Author Topic: [PC] Field background editor - Palmer (0.8b)  (Read 133318 times)

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #125 on: 2009-06-19 12:48:25 »
and I will look into that program of yours too

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #126 on: 2009-06-19 13:06:28 »
I have now made a file which is 2.5X the original size.

800*560

The results from that program you sent me are great.  Much better than normal resize.

Now I will see what happens when I use fractals and upload both.

Timu Sumisu

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1860
  • Karma: 14
  • The Master
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #127 on: 2009-06-19 14:23:58 »
Fascinating.

Looking a few pages back, there are several things that I'd like to comment on. I dont beleive the game needs any color correction, it blew everyones mind 10 years ago, and successfully upscaling will do just as well. (to be honest the new style looks a lil less genuine) As to remaking all the backgrounds in 3d... its doable... I could do them fast enough but the real issue with changing the game objects, backgrounds etc. is the scale and style issue. In field, there is a chibi style, in battle and cinematics... no. Things like that must be maintained or you'll have something like the PRP project (which i think looks rather silly). Remaking them in 3d and rendering a background makes it difficult to match up the scale perfectly and would take half the development time on its own. If you can batch upscale the backgrounds thats awesome, if not then I'll be glad to help with a certain chunk of them. As for cinematics... I'd find a great deal of fun remaking those in 3D, mainly so the characters wouldnt look terrible (i accept armature-less models in game... but its attrocious in their "high" poly models).

to Aali, can you get the images back into ff7? If so can we see an upscaled comparison. if not... it up on the priority list?

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #128 on: 2009-06-19 14:40:45 »
Here is videoenhancer (with no added filters such as sharpen):

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg129/SeiferAlmasy2008/Aftervideoenhancer19.png

here is Fractals (no added filters)

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg129/SeiferAlmasy2008/fractals-1.png

Fractals with sharpen:

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg129/SeiferAlmasy2008/fractals.png


There doesn't seem to be much between fractals and the enhancer, except less pixellation perhaps.  The sharpner would prob work just as well on enhancer too....  so no real score between the 2

Edited.  Uploaded wrong pics
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 14:44:49 by Seifer Almasy »

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #129 on: 2009-06-19 14:47:35 »
There is no real way of making a sh*tty res picture look much better.  There is noise, artiacts, blur....and if you try to take 1 away you end up losing something else.  The best we can hope for is enhancer with a sharpen filter and possibly 1 or 2 artifact reducers.

Also, ali, what resolution would you desire with movies.  The psx original is 320 * 224
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 14:50:10 by Seifer Almasy »

ShinChan

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #130 on: 2009-06-19 14:49:51 »
There doesn't seem to be much between fractals and the enhancer, except less pixellation perhaps.  The sharpner would prob work just as well on enhancer too....  so no real score between the 2

The method with fractals seems to be more work for the person doing this. If it's really much more work, then we should stick to the Video Enhancer. If possible I think we should do the resizing of the videos with Fractals, because it IS better. The pictures are sharper and more detailed even without applying sharpening. But as I said it depends on whether it is much more time consuming than Video Enhancer ;)

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #131 on: 2009-06-19 14:52:29 »
There doesn't seem to be much between fractals and the enhancer, except less pixellation perhaps.  The sharpner would prob work just as well on enhancer too....  so no real score between the 2

The method with fractals seems to be more work for the person doing this. If it's really much more work, then we should stick to the Video Enhancer. If possible I think we should do the resizing of the videos with Fractals, because it IS better. The pictures are sharper and more detailed even without applying sharpening. But as I said it depends on whether it is much more time consuming than Video Enhancer ;)

The difference is absolutely minimum... it isn't worth the effort for that kind of increase.  The res of the ff7 movies is too low to begin with.  But Enhancer + sharpen + artifact filter may prove useful.  I will do some tests when I get back.

Terid__K

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Karma: -3
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #132 on: 2009-06-19 15:11:53 »
Resolution of movies should just be doubled, so it matches the original resolution of the game.


Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #133 on: 2009-06-19 15:20:25 »
is the NTSC version of the game resolution of 320*224 ?  I am assuming so.

ShinChan

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #134 on: 2009-06-19 15:21:45 »
Resolution of movies should just be doubled, so it matches the original resolution of the game.

I think it would be better to go four times the original resolution of the video (which means 1280x960 pixels), because many of the people here are playing FF VII with the high resolution patch. And then 640x480 would again look pixelated. But the other question is whether the videos in 1280x960 pixels wouldn't be too big in size -- on the other hand, with todays computers, size doesn't matter that much anyway ^^ It might also depend on the codec... when we have to use TM2 again, the videos might get quite big, if we wan't them in good quality. If there would be a way that we can use H.264 or something like that, then the size maybe would also be not too big.
With Video Enhancer resizing should be quite easy, so to satisfy everybody, we could also make two video packs, one in 640x480 and one in 1280x960 resolution.

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #135 on: 2009-06-19 15:24:42 »
I don't like the idea of making 2....it is a bit half assed.

But H.264 may be a requirement.  I don't think anything else will suffice.

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #136 on: 2009-06-19 15:24:58 »
Resolution of movies should just be doubled, so it matches the original resolution of the game.

I think it would be better to go four times the original resolution of the video (which means 1280x960 pixels), because many of the people here are playing FF VII with the high resolution patch. And then 640x480 would again look pixelated. But the other question is whether the videos in 1280x960 pixels wouldn't be too big in size -- on the other hand, with todays computers, size doesn't matter that much anyway ^^ It might also depend on the codec... when we have to use TM2 again, the videos might get quite big, if we wan't them in good quality. If there would be a way that we can use H.264 or something like that, then the size maybe would also be not too big.
With Video Enhancer resizing should be quite easy, so to satisfy everybody, we could also make two video packs, one in 640x480 and one in 1280x960 resolution.

Doesn't Aali's driver support h.264?

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #137 on: 2009-06-19 15:27:21 »
Resolution of movies should just be doubled, so it matches the original resolution of the game.

I think it would be better to go four times the original resolution of the video (which means 1280x960 pixels), because many of the people here are playing FF VII with the high resolution patch. And then 640x480 would again look pixelated. But the other question is whether the videos in 1280x960 pixels wouldn't be too big in size -- on the other hand, with todays computers, size doesn't matter that much anyway ^^ It might also depend on the codec... when we have to use TM2 again, the videos might get quite big, if we wan't them in good quality. If there would be a way that we can use H.264 or something like that, then the size maybe would also be not too big.
With Video Enhancer resizing should be quite easy, so to satisfy everybody, we could also make two video packs, one in 640x480 and one in 1280x960 resolution.

Doesn't Aali's driver support h.264?

It does. :)

ShinChan

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #138 on: 2009-06-19 15:31:04 »
Doesn't Aali's driver support h.264?
It does. :)

Sounds great ;D So even 1280x960 pixels might be relatively small in size then. But for users with older PCs we still might do a 640x480 version, because H.264 needs a rather fast processor!

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #139 on: 2009-06-19 15:33:28 »
Wonder how we moved from editing fields to editing movies haha.

Though since this is about Aali's field background editor (a la Palmer) Should we move this to another topic?

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #140 on: 2009-06-19 15:33:40 »
1280x960  will place the AR out a bit.

Since original is 320 * 4 (1280)  by 224 * 4 (896)

That is why I need ali to explain what will happen with video :)  The bitrate would need to be around 3000 minmum  (so a 1 minute movie without would be  around 22 Mbyte

FF_daiku.avi is around 20 MB on the PSX and is over 1 minute.  So it wouldnt be TOO much difference.  If 3000 is too low increasing it a little wouldnt make it much larger than original files.

and yes I think we probably should move this elsewhere :)
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 15:39:24 by Seifer Almasy »

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #141 on: 2009-06-19 15:35:11 »
now to figure out how to unlimit the videos so they play at 60fps, and we're all good  :-D

arew264

  • Cool newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #142 on: 2009-06-19 15:39:34 »
Resolution of movies should just be doubled, so it matches the original resolution of the game.

I think it would be better to go four times the original resolution of the video (which means 1280x960 pixels), because many of the people here are playing FF VII with the high resolution patch. And then 640x480 would again look pixelated. But the other question is whether the videos in 1280x960 pixels wouldn't be too big in size -- on the other hand, with todays computers, size doesn't matter that much anyway ^^ It might also depend on the codec... when we have to use TM2 again, the videos might get quite big, if we wan't them in good quality. If there would be a way that we can use H.264 or something like that, then the size maybe would also be not too big.
With Video Enhancer resizing should be quite easy, so to satisfy everybody, we could also make two video packs, one in 640x480 and one in 1280x960 resolution.

My understanding is that even with the high resolution patch, you can't change the resolution of the videos? This entire effort is for use with Aali's graphics driver, which will pretty much run at any resolution you want.
Aali's driver will use any codec supported by FFMPEG, the backend of VLC Media Player. You can play pretty much anything you want with it, including h264 and XVid. If you wanted to go nuts, I'm sure it supports some lossless formats as well, but the files would be huge. Again, the high resolution patch will NOT play videos with codecs other than TM2.

On the other hand, this driver pretty much makes the high resolution pach obselete. It was a good solution to the problem, but the driver offers far more functionality than a patch is capable of adding.
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 15:41:58 by arew264 »

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #143 on: 2009-06-19 19:58:10 »
Just thought i'd take a whack at resizing the image. And this is where i got (for some reason when i cut it from palmer it wasn't 1024*1024)


Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #144 on: 2009-06-19 19:59:02 »
Just thought i'd take a whack at resizing the image. And this is where i got (for some reason when i cut it from palmer it wasn't 1024*1024)



That hasn't been resized....

Kudistos Megistos

  • Banned
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 3936
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #145 on: 2009-06-19 20:00:54 »
Looking good, hellbringer616  :wink:

And may a suggest that a separate thread be made about increasing the resolution of the movies?

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #146 on: 2009-06-19 20:01:35 »
It has, it was downscaled to fit on Qhimm. getting a proper link.

It's a bad job anyway haha..

But here ya go

http://i39.tinypic.com/6r0vgx.jpg

I'm new to GIMP, but i'm tryin, Guess thats what counts :-D

If it matters i used Sharpen by default then again by 30 (i was mostly messing around haha..) and then aliased by i think 20.
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 20:06:20 by hellbringer616 »

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #147 on: 2009-06-19 20:04:50 »
Looks good to me, did you use fractals?

Hellbringer616

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1915
  • Karma: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Palmer
« Reply #148 on: 2009-06-19 20:06:46 »
Nope, whatever default sharpen is. then again by 30, and then i aliased, I thought i remember moving a scale for it, But i guess not.

Tried an idea about oversizing the image, messing with it, then resizing it. But so far. doesn't seem to do much if anything at all..
« Last Edit: 2009-06-19 20:11:35 by hellbringer616 »

Seifer Almasy

  • Guest
Re: Palmer
« Reply #149 on: 2009-06-19 20:11:55 »
I have just compared.  Fractals still keeps more detail :)  But that attempt isnt too bad.  I don't think we will find anything better than fractals as it is the standard for increasing image size.  When aali has sorted his program we can get to work increasing size.  It would be good if anyone had some tricks to making it even better