Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?  (Read 19032 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« on: April 23, 2008, 09:05:53 PM »
Quote

I'm very impressed with winUAE and I feel confident this will be enough for my Amiga dabbling.


I thought the same thing several years ago (sold most of my hardware), and several years after that I began buying classic gear again.

Personally, I enjoy both... I love WinUAE, it's fantastic and works well for most things, much better than real hardware in many ways. Unlike some, I don't have problems with "jerky" scrolling or poor audio, it simply works great for me.

However, tinkering with the classics can also be a blast. Nothing like popping a good OCS demo into the A2K and relaxing with a beer. :-) Actually, now that I'm *finally* getting some good display solutions for the old gear, it's becoming far more enjoyable to use. (I'm just loving the A2K + CV scandoubler + Trinitron combination, the picture is simply the finest I've seen on classic HW by far... and as soon as Jens' new unit comes out, I will be set!)

 
 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2008, 11:25:21 PM »
Quote

Fester wrote:
Quote

-D- wrote:
However, tinkering with the classics can also be a blast. Nothing like popping a good OCS demo into the A2K...


I totally and absolutely agree. Amen. I became totally addicted to classic hardware. I have to break free. :-)


LOL, yeah, I hear you there. I'm trying *real* hard to keep a minimal collection of things I will use (at least somewhat), and not get too carried away or become a "hoarder". But who knows, I may have to break free again myself someday. (Plus, I will likely be married with children to think about in the near future, obviously that's going to change life a bit.) The only things I will always keep are my C128 (first computer) and my first Amiga (a lowly A500). The rest can go if necessary, but hopefully not  too soon! ;-)


 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2008, 09:24:52 AM »
Hmmm, the jerking is obvious to my eyes, just watch the trees. Maybe it would appear smoother on a CRT... :shrug:

Anyway.. 50Hz/50 FPS WinUAE setting on a 60Hz LCD will look far less smooth than the "real thing", but truthfully very few people notice or care.

About running WinUAE in NTSC mode -- many games (and almost all demos) are fuXor3d that way. If you're super picky, I'd run a CRT @ 50 or 100Hz (like TBL recommend for watching their demos on emulation, IIRC).

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2008, 09:41:33 AM »
Quote

In addition, your point of view seems to confuse technology and aesthetics. If you think that refinement is just a matter of technology, I'm afraid it is nobody's business but yours. But I know you would not be the only one : in this Lemon64 thread I had a hard time trying to introduce some (strongly studied but obviously unorthodox) musical point of view on a computer forum among numerous people sharing a similar confusion that made them very touchy, which I didn't expect at all.


Yikes. I think some of those guys need to get out more. Is there anything more retarded than acting like that over c64 music...? LOL. (FWIW, I own an unopened copy of PSI-5, it's a classic IMHO and one of my favorites -- nothing wrong with thinking the music is great, it absolutey is!) And what's up with the guy trying to equate rock with classical music?? Just because some rock guitarists borrow (or loop) some baroque "riffs" hardly makes them identical. :/

Anyway, sorry to get off topic. I still maintain that (as someone put quite well earlier in the thread) the issue is largely subjective, some have eyes that are simply less sensitive than others. To mine, WinUAE set for PAL/50 FPS displayed at 60Hz absolutely does not look perfect, and smearing of some LCDs can amplify the effect even more. There are ways of getting WinUAE very close, running everything at 60 FPS (for LCDs) is not acceptable though (IMO). Just try running "Desert Dream" at those settings...

edit-- Just to clarify (my apologies if I'm sounding repetitive), WinUAE, running demos @ 50 or 100Hz on a CRT, in some cases does look nearly perfect to me. :-)
 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2008, 09:54:25 AM »
Quote

bloodline wrote:
That video is 50fps upsampled to 60fps using Apples H.264 encoder. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just want the truth and will happily provide the evidence I used to support my position.


No offense intended, but that video looks like ass IMHO... I have yet to check it on a CRT (or LCD with "fast" response time), but the trees in particular don't scroll smoothly at all. :shrug:


 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2008, 07:34:57 PM »
Quote

In my experience it does not, as synchronization is not accurate - about C64 emulators some people say that Windows does not manage "VBLANK" synchronization accurately but I don't know what it means exactly.  At least I seem to remember that emulation speed has to be adapted to the exact refresh rate, as I seem to remember that the VGA rates don't exactly equal PAL's 50.12 Hz or its multiples.


Interesting. Admittedly, it's been a long time since I've used a CRT with WinUAE, I may have to give it another go now that I'm used to playing around with the old hardware again. I do remember it being fairly close, but I'm thinking some side-by-side comparison may be in order. ;-) I know that at 60Hz, scrolling is obviously wonky running PAL software on any LCD I've tried, including supposed "2ms" overdriven panels. And I agree, there is absolutely a technical reason for this -- I just wanted to point out that some people aren't as bothered by it as others. (On a personal level, it doesn't bug me for casual use, but for demos in particular I do prefer a real amiga + CRT.)

