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The aspect ratio set should be the most common one for the use case as explained above.
And what should that be then in the SGB's case?
Whatever is the most common aspect ratio for the SGB.
That's slightly confusing. The SGB passes games through to the SNES, which displays a 256x224 image meant for 4:3 output. There are no variations.
If that's the case, then that's the case. I'm not going to start arguing about what is reality.
Dada wrote:
But the point that others and I have been trying to make is that the games themselves were made for the GB, and that therefore it would be better to use a square pixel aspect ratio.
The games were made for both, if they weren't, you wouldn't see the SGB logo on the gamepak, or have specific SGB features in the game.
Dada wrote:
Do you mean that we should decide on a case-by-case basis? Because if so, all cases that I know of should not have aspect ratio correction because all games were undoubtedly made with the GB in mind in the first place. The SGB's aspect ratio correction is solely a result of the fact that 4:3 is a necessity when not providing a custom display.
There is no case by case basis for SGB most common aspect ratio.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
So in other words, you're against using a square pixel aspect ratio for SGB games.
Geez, you could have said that with a whole lot less words.
Nach wrote:
Dada wrote:
But the point that others and I have been trying to make is that the games themselves were made for the GB, and that therefore it would be better to use a square pixel aspect ratio.
The games were made for both, if they weren't, you wouldn't see the SGB logo on the gamepak, or have specific SGB features in the game.
Just because they have SGB support doesn't mean that the artwork was made specifically to be stretched to a 4:3 ratio. The games were made for the GB in the first place--that's what the art was optimized for. SGB features were built in, but those are just extras, they're not the raison d'etre.
The games were made for both, if they weren't, you wouldn't see the SGB logo on the gamepak, or have specific SGB features in the game.
If they had been made for both, they would have the same geometry on both.
Oh? This is not the case?
That's probably because they have the same set of graphic assets for both. The GameBoy's.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dada wrote:
So in other words, you're against using a square pixel aspect ratio for SGB games.
Geez, you could have said that with a whole lot less words.
I'm not saying that though.
Dada wrote:
Nach wrote:
Dada wrote:
But the point that others and I have been trying to make is that the games themselves were made for the GB, and that therefore it would be better to use a square pixel aspect ratio.
The games were made for both, if they weren't, you wouldn't see the SGB logo on the gamepak, or have specific SGB features in the game.
Just because they have SGB support doesn't mean that the artwork was made specifically to be stretched to a 4:3 ratio. The games were made for the GB in the first place--that's what the art was optimized for. SGB features were built in, but those are just extras, they're not the raison d'etre.
They can tell the SGB to use whatever artwork they want, or anything else for that matter. See Space Invaders.
If on one platform it looks stretched, and another not, then that's how it is supposed to look on each platform. Which was "primary" is really in the mind of the game's developers, we can't say. What you think looks better is your own opinion, and you're welcome to tell your video player to output a different aspect ratio.
moozooh wrote:
Nach wrote:
The games were made for both, if they weren't, you wouldn't see the SGB logo on the gamepak, or have specific SGB features in the game.
If they had been made for both, they would have the same geometry on both.
That's up for the game's programmers to decide, not you.
moozooh wrote:
Oh? This is not the case?
That's probably because they have the same set of graphic assets for both. The GameBoy's.
That's simply not true, because some games have radically different graphics depending on which platform it is played on.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I'm kind of stunned. It seems pretty clear to me that Nach personally likes the 4:3 ratio and will come up with any argument, no matter how contrived, in order to defend that. Including ignoring the fact that the SGB was just an afterthought and claiming that the stretched GB artwork was actually how the developers intended it.
That's right. You made the artwork for a GB game and we just stretched it by 16.7%. But that's just how the developers intended it.
Honestly? Do you really think that the developers intended for their games to be shown at BOTH thisandthis? At the same time? They are both 100% correct, even though they're A and B, completely different?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dada wrote:
I'm kind of stunned. It seems pretty clear to me that Nach personally likes the 4:3 ratio
Actually, for most of the games I've seen, I actually don't.
Dada wrote:
and will come up with any argument, no matter how contrived, in order to defend that. Including ignoring the fact that the SGB was just an afterthought and claiming that the stretched GB artwork was actually how the developers intended it.
It's not contrived. Read the SGB dev manual, the developers can make the SGB do whatever they want, if they don't make it do something, it's because they didn't want to (or their bosses didn't want them to).
Dada wrote:
That's right. You made the artwork for a GB game and we just stretched it by 16.7%. But that's just how the developers intended it.
Prove that on every single game it is stretched.
Dada wrote:
Honestly? Do you really think that the developers intended for their games to be shown at BOTH thisandthis? At the same time? They are both 100% correct, even though they're A and B, completely different?
So, they're different, how does that make one more correct than the other?
Take a game like Red Alert, you play it on DOS or Windows 9x+, and it looks different between the two, you telling me one was more intended than the other?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Nach wrote:
Dada wrote:
Honestly? Do you really think that the developers intended for their games to be shown at BOTH thisandthis? At the same time? They are both 100% correct, even though they're A and B, completely different?
So, they're different, how does that make one more correct than the other?
Because the SGB was an afterthought. The GB is what these games were primarily built for. Sure, some games may have SGB support, but that doesn't mean they weren't primarily designed for the GB.
16:10 monitors were around even in the DOS era. Does that mean it's right to display 320x200 games at a 16:10 aspect ratio? No. They were built for 4:3 because that's what consumers had. You cannot reasonably expect anything else.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dada wrote:
Because the SGB was an afterthought.
Quit it with this "afterthought" business, some games show clearly otherwise.
Dada wrote:
The GB is what these games were primarily built for. Sure, some games may have SGB support, but that doesn't mean they weren't primarily designed for the GB.
What their primary target is is irrelevant. SGB mode should look like SGB mode.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
From the View -> Video Frame menu, if "Keep Aspect Ratio" is NOT selected (like it is in my screenshot) then no aspect ratio correction will be applied. If the video is 320x224, it will display black bars at the top and at the bottom of a 4:3 screen, no matter how the flag has been set in the mkv.
If "Keep Aspect Ratio" IS selected, then the "Override Aspect Ratio" menu takes effect. "Default" will use whatever setting is saved in the flag of the mkv (in the example above, if the mkv has a flag of 4:3 aspect ratio, it will be stretched to use a whole 4:3 screen, without black bars). The other aspect ratios in the "Override Aspect Ratio" menu will (as the name imply) override the aspect ratio flag. I've seen people stupid enough to horizontally stretch Sonic games on 16:9 screens and claim it looks better, well, this is their chance to do it wrong.
I know, this isn't the most appropriate place to post such a guide, but I am too scared to start a new thread. Feel free to move where appropriate and reword in a better English :)
