Update: Re-uploaded with original aspect ratio maintained.
This run is single-segment and NOT tool-assisted.
I suggest viewing each part on YouTube for better video quality. Comments and rates appreciated.
Printable View
Update: Re-uploaded with original aspect ratio maintained.
This run is single-segment and NOT tool-assisted.
I suggest viewing each part on YouTube for better video quality. Comments and rates appreciated.
That sounds like the most awesome thing ever! I'll have to check it out later.
Damn! You'z a freakin' maniac!!
Can't watch because it is stretched. Must be in the original 4:3 aspect ratio for me to watch.
Hardware limitation or preference? If it is the latter (might work for the prior, too), watching them on YouTube in fullscreen should force the video to match your set aspect ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
nice work damn how many pratiche before you can pull it off
Whatever aspect the video is recorded and uploaded in is whatever will be forced. If I watch it in a 4:3 window, it will automatically letterbox. I am sure the video is awesome, but the stretchy stretch does bother me.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
It will indeed always be in wide screen. I thought that it may not play for you at all. If your personal preference is the case, there's nothing I can say to help. The original upload was in 4:3, but crappy video quality all around. Personally, I think 16:9 looks a whole lot better. Probably not so much with a monitor that doesn't have native wide screen resolution. I myself don't like letterboxing. On my monitor, the video literally takes up the entire screen; just the way I like it.
If you can bear through it, I think you will enjoy the run if you are a Gunstar Heroes fan. It's currently the fastest single-segment run up, by a pretty large margin, and the only no damage run.
Oh, and to answer the question about preparation time, I've been playing the game almost since its release in 1993. The speed run itself was composed within a day. I did a few practice runs then recorded and uploaded the run on July 9th. I could have beaten Mike Uyama's run at any time; my casual playthroughs are faster than SDA's fastest. However, like my title says, I'm pretty apathetic about regular uploads, I put stuff up whenever. Although I have been getting more frequent with it as of late.
So how old were you when the game came out? Six?
Well, if you look to your left, you'll see that I'm 19. The game came out when I was 4. I think I got it right when I was 6. I've been playing it well over a decade at any rate.
Are those videos in the first post in order? It looks like the second one is first since the second video in the post has stage 2 as it's preview screen. I'd like to watch 'em anyway, but I just need to know the proper order. I may edit your post to make the videos a little bigger in viewing size as well.
Ah sorry. I have a learning deficiency when it comes to mathematics. Doctors call it "being retarded". :D
The videos are in the proper order. I do stage 4 after stage 1, for a very good reason at that. The Dice Maze trick isn't an exact science and it's simply safer to do stage 4 early in a speed run. If one messes up, not as many stages to redo. Anyways, editing the parameters of the embeds is a good idea, because as it is, there's no point watching them on here instead of on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Why didn't you just frame blend from 60p down to 30p then? At least you could see the missing bullets/characters/etc. :(
Originally I did. However, interlacing produces blur, and blur looks awful for any game footage. It's meant for live action and live action only. I took it down and replaced it with what I have up now. At the time I didn't know YouTube did not support 60 fps progressive scan. Even so, I still prefer 30p over interlacing for game footage. If for whatever reason YouTube offers an even higher quality option in the future that is, you know, actually high-definition, the video quality will be about as perfect as it can get. It's pretty good as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Anyways, you'll never miss a projectile entirely. The main nuisances are the weapon switches between combo (they don't flash like they should) and flashing sprite animations. Phantoms will either be solid or invisible briefly. 60p is true to watching the game played in person. Then there's Blackfly on the last level. Some of his attacks are briefly invisible, but I'm sure you guys know what's going on. Even at 60 interlaced, Blackfly will always have a few attacks go unnoticed by the audience unless the footage is viewed at 60p. Treasure decided to give him attacks that literally change every damned frame.
What interlacing game footage? The Genesis games run at 240p60 (except a handful with special 480i30 modes).Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
240p60 frame blended to 240p30 ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu9nfj0X34g
In video editing, blending frames is called interlacing. It does not make it true to a 60 FPS progressive scan video.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
I think you're confused. Blending frames has nothing to do with the definition of interlacing, nor does it produce interlacing. You're not trying to make 240p60 as the end result, you want 240p30(or whatever you're upscaling to). If your video capture card can not capture at 240p60 (assuming you're capturing from the real hardware), then capture at 480i30. You can do the sloppy method of scaling down the video, with a filtering option, to 240p30. Or if you care about quality, run it through a frame server like AVS that'll separate the interlaced fields into frames, then serve to whatever app you like (I prefer virtualdub for all the nice filter and other options). If you're capturing from an emulator, just capture at a straight YYYp60 and convert to YYYp30 directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Edit: I agree with Joe. The video stretched out like that into 16:9 looks terrible. Everything looks fat and distorted.
I'm not confused. I know what interlacing is, and it is blending frames. There is absolutely no work around to bypass YouTube's 30p limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan
Even in that video you linked to, I can see the blur. Just pause when a lot of movement is going on if you can't notice it while it is going.
Well, I'm sorry but you don't know what interlacing is. Interlaced video is defined with fields, not frames. A field is every other scanline of an image/frame. Less detail, but higher temporal resolution. The effect gives high detail for low or no motion parts, and gives high temporal resolution when needed (the idea is that the eye can't perceive all the detail in high motion frames, so missing/reduced detail is mostly unoticeable. Even more so that on a real TV, the scanlines bloom/overlap each other somewhat). It does produce combing artifacts though, and even more noticeable on PC system. Progressive interpolation of interlaced material is the process of building a solid frame out of the fields. There are many methods of doing this, which is offtopic for this thread. You're capturing from emulators. You don't even HAVE an interlaced video capture. So I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Frame blending from 60p to 30p does create some slight blur, but the trade off is that you can actually see the missing frames of animation that your are currently throwing away. Frame blending allows you to see 60hz blinking; like the missing bullets, missing frames in explosions, anything that blinks at 60hz, etc. It looks soooo much better than frame decimation, which is what you did. If my video wasn't frame blended 60p->30p, then you wouldn't see all the ship shield, only half the bullets of the main ship, the spot lights from the enemy ship, etc.
Interlacing is indeed a different issue, but it does get treated the same in editing on a 29.97 timeline. Basically you are taking every odd frame and blending it with every even frame, so everything that moves looks more blurry than normal. 30p is fine for Youtube. I never frame blend game footage I put on there unless there is a flickery shadow or whatnot. It really depends on the game if it works.
That's lovely, and also your opinion. However, you're still wrong about the frame shenanigans, and honestly I'd like to get this topic back on topic. You aren't the web master so you can't change parameters so at least the wide screen shows up without letterboxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Anyways, to put an end to this resolution and frame discussion, anything less than 16:9 (1280x720 IIRC is what it will display it as) on YouTube cannot obtain the HD option. The HD option offers a higher bitrate than normal quality or high quality on YouTube, so I was specifically aiming for it. While I was at it I improved sound quality and fixed some colour bugs from my original upload. As previously stated, I also don't mind 16:9, it is the native ratio of my monitor and the run looks great on fullscreen.
You could pillarbox the 4:3 image into a 1280x720 video image so that no distortion occurs and you still get the "HD" (which Youtube only displays as 853x480). Also, most "widescreen" computer monitors are 16:10, not 16:9.
Web master?Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Then hard code it for 4:3. You know, hard coded horizontal letter box. You get the correct image ratio/size and still get the HD option.Quote:
Anyways, to put an end to this resolution and frame discussion, anything less than 16:9 (1280x720 IIRC is what it will display it as) on YouTube cannot obtain the HD option. The HD option offers a higher bitrate than normal quality or high quality on YouTube, so I was specifically aiming for it.
Is this a younger generation thing? So used to watching stuff stretched out (4:3 SD cable signal on 16:9 sets?). Why not get some glasses so you can see stuff in real life like that - all stretched and fat :pQuote:
While I was at it I improved sound quality and fixed some colour bugs from my original upload. As previously stated, I also don't mind 16:9, it is the native ratio of my monitor and the run looks great on fullscreen.
I guess you're not really interested in quality and presentation, so it doesn't make any sense to correct/explain anything further in detail; we're back on topic.
Tom, you're nuts for wanting a circle to be represented as a circle instead of an oval!
Anyway, I think it is a younger generation thing. They can't comprehend why one way would be more appropriate than the other. Just wait until that generation starts making movies!
Wait, did you just try to imply that humans see things on some kind of ratio comparable to a monitor? There are way too many things wrong with that to even begin to describe. Also, I can't help noticing the pot calling the kettle black. You're getting all picky over aspect ratio, but you don't mind adding blur, which is definitely not in any original Genesis game. I'm not re-uploading the run on YouTube again only to add some black bars. If I'm going to do a perfect-quality upload, I'll do it on a site that can display 60 frames per second.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Then you failed to understand what I said. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Heh. I don't think you know what that means (you used it incorrectly).Quote:
Also, I can't help noticing the pot calling the kettle black.
Look know-it-all-teenager, don't compare frame blending side effects with your aspect ratio problem. The Genesis also doesn't throw away half its frames/objects either. Compare frame blending to frame decimation:Quote:
You're getting all picky over aspect ratio, but you don't mind adding blur, which is definitely not in any original Genesis game. I'm not re-uploading the run on YouTube again only to add some black bars. If I'm going to do a perfect-quality upload, I'll do it on a site that can display 60 frames per second.
# is the shipCode:#> = = = = =
<#> = = = = = = =
< and > are the two sides of the shield
= are bullets.
The top is frame decimation (what you did). The bottom is frame blending (what I did). I can't really represent the blur artifact from 60p movement of corresponding pixels, you'll just have to imagine it. Frame decimation trade off: missing frames of animation, sometimes you can't see the player or bullets or other objects that exist in 60hz on/off cycling(like those spot lights in my video); Pros: no blur artifact. I would never even play a game like that. Imagine getting hit by a bullet you can't even see. Frame blend trade off: creates blur for an pixel that moves faster than 30hz on the original source, Pro: you can actually SEE shit. I mean, you can SEE it! That's incredible. Man... I've seen youtube videos where half the time the player is unseenable because of frame decimation. As Joe's stated, it's worst in some games than others.
As for your pixel aspect ratio issue, what Joe and I described is a fix to correction viewing. There is no trade off like frame blending and frame decimation.
Anyway, I was originally trying to hep you. Your videos, to me, are unwatchable for two very strong reasons. The fact that the freaking player disappeared completely for like a minute after beating the block mini boss was really annoying. Then the huge aspect ratio difference. I just provided feedback - which ends here. Let's stop talking about it.
I'm soo old fashioned. Dammit! :mad:Quote:
Tom, you're nuts for wanting a circle to be represented as a circle instead of an oval!
And books too. The letters will be all skwat and fat. I'll have to get special corrective lenses :(Quote:
Anyway, I think it is a younger generation thing. They can't comprehend why one way would be more appropriate than the other. Just wait until that generation starts making movies!
Uh, frame blending just emulates interlacing and produces the same effect; blur. Actually, it reduces alpha, creating more blur than actual interlacing. You do know that a frame is just two fields in interlacing. "One field contains all the odd lines in the image, the other contains all the even lines of the image". Guess what that means, genius? Also, my use of the pot and kettle was spot on, regardless of whether or not you agree with me. I'm quite tired of your fallacy. Obviously the Genesis doesn't cut the frame rate in half, but that's YouTube, not me. I rendered it at 60p, remember? However, YouTube doesn't add blur. That's all up to the uploader. It was my original hope that YouTube would display every frame, free of blur. If you want to see original aspect ratio and sampled frames, check out my SOR3 and Rocket Knight Adventures demo runs. The blur isn't quite as annoying in either, so I didn't bother removing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Edit: You know what? I may in fact revert the aspect ratio back to 4:3. I can now improve the video quality while maintaining it, so there is little reason not to. Well, except the fact that I'm going to have to re-render in Vegas yet again then re-upload. But hell, I've done it several times for several videos, so I can do it once more. Better now than when the video gets a lot of views. I'm still firm on my dislike of blur. However, with this upload and some research I now know that 60p is simply not possible on YouTube. I don't like missing frames, but I also don't like adding blur to emulate those missing frames. Since both are bad, I'll put it up to a vote: simply state which you prefer. The one with the most votes wins. I'll want to get some rendering done while I sleep so it has got an hour. (well, close, there are a few artifacts I know I can't get rid of with editing, due to the nature of the original file, but they are negligible.)
It's been my experience that the older someone is, the more likely they are to not care about aspect ratio. The most common excuses/reasons I've been given are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Comprehending the concept of aspect ratio and/or figuring out how to switch it on a TV is too frustrating.
They'd rather have a larger viewing area and/or can't stand the letterboxing bars that "cut off half the picture".
The first reason seems to go hand in hand with fearing new technology. These are likely the same people who only use a computer once a month to try to send an e-mail.
The second reason seems to be incurable olden-times anti-logic. Over the years I've explained to way too many people how it's the 4:3 formatted movies that are missing some of the picture, only to be told that I "just don't get it".
I've known many people who switched from watching a 27 inch 4:3 TV for years to a big widescreen, but stretch out 4:3 signals because "it looks too small". Even though on the larger screen the viewing area is still 27+ inches, which they were very happy with previously.
Back when I worked at a music/video store during the early days of dvd, a customer came in bragging how they just paid something like $3000 for a modest sized widescreen TV. I explained how for less money they could've bought a larger higher quality 4:3 TV on which the letterboxed viewing area for widescreen videos would've still been larger than the expensive widescreen TV (let alone how tiny the 4:3 TV shows would be on the widescreen). Like so many other people they just said that I "don't get it" and that it's the only way keep "black bars" from taking up half the screen.
*Sigh* No, it doesn't. Frame blending is: interpolating a higher frame rate into a lower frame rate - frame rate reduction. Interlacing (video) is a method to increase the frame rate without increasing the data rate, by updating odd/even lines at max frame rate. This produces combing, not blurring, in the upper half of the temporal resoluton. It increases temporal resolution, not decrease it. Simple *deinterlacing* can create that blur artifact that frame blending because it essentially does the samething (60hz to 30hz). But not all deinterlacing algorithms create that blur (because they convert to 60p with various algorithms or decimate the field rate and throw out the extra detail interpolating the left over field ).Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Why interlaced SDTV video looks like ass on a PC/computer: scanlines don't overlap each other on a PC, previous interlaced scanlines don't fade on a PC display.
What!?Quote:
Actually, it reduces alpha, creating more blur than actual interlacing.
No, a frame is not "just two fields interlacing". If the source/material is progressive, there is no interlacing. Interlacing is a method of temporal compression. Only in interlaced source, do two fields create a full detail frame at half temporal resolution point. That doesn't apply to non-interlaced video. Do you know why? Because there is no compressed temporal difference to display at a faster rate.Quote:
You do know that a frame is just two fields in interlacing. "One field contains all the odd lines in the image, the other contains all the even lines of the image".
Interlacing or interlaced video has *nothing* to do with your video source/setup. Do you now understand?
Why do think I said to do a frame blend before uploading? I think it's great that some 19 year old is trying to school me on video format when I've been working with video for years. I studied, learned and generated NTSC video on a hardware level. Simple resistor ladder+port out and mcu with timed instructions. Not mention I worked on several low budget indie projects over the years as minor editor, special fx, and video format technical advisor. But hey, I'm glad you're here to school me... genius ;)Quote:
Guess what that means, genius? Also, my use of the pot and kettle was spot on, regardless of whether or not you agree with me. I'm quite tired of your fallacy. Obviously the Genesis doesn't cut the frame rate in half, but that's YouTube, not me.
It's your thread, do you still want to keep going back and forth on this?
This is a hell of a buggy game. Your vitality changes constantly between stages (going mostly down, sometimes up) and some health powerups say 15 onscreen yet give you 20 health. Other health powerups give you the onscreen amount.
This is going back and forth because quite honestly you have no idea what you are talking about. Your experience in the field doesn't make you any less ignorant about the basics of the subject, not to mention what the human eye can and cannot catch. Let's get this out of the way now: There is no way to make a 60 FPS video actually look the same in 30 frames. It cannot be done. FPS stands for frame per second, I say this because you seem don't seem to comprehend what that means. That second is always 1 second. The human eye can indeed detect the difference between any frame rate between 0-60 (even higher, actually)with relative ease, despite what some claim. Interlacing removes data in an attempt to to do the impossible, but it doesn't work. Frame blending, while by different means, attempts the same. Most people can tell the difference, and there is no deinterlacing method to make interlacing look exactly like progressive scan on any kind of display. The fact it is worse on a computer monitor doesn't change the fact that it doesn't look as good on a television either. The proof in in the industry; progressive scan televisions are more highly praised and cable companies make a fortune on HD cable and satellite boxes. New HD televisions coming out are all going to be using progressive scan (2160p).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
Additionally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that I'm using video editing software, specifically Sony Vegas Pro 9. I can easily convert videos recorded in progressive scan and interlace them and vice versa. Yes, it doesn't look at good as using material recorded with and displayed on hardware designed for interlacing, but nevertheless, it can be done. I don't know why that is so hard to believe. Now, obviously I'm not actually using interlacing. In actuality, for the videos I have up that use blur to show those missing frames, I simply used smart sampling at 59.940 progressive scan. But it produces the same effect. Since YouTube can't actually display Double NTSC, it is true I should just render it in standard NTSC. Smart sampling would still show the missing frames, along with all that lovely blur, but take up less space and therefore be a shorter upload.
What? The vitality has always changed after completing a level. Every level completed has the player start off with 20 more vitality than they started off with on the previous level. This is independent of any health picked up along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Example: The first stage played has the player start off with 100 vitality. The player finishes that stage and picks stage 3. On this stage the player will start with 120, even if they had 150 by the end of stage 1. After this, the player selects stage 2. On this stage the player will start with 140 vitality, etc.
Nowhere does a health pick up grant more vitality than it states. I suggest you re-watch and pay closer attention to vitality if you are still perplexed.
I'm amazed we are able to have a argument about how interlacing works across two pages.
Well, it's irrelevant now. The run is down, it'll be re-uploaded and ready for viewing early tomorrow. I'll make sure to edit the embeds on the fist post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flygon
Original aspect ratio has been maintained, and I'm using smart-sampled 30p. Hopefully the conversation can be about the actual speed run now, with an occasional mention on the attention to detail on the video quality. Really, some of you people don't seem to get the amount of work that goes into a quality speed run. Any complaints about this latest upload can be addressed to 555 I-Don't-Give-A-Shit Rd. I've re-uploaded this run too many times already.
Yes it did. I would have proven it, too, but you removed the video. You had 220, then got a health for 15 and it went to 240. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeroShinobi
Also, Tom really does have an idea of what he is talking about. He is 100% correct in his discussion on interlacing and frame blending. With interlacing, each field is from a different moment in time even if two fields make one frame. The Genesis does not interlace (on this game), so each field can be considered a frame unto itself. I don't think he is saying that 30fps can look the same as 60fps, he is just saying that you are throwing away half of the information and is suggesting an alternative work around to help compensate for the loss.
When the hell did I imply that the Genesis interlaces? Honestly, I'm getting sick of these bull insinuations. Read with some comprehension. I was talking about additional encoding with editing software and optimizing for YouTube. Specifically, Sony freaking Vegas Pro 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Also, stop claiming things fact when they are most certainly not. There are only TWO places in the entire game where I have 220 vitality and then proceed to pick up more health. On stage 5 and on the last stage right before Golden Silver. On stage 5, I pick up a FIFTEEN and go to 235. I still have the original video, so I know this for a fact. On the last level, I go from 220 to 240, by picking up a clearly registered 20. The video will be re-uploaded relatively soon, so you'll be able to see this for yourself. Not to sound overtly offensive, but you were unaware of how the vitality system worked in the first place. You have no business claiming any piece of Gunstar Heroes info as fact.
I can claim what I see in the video as fact. I double checked it to make sure more than once. I should have grabbed screen shots at the time. I may be wrong about the exact numbers of the vitality, but I do remember 15=20.
Vegas Pro is... mediocre.
He'll be reuploading the video, so the point is moot. It will be proven/disproven when the video is back up. As for Vegas Pro, compared to Windows Movie Maker it is Jesus is video editing software form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Yes it is, but coming from my world it still isn't much to brag about. Premiere Pro is better still and Final Cut Pro even better than that, but this discussion about editing software is kind of irrelevant I suppose.