Quote
No offense intended, but that video looks like ass IMHO... I have yet to check it on a CRT (or LCD with "fast" response time), but the trees in particular don't scroll smoothly at all.


To my knowledge CRT and fast response time only make things worse at the same refresh rate, as they make the problem even clearer.[/quote]

Agreed, though I thought what I was seeing with the trees could have been some smearing on the relatively slow 20ms PVA panel I watched it on. I did fire the game up on an A1200/1084 (thinking perhaps the scrolling trees weren't "fullframe" or something, as it looked similar to, say, Ruff n' Tumble), but alas, all scrolling was flawless. (As an aside, the SOTB 3 title screen is another good one to check for scrolling issues.)

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2008, 06:28:18 AM »
I went ahead and connected a CRT to the PC, and compared a few programs next to an A1200/1084 combo.

In brief, running the PC display at 100Hz, setting WinUAE for PAL/50 FPS, no filter, and no vsync seemed to provide the best quality. (Naturally, you will need to make sure everything is cleaned up on the Windows end of things to prevent hiccups.) While not 100% flawless, from the standpoint of an average user I think the results are acceptable. Some AGA demos (Impossible is one example) can actually be a bit smoother via emulation, as even an 80MHz 68060 (and possible Amiga chipset limitations?) is not enough to play them entirely perfect everywhere.

Pinball games seem to be a small exception, while they may look *almost* as fluid just watching the table scroll (especially from normal viewing distance), actually playing them is not nearly as nice IMHO. Also, you will not be able to correctly run a PAL demo/game at 60Hz and have good scrolling.

Just some casual observations from a non-expert... :-) While it's a hell of a lot of $$$ for that extra smidge of better scrolling, I think a perfectionist will be unhappy with anything other than an actual Amiga (especially a game or demoscene nut). As I said earlier in the thread, I use and enjoy both. I would have no problem running WinUAE exclusively (despite flaws) if I didn't have room for my computer hobby. YMMV.
 

edit -- Something I just thought of, I bet you could use Powerstrip to create some custom video modes with more "precise" frequencies for use with WinUAE, that might help dial in the scrolling a bit better. Something to fiddle with later in the week. :-)

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2008, 09:24:23 PM »
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
If I understand well, such an interpolation is usefeul in films or wholly moving screens because it suppresses the "pauses" that occur when a frame is repeated.

But if it only adds frames it can't improve 2D animation, especially for objects that moves on the screen without changing shape, because in it motion must be regular. Every added frame will just slow animation down instead of stopping it, so instead of getting jerky animation you will just get wavy animation : it won't make the motion regular. In order to reproduce 2D animation accurately on a different refresh rate, you would need to redraw every frame to make it correspond to what the eye would see at the same moment if the display's frame rate was right..

The whole point about "motion interpolation" is to avoid judder issues e.g. playing 24FPS video on 60hz/120hz display.


Actually, the point is to reduce judder, nothing eliminates it entirely. You'll notice film aficionados generally prefer certain scaling techniques over others for this exact reason. From your wiki link:

Quote
According to CNET.com executive editor David Carnoy, with Sony's MotionFlow objects look more stable when the feature is turned on. This is sometimes accompanied by a glitch in the picture.[1] Not everyone likes the effect and some complain that it gives film a "video" look.[6]


Anyway, as has been pointed out, the discussion had nothing to do with OMtehG AGA vs s0ny peeCee5 vide0 scalZing ab1Lit33z11!, but rather how closely WinUAE can emulate Amiga 2D scrolling. Bloodline's video (which wasn't really that bad :-P) was supposed to be an example of game scrolling with a good WinUAE config. The bottom line (as was expected) seems to be that some are content, others are not. :/
 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 04:30:45 PM »
Quote

Hammer wrote:
 :-)
Quote

-D- wrote:
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
If I understand well, such an interpolation is usefeul in films or wholly moving screens because it suppresses the "pauses" that occur when a frame is repeated.

But if it only adds frames it can't improve 2D animation, especially for objects that moves on the screen without changing shape, because in it motion must be regular. Every added frame will just slow animation down instead of stopping it, so instead of getting jerky animation you will just get wavy animation : it won't make the motion regular. In order to reproduce 2D animation accurately on a different refresh rate, you would need to redraw every frame to make it correspond to what the eye would see at the same moment if the display's frame rate was right..

The whole point about "motion interpolation" is to avoid judder issues e.g. playing 24FPS video on 60hz/120hz display.


Actually, the point is to reduce judder, nothing eliminates it entirely. You'll notice film aficionados generally prefer certain scaling techniques over others for this exact reason. From your wiki link:

Quote
According to CNET.com executive editor David Carnoy, with Sony's MotionFlow objects look more stable when the feature is turned on. This is sometimes accompanied by a glitch in the picture.[1] Not everyone likes the effect and some complain that it gives film a "video" look.[6]


Ermm, it’s a Sony....

This is not Philips Trimension middleware.
http://www.trimension.philips.com/

"Philips Trimension software for PCs ensures stunning image quality − even on the biggest, most demanding HD flat screens. No judder, no artifacts, just superb images and razor sharp video."

