Genesis and SNES, which had better version of a game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Ok. People need to stop using the phrase 4:3. It doesn't mean what you think it means (not to single you out, Kool Kitty ;) ). It's just the ratio of the tube from height and width. It has nothing to do with the squareness of the pixels in this discussion. People get caught with "4:3" because of how 16:9 on DVD and such uses analog compression for a wider screen, thus also changing the pixel width(you don't need to use the PAR value directly because 16:9 is a stretch of an already known PAR) What you guys are talking about is PAR. Pixel Aspect Ratio. It's the ratio of width and height, of the pixel itself. Not the dimensions of your SDTV set (which can vary somewhat - internally and externally). Also, vertical resolutions between the SNES and MD (and PCE) *do not* effect the PAR. It's the same pixel resolution vertically, just with clipping. Don't scale the snapshot res up to 240. Instead, pad it (and/or center it).

---

The anamorphic 16:9 thing didn't really influence my understading in this case. (if anything, DOS mode 13h did, with it's 320x200 resolution meant for a 4:3 screen display).
Anyway, thakns for the correction on the PAR of h40, my assumption of mode 32h had been correct with the 1.25 PAR, but I'd assumed h40 was 320x240, but now I seem to remember that it extends to ~350 pixels into overscan (hence why video capture shows the prominent blank areas clipped on either side). hat would slo explain why many games (like sonic) look slightly stretched vertically on a TV, they were made with square pixels in mind, not compensating for what the TV would actually display. (sonic looks oval when rolling)

What confused me more was that fusion displays normally in a 320x240 window, with the vertical overscan clearly visible, but obviously clipping the horizontal scan to 320 pixels. (although the blank bars are present when displaying h32 as it sticks to a 320x240 window with square pixels). As I mentioned, in "double" mode (default), fusion uses a 640x480 window, with h40 looking pretty much the same other than having 4 pixels on the monitor displaying each pixel of the game (still with square pixels), but scales h32 to fill the screen with 1.25 AR pixels. (so I suppose Fusion displays H32 at the true AR in double mode, but does not do so for h40)

I prefer playing many games with square pixels simply because many were obviously meant to do so and look stretched otherwise. (especially FMV)



Also, most games were not corrected for the higher vertical resolution of PAL in 50Hz, and thus look compressed on those TVs, almost like playing on NTSV in anamorphic 16:9 mode. (though not that extreme)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Adventures of batman and robin <- SNES version without a doubt. The Genesis version is Euro-crap tech demo :p

---

I don't think you can really compare these. They're completely different games. Anyway, I prefer the hectic run n' gun gameplay of the Genesis version.

As we all know, my humble opinion is that you can compare just about any game up to the game play portion.

If game play is similar enough, (which it is for Batman) then a comparison can easily be made.

I too prefer the Genesis game play.
I hate how hard those bosses are though, and it unfortunately truly limits the games potential awesomeness, as I think most people would not get past the first level.

Certainly, but it's not the same as comparing ports of the same game (ie Street Fighter II), or virtually the same game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerry coeurl

I don't think you can really compare these. They're completely different games. Anyway, I prefer the hectic run n' gun gameplay of the Genesis version.

---

But, that's just it. It doesn't feel like other Genesis run 'n gun games to me. It's tedious and repetitive... really early on. Imagine if it was more like Gunstar Heroes type of run 'n gun. Now that would be awesome. I'm not a big fan of the SNES one (I do like the art direct in that it looks like the animated series), but it's a fairly solid and decent game. I tried liking B&R for Genesis. I even turned off the sound (the music grates on my nerves really bad). I own the game (complete in box). Even played it two players with my son (mostly just to amuse him) after swearing I had enough of that game. It's definitely one of those titles, that I rather go back and play the simpler looking original Batman title for the Genesis instead. It's that bad to me. The bosses in B&R are pretty cool, it's the levels that I don't like (and that retched music :P ). It's too Euro-ish for my tastes I guess (I don't care for Batman Returns on the Genesis either. Feels unpolished, graphics are terrible, animations and some art just looks goofy/lame. Well.. like a US made console game :P ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Well.. like a US made console game :P ).

---

It's funny because it's true. ^ ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PimpUigi

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8599/genesisi.png

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/158/snes.png

Here's what I got for my print screens of FF2.

---

Looking absolutely terrible. Like if I wouldn't wearing my glasses.

Christuserloeser: Did you run Genesis BITD? If so, did you run RGB or composite? Also, how is the composite output of the PAL models? Is it just as bad as the US ones (which I assume are just as bad as the NTSC ones). And that Genesis pic he posted, isn't that far off from what real composite looks like on my Genesis systems. If he had 25% scanlines in that pic, it would have looked pretty similar. I think the only thing Mr. Snake gets wrong is the luminance levels for dithered patterns in his algo. If you look at PimpUigi's pic, the now transparent shadows would normally still have a slight trace of the dithered original pattern in it. Lumi is always greater on composite than the color subcarrier, but it appears that he treats them all equal. In the pic I did, I upscaled to 576x448 first, then did a motion blur with a low value to somewhat retain the dithered pattern for such contrast dithering (motion blue at 0 degrees means you get no vertical blurring, which is correct. The console doesn't get blurring vertically like what the emulators do).

Tomaitheous, isn't France a SECAM region?

A little off topic, but wasn't there a French SMS II that only output RGB, no composite or RF?

The pic I posted looks just like my hardware does on my TV.
I happen to have my PC, and my Genesis hooked up to my TV, so I can switch back and forth to compare the two. (CRT btw)

The differences in that image compared to my real hardware is only colors.
The colors from the emulator appear more vivid.

On TV, it looks quite a bit sharper than the screen shot.
But it doesn't look pixelated, simply clearer.

I think my LCD computer monitor blurs the picture more than it should, but I don't know.
All I know, is it looks the same as my hardware when I view the game on my TV. (so IMHO, Fusion's algorithm is correct)

While I don't have this game for my SNES, Super Metroid with interpolation on ZSNES looks just like my S-video connected SNES, and I can't get it to look like composite Super Metroid SNES.

Since it's very easy to connect the SNES with S-video (just buy the cord) I think it's a fair comparison to compare the standard ZSNES interpolation pictures, to the Genesis' CVBS TV Mode. But if that's not the fairest way, then the fairest way is certainly both with interpolation enabled.

Especially since on my TV, composite video looks just as sharp as the SNES' S-video.

This isn't the case for my computer, but se' la gair. Or, some such nonsense like that.
lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PimpUigi

Since it's very easy to connect the SNES with S-video (just buy the cord) I think it's a fair comparison to compare the standard ZSNES interpolation pictures, to the Genesis' CVBS TV Mode. But if that's not the fairest way, then the fairest way is certainly both with interpolation enabled.

---

Cables were available for both systems for RGB. Neither system required a mod. Lots of EU and JP users ran the system in RGB mode. So sticking with CVBS filtering isn't fair. And I have a feeling PAL composite is better looking that NTSC/JP models. Light interpolation on both would be more correct (and both ZNES and Fusion allow this). This isn't something like in the case of the NES, were you only had composite and RF outputs (you can't even mod for RGB. You have to buy some special famicom board that hacks/replaces the colors - and doesn't allow color intensity bits for YUV). In that case, valid option for the NES would be simulated NES composite filtering since that's the best it could output.

I'm well aware about the RGB in other countries.
However no one in the US can use than without a transcoder, and Super NES doesn't have any add on systems to give you audio, so you'd need a scart splitter with RCA audio too.

I do agree though, if you read in my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PimpUigi

But if that's not the fairest way, then the fairest way is certainly both with interpolation enabled.

---

I feel more inclined to compare the best practical option for both.
And most people aren't going to get a transcoder, or mod their system, but many will buy a $10 cable...

So Composite (with stereo sound...which some people seem to think the Genesis wasn't capable of) on Genesis vs. S-video on SNES makes some sense.
In my own side by sides, I compare both CVBS, and interpolation filtering to the ZSNES interpolation.

The composite TV mode usually changes things, like in the Lion King, where the Genesis background looks terrible without it.
I then have to realize that most people play the game like that, and see the background solid, the way it was intended to be seen.
It helps close a graphical gap.

IMHO the FF2 graphics are better on the SNES, despite the Genesis' seemingly larger sprites, and better contrast on the backgrounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PimpUigi

The pic I posted looks just like my hardware does on my TV.
I happen to have my PC, and my Genesis hooked up to my TV, so I can switch back and forth to compare the two. (CRT btw)

---

I'd immagine the PC immage is being output at 480i after being scaled form the PC's native resolution. (so rather different than a native video display, and loss in quality, probably combing due to the 60 fps display and also incorrect pixel AR being displayed, as I observed from fusion already)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Tomaitheous, isn't France a SECAM region?

---

It is - However, I do live in Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany.

People used to differentiate between GDR and FRG but ever since the GDR was swallowed by the FRG, people just call it Deutschland or Germany. I oppose this simplification by sticking to FRG. ^ ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Did you run Genesis BITD? If so, did you run RGB or composite?

---

Since the Mega Drive was sold with an RF adapter, I used that at first, but switched to RGB-SCART within a year or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Also, how is the composite output of the PAL models?

---

I don't think it's much different from that of the NTSC models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

And that Genesis pic he posted, isn't that far off from what real composite looks like on my Genesis systems. If he had 25% scanlines in that pic, it would have looked pretty similar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PimpUigi

The pic I posted looks just like my hardware does on my TV.
I happen to have my PC, and my Genesis hooked up to my TV, so I can switch back and forth to compare the two. (CRT btw)

---

I didn't realize it was meant to emulate the composite output. I just thought it was some kind of filter meant to "improve the graphics".

Back in 2002 when I first played around with emulation, I used filters myself, like Super Sai or whatever it was called, but since then switched to the pure unfiltered look as that indeed is much closer to real hardware via RGB - although it's impossible to capture the actual TV output on film. Here's my best attempt so far:

Click for full size


It looks like a hundred times better in real life, but like I said, somehow it's impossible to capture it on film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I'd immagine the PC immage is being output at 480i after being scaled form the PC's native resolution. (so rather different than a native video display, and loss in quality, probably combing due to the 60 fps display and also incorrect pixel AR being displayed, as I observed from fusion already)

---

Well, whatever the PC is doing to my TV, the game looks exactly the same with more vivid colors.
It's really easy to tell any small differences too, because instead of looking at side by side pictures, I can flip between the two, noticing any differences extremely easily.

Like if I had two pictures on my desktop, and flipped back and forth with a slide show picture viewer.

Shortly before he left, evildragon posted an awesome comparison that shows what I was talking about (RGB & unfiltered emulator being pretty much the same):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evildragon

Here we go.

Sonic 1

Composite
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...sonic1comp.png

S-Video
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...sonic1svid.png

RGB
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../sonic1rgb.png

Emulator
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../sonic1emu.png

---