Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Guys i need your personal experiense in comparing playback and overall quality between PC emulation of PSX and running a PSX game from a PSX or PS2 machine.

Does the PC superceed the latter due to greater processing power or is it just more fun due to the more options and tweaks.

Can anyonw honestly say that playback via emulation gets better picture and textures and game playck compared to running a game from the Playstation console?

I really need to hear what's your take on this. ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Yes and No. Emulation provides more features over the console, but due to the lack of z-buffer, it doesn't really provide much better in terms of graphics.

Also, since the PSX doesn't really support 3D, but instead places draws 2D objects in a manner that looks 3D, it doesn't really benefit from pc type filtering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes and No. Emulation provides more features over the console, but due to the lack of z-buffer, it doesn't really provide much better in terms of graphics.

Also, since the PSX doesn't really support 3D, but instead places draws 2D objects in a manner that looks 3D, it doesn't really benefit from pc type filtering.
What so you're saying PSX allows z-buffering and PC doesnt, or none of them allow z-buffers?

So which method provides better gaming experience? Dop we have a clear winner or is it one or the other?

On the other hand, does the Fact that the PC uses an LCD-TFT monitor account to something in comparison to using an old CRT-TV for use with the Playstation?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
no, the PSX lacks z-buffer, and theres no point in faking one in the emulator as the textures lack sub-pixel accuracy.
 

·
lazy shmupper
Joined
·
897 Posts
I agree with Dax: emulators are superior for LCD/plasma displays, because hardware scalers -integrated or external- totally suck no matter how much you pay for them.
But most emulators still fail to render a 'realistic'-enough scanlines/CRT-ish look.

Best scanlines support IMHO, in order:

- Zsnes (Blargg's avd. ntsc filter, good in Nestopia too)
- Mame (up to v0.105u2, after that just forget it)
- ePSXe (Pete's OGL2 plugin is flexible enough to give something nice, I guess it can be improved through the use of shaders)
- Kega/Regen ('Scanline TV' plugin from Forgotten)
...

But yes, if you still have a CRT in good shape (EDIT: and scart rgb :p), nothing beats the real thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I agree with Dax: emulators are superior for LCD/plasma displays, because hardware scalers -integrated or external- totally suck no matter how much you pay for them.
But most emulators still fail to render a 'realistic'-enough scanlines/CRT-ish look.

Best scanlines support IMHO, in order:

- Zsnes (Blargg's avd. ntsc filter, good in Nestopia too)
- Mame (up to v0.105u2, after that just forget it)
- ePSXe (Pete's OGL2 plugin is flexible enough to give something nice, I guess it can be improved through the use of shaders)
- Kega/Regen ('Scanline TV' plugin from Forgotten)
...

But yes, if you still have a CRT in good shape (EDIT: and scart rgb :p), nothing beats the real thing.
Yes but why would anyone want to recreate the CRT-ish look? Isnt the fact that with Emus you can use modern Digital Monitors an obvious asdvantage, especially when such Monitors are optimized for gaming, so why would you want an analog interlaced pictures with scanlines over a Digital Solution? MAybe there's something i'm missing so please fill me in. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Because the older games used scanlines to hide flaws in the sprites and such, I believe. Without a bit of graniness[made up word], you might think the games look like crap. :lol:
You mean that using LCD/TFT that use progressive scan you allow such faults to be visible?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
What do you mean? I'm not trying anything funny, i just want to be fully informed of whats happening on the psx emulation side so i can decide if it's a better way to run my games rather than the consoles and my crappy CRT TV's and now i'm hearing that the scanlines are actually a good thing! I'm not saying what you're saying is incorrect, it's just that ithought that one thing that i would benefit from was that i would finally enjoy progressive scan on PSX games, only to hear that this is not recommended.
 

·
lazy shmupper
Joined
·
897 Posts
Because the older games used scanlines to hide flaws in the sprites and such, I believe. Without a bit of graniness[made up word], you might think the games look like crap. :lol:
therock003 said:
You mean that using LCD/TFT that use progressive scan you allow such faults to be visible?
These games were originally designed to be displayed on low resolution CRT screens, scanlines aren't here to hide flaws but to hide lines that didn't exist to begin with. It's displaying these games on hi-res LCD screens that cause flaws, because the picture has to be upscaled, meaning pixels added, interpolation, etc...
Emulators like ePSXe allow all kinds of optimisations and of course it's a pleasure to play with shaders and all, but the reason why these optimisations exist is because the games look horrible without them.

The truth is that most emulators cannot, or just poorly, display low-res games on hi-res screens and preserve the original look, maybe because it's actually harder to do compared to anti aliasing and anisotrpic filtering or whatever shaders...
Emulators still do a much better job than integrated scalers do (the ones integrated in flat panels) and still better than professionnal external scalers.

But I guess the main problem is that most people don't care, and actually already forgot how games looked like before the HD era. In their minds it was 'crap' because they've been HD-brainwashed hard for years and believe all the 'digital' stuff can do everything better.
Just take Street Fighter II (console cart or even the original arcade PCB), a CRT and an LCD displays, fire the games together and compare. 100% will say the game looks awesome on the CRT. This is as simple as that.

For low-res games to look right on hi-res screens, they have to be redrawn (Street Fighter II HD) or shown behind advanced scanlines and filters. Wich is hard to do.

Look at these pics:
- 1rst pic is Sony Trinitron CRT TV versus bilinear filtering on an LCD screen.
- 2nd pic is the same Trinitron versus an attempt at emulated scanlines.
- 3rd pic is Mame with bilinear filtering.
- 4th pic is Mame with 75% emulated scanlines (Mame 105u2).
(the forum's clic-zoom feature doesn't do justice to the last two shots, watch them full size)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thanx for going to the trouble putting the images side by side. BTW how did you capture screens from the CRT?

Emulators still do a much better job than integrated scalers do (the ones integrated in flat panels) and still better than professionnal external scalers.
You mean that if i could connect a PSX console directly to an LCD/TFT screen the results would be worse than the ones provided with computer software emulation?

For low-res games to look right on hi-res screens, they have to be redrawn (Street Fighter II HD) or shown behind advanced scanlines and filters. Wich is hard to do.
You mean for the graphics to be built from the ground up, like what happened with Tomb Raider Anniversary where they recreated the Tomb Raider 1 surroundings (among other things of course)?

On the first set of pictures i can see what you mean, not sure what is better though quality-wise, especially on the street fighter set of pictures, i can hardly notice any difference on the quality, I can only see the scanlines which make for a somehow darker picture but i am not sure if that's better or worse.

So is there really no advantage to using LCD over CRT?
 

·
lazy shmupper
Joined
·
897 Posts
BTW how did you capture screens from the CRT?
It's one of my pals who did it, he's the one who's really into this.

You mean that if i could connect a PSX console directly to an LCD/TFT screen the results would be worse than the ones provided with computer software emulation?

You mean for the graphics to be built from the ground up, like what happened with Tomb Raider Anniversary where they recreated the Tomb Raider 1 surroundings (among other things of course)?
Wait, you don't seem to get it yet. On a hi-res screen, low-res pictures are stretched (by the scaler) to fill the screen, wich makes them blurry. So of course if you connect a low-res console to a hi-res screen, the picture will be horrible. Most flat panel's scalers even add lag because they're too slow to process the scaling operations.
Street Fighter II HD was redrawn so that its picture resolution matches those of HD tvs, Tomb Raider Anniversary on the PS2 was remade but is still a low-res game.

On the first set of pictures i can see what you mean, not sure what is better though quality-wise, especially on the street fighter set of pictures, i can hardly notice any difference on the quality, I can only see the scanlines which make for a somehow darker picture but i am not sure if that's better or worse.
Well I thought it was pretty obvious, the 'bilinear' ones are blurry-messy, the scanlined ones are clean and make the picture look closer to what it originally was on a crt, you can see more details.
For the SFII ones, did tou really look at these shots at their full size ? They're 1024x768, copy'em on your computer and do not hesitate to zoom and compare.
Note that this scanlines feature from Mame is far from perfect, that's why the picture looks darker, I could have raised the overall brightness in the settings, or even lowered the scanlines's intensity, but I didn't for some reasons:
- first: the 'bilinear filtered' picture is actually too bright, colors are messed-up together and it's blurry like when I don't wear glasses.
- second: when I play I hardly notice the scanlines, the picture looks cleaner, sharper compared to the 'bilinear'.

In the end it's a bit hard to tell with snapshots and all, it's best to actually try the various scanlines features in emulators, even if they're not very advanced. Most people just don't want to hear about scanlines until they see what it's like in action, trust me, I saw many people become adepts !

But enough 'off-topicness'. :D
So is there really no advantage to using LCD over CRT?
HD screens (lcd or plasma or any other) are perfect for HD consoles (Xb360 and PS3) but simply are crap for any other older machines (except the Dreamcast).

If you want to play anything on a LCD, from the 8bits era (NES etc) 16bits (SNES etc) to the 32bits era (PS1 etc) or even 128bits with nullDC, just go for emulators.
And later or if you have a very powerful pc, you'll be happy with PCSX2, Dolphin etc.

But if you don't care about HD consoles and want the best possible quality for your old machines, just stick to CRT TVs (you can still find very good used stuff, and cheap).
And if you're in Europe you'll have the luck to be able to connect your consoles via 'scart rgb' cables, wich is (much) better than S-Video/composite/RF. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Wait, you don't seem to get it yet. On a hi-res screen, low-res pictures are stretched (by the scaler) to fill the screen, wich makes them blurry. So of course if you connect a low-res console to a hi-res screen, the picture will be horrible. Most flat panel's scalers even add lag because they're too slow to process the scaling operations.
Street Fighter II HD was redrawn so that its picture resolution matches those of HD tvs, Tomb Raider Anniversary on the PS2 was remade but is still a low-res game.
Maybe i didnt express myself right but that's actually one of the few things that i do get! I dont suppose that expensive audio/video receivers (AVR) with hardware scalers like faroudja will do a better job now will they?

The remake of Tomb Raider is indeed 480p so there's still a lot of rescaling to be made, in order to be displayed on a 720p/1080p screen

Well I thought it was pretty obvious, the 'bilinear' ones are blurry-messy, the scanlined ones are clean and make the picture look closer to what it originally was on a crt, you can see more details.
For the SFII ones, did tou really look at these shots at their full size ? They're 1024x768, copy'em on your computer and do not hesitate to zoom and compare.
Note that this scanlines feature from Mame is far from perfect, that's why the picture looks darker, I could have raised the overall brightness in the settings, or even lowered the scanlines's intensity, but I didn't for some reasons:
- first: the 'bilinear filtered' picture is actually too bright, colors are messed-up together and it's blurry like when I don't wear glasses.
- second: when I play I hardly notice the scanlines, the picture looks cleaner, sharper compared to the 'bilinear'.

In the end it's a bit hard to tell with snapshots and all, it's best to actually try the various scanlines features in emulators, even if they're not very advanced. Most people just don't want to hear about scanlines until they see what it's like in action, trust me, I saw many people become adepts !
I will have a deeper look on the screen, but if people with experience say thatthis feature makes for a better result, then there's no argue there, i just wanted to hear what it has going on.

HD screens (lcd or plasma or any other) are perfect for HD consoles (Xb360 and PS3) but simply are crap for any other older machines (except the Dreamcast).

If you want to play anything on a LCD, from the 8bits era (NES etc) 16bits (SNES etc) to the 32bits era (PS1 etc) or even 128bits with nullDC, just go for emulators.
And later or if you have a very powerful pc, you'll be happy with PCSX2, Dolphin etc.

But if you don't care about HD consoles and want the best possible quality for your old machines, just stick to CRT TVs (you can still find very good used stuff, and cheap).
Well of course i already thought so. When i made the question Of Emu vs Console i meant which is better in the way they were meant to be played in other words, Emulators on a PC LCD Monitor vs. console with their respected CRT.

Actually i'm full of CRTs, I have like 4 or 5 CRT TV's! it is LCD Monitors that i lack. I only own one for My PC and it is a monitor not an LCD TV, which means that most of the work happens on the graphics card not on the screen.

Well the one thing i did not take into account when i made this inquiry is that these systems indeed were not intended to run digitally, so optimizations must be made in order to recreate the look analog TV's display. And here i was having high hopes of Digital meaning better, i shall only hope that now i know better. :)

And if you're in Europe you'll have the luck to be able to connect your consoles via 'scart rgb' cables, wich is (much) better than S-Video/composite/RF. :p
Actually i do live in Europe and i have all of the above cables, but i thought that the S-Video was the better choice, but is it really the RGB scart that rules them all? Cause If it really is, then i should use that on my PS2 instead of the S-video. :heh:

BTW what's the diefference of the resolution for different regions of PSX Games? It appears that when i run PSX imports on my PAL PS2 console, the NTSC games get resized in a way that leaves a huge black border on the bottom part as if the game really is 16/9 res. But to my knowldge i thought that NTSC games run on 4/3 as well?
 

·
Not a Registered User
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Well yeah it is 4/3 its the different res 720 x 576 for PAL 720 x 480 For NTSC
Of course there is still 50/60hz difference plus speed of frames 25/30 or 50/60

Well since were talking about the best settings for playing old games on new stuff
can someone post settings for ePSXe how to set it so it would look old likeish for example how much should i set scan lines
Oh and wouldn't be better to change the screen res to those above so it would not be scaled to much ??
And maybe turning the filters off

Another question
How about PSP i have one and few games from PSX on it which are surely downscaled
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Well yeah it is 4/3 its the different res 720 x 576 for PAL 720 x 480 For NTSC
Of course there is still 50/60hz difference plus speed of frames 25/30 or 50/60


These are PS2 resolutions, not PSX, and BTW none of these RES is 4/3, if that's the case then pal is 5/4 and NTSC 3/2.

Well since were talking about the best settings for playing old games on new stuff
can someone post settings for ePSXe how to set it so it would look old likeish for example how much should i set scan lines
Oh and wouldn't be better to change the screen res to those above so it would not be scaled to much ??
And maybe turning the filters off
Well i was going to ask this myself. What are the best settings really, considering that nowadays PC's are stronger than ever and there's no minding cpu limitations and such.

Another question
How about PSP i have one and few games from PSX on it which are surely downscaled
Well not really PSP has a 480x272 resolution screen, and PSX games seem to vary starting from 352x288 so they are upscaled. Although PSP has wides format screen so there's definitely some interpolation no matter what the REs is right?
 

·
Not a Registered User
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Duh my bad those are CRT res oh and i read somewhere that CRT uses 24bit
colors instead of 32bit or does PSX use 24bit pallet color dunno
either way wouldn't that make difference if used on a a LCD thats has 32bit pallet
I did some research and i only found that PSX max res is 640x480
so in PSP case it is sometimes upscaled and some times downscaled
What you said is right but that means that CRT also upscaled res of PSX
games gah i give up can some one explain this to me.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top