WinDVD7 is shipped with Philips TrimensionDNM middleware.

According to http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/1449/smooth-operator.html


"To eliminate judder, Trimension calculates enough interpolated frames between the actual frames recorded on a DVD to be able to show them all at 60 fps. Good frame interpolation is a technically difficult and sophisticated process, and it's impressive that Trimension runs smoothly on a PC (a 2.8-GHz Pentium 4, at minimum)."


Not a problem with today's multi-core CPUs and video accelerators. Brute force computation performance can be applied at this problem.


"Smooth is also the word to describe the results. Old or new, B&W or color, animated or live action β€” if the original film was made at 24 fps, Trimension makes nearly all moving objects cross the screen with an almost surrealistic smoothness. While images containing no motion look precisely the same with the system on or off, it takes only a very slight movement β€” a turn of a head, the raising of a hand, a single step β€” to make the image look more lifelike than normal film. The effect is so pronounced that the latest version of WinDVD, v.7, includes a toned-down mode that introduces an even-rhythm, cinema-like judder ("2:2 pulldown")."


Latest WinDVD is at 9th release.


Nice (I think it looks OK), but quoting from the marketing literature doesn't change the fact that the process isn't 100% flawless, do some research around the video forums. Losing the "film-like" look of the video is a common complaint with Trimension, as are artifacts (like halos) in certain situations. By its nature, scaling/processing modifies the video content in some way or another, so far there is no method that everyone is happy with. That's why the wiki article (which mentions Trimension) sez "reduces", and not "eliminates". Might be a better argument to compare dedicated image processing hardware anyway, an $80 copy of WinDVD hardly compares to multi thousand dollar scaling hardware.

Anyhow... regardless, you can't use it to play Superfrog via WinUAE. :-) The video you posted (while not terrible) absolutely isn't showing flawless scrolling, but as I said above, most people would be content with it. It would be better to just record it at 60Hz (if it works without glitches at 60Hz, or find an NTSC version if one exists). Fire up some Slamtilt at 60Hz, with your emulator configured for PAL/50 FPS and let me know how smooth it looks. ;)

--edit-- BTW, Just thought I'd add Trimension software decoder doesn't even require "today's multi-core CPUs", requirements are a P4 and 256 MB RAM.
 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2008, 07:26:37 PM »
@Hammer

You crack me up, man :pint:

About the video processing - it's not really an area of huge interest or concern to me, all I'm pointing out is that any type of processing introduces its own elements (this is common knowledge, product literature aside), some will be more or less happy with different technologies. In regard to so-called "framerate conversion" (specifically, 50 Hz content -> 60Hz), it looks like {bleep}e to me and I'm afraid that's simply a matter of subjective taste. This also goes for an emulator output set at 50 FPS "synced" to a display refresh of 60Hz. If it looks OK to you... then rock on! :D

I may get a few videos up to try and illustrate the difference.

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2008, 08:36:31 PM »
Quote

persia wrote:


Indeed, but I guarantee it's far more hillarious from my standpoint. :lol:

If 50Hz material looked perfect at 60Hz, there would be no need for frame rate conversion. Same with film. This is just common knowledge...

Ever played a fast 3D game without vsync? Why do you think 120Hz capable LCDs are becoming available? Synchronized display (f.e, 60 FPS @ 60Hz) is always better for smooth gaming... amiga games are no exception. Ask any 133t PC gamer which argument makes more sense. :-)

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2008, 01:49:52 AM »
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
This also goes for an emulator output set at 50 FPS "synced" to a display refresh of 60Hz

The catch is "FullScreen + VSync" which disables "FPS Adj".


Ah, well, that's where the discrepancy was then. :-) (I'll trash the post I was going to submit basically reiterating what was already said).

BTW, the videos I was going to post:

1. SOTB III (NTSC version), @ 60 FPS/60Hz display refresh, to illustrate very nice scrolling with WinUAE

2. SOTB III (PAL version), @ 50 FPS/60Hz display refresh, to illustrate an unsynchronized emulator/display refresh

For some people, # 1 still isn't QUITE as smooth as the old hardware, my opinion is it's very close, and the differences that do exist might yet be down to some type of configuration problem. (Basically, I haven't screwed around with it enough to know for sure, looks pretty good to to me though.)
 
The only issue you might have is that some amiga stuff was coded for either PAL or NTSC timings, so running, say, a PAL demo at 60 FPS/60Hz might show some weird artifacts (though this is no different from the original hardware).

 

Offline Damion

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2008, 07:26:36 PM »
@bloodline

Yeah, you guys were lucky... all the "good stuff" was PAL, especially the last few years of decent A500 software. I remember having to use silly degraders/PAL booters ("Banzai" PAL reset FTW) at every boot. Sometimes the software would arbitrarily kick the machine back to NTSC, requiring some tricky usage of degraders to finally get it working. (This was after my machine recovered from a "friend" using Rev 5 motherboard docs to try and perform the Agnus mod on my Rev 6 board... last time I let someone else touch my hardware... :nervous:)

Though I'm now wondering if the PITA factor of the Amiga wasn't part of its charm... :lol: