160 Pixel Display

[Omegamatrix]

Here is a 160 pixel demo. I confess it does use flicker (a lot!).

I always avoided using lots of flicker, but when I tried it out my LED TV it was surprisingly readible, which is why I'm posting it. In the demo are two rows of text. The bottom row in particular looked okay in my modern TV in its progressive mode.

Here it is. If you are using Stella better ALT-P in Windows to enable phosphor effects. I would be interested in how it looks on real TV's and what sort of TV you have (CRT, Plasma, LED, etc...)

160_Pixel_20180429.zip

[+Random Terrain]

Crazy flicker with Stella (ALT-P) and LCD HDTV.

[+SpiceWare]

That's painful.

 

To me on a 1084S, the flicker's better on the top row but the bottom row is easier to read.

 

You're currently using 4 frames to draw everything, so each set of 8 pixels is drawn on 1 frame out of 4 for 15Hz flicker.

 

Consider using 6 frames to draw everything where the positions overlap 1/3rd the time. That would draw each set of 8 pixels on 2 frames out of 6 for 20Hz flicker.

[Mr SQL]

Some modern TV's merge two frames and would render this at 30 HZ.

I tried it on a vintage Television where it flickers tremendously a 15 HZ, but I also find 30 HZ flicker difficult

to look at for reading static text like the Harmony menu.

I find with animation sometimes 30 HZ is clearer for text, the color is an important factor too.

Try using the BW switch to change the animated full screen text display in WARPDRIVE from 30 HZ to 60 HZ and see what you think, it might not change the display on your modern TV but it will on a classic CRT:

WARP_DRIVE_PRGE.BIN

[ZackAttack]

Consider using 6 frames to draw everything where the positions overlap 1/3rd the time. That would draw each set of 8 pixels on 2 frames out of 6 for 20Hz flicker.

If you take that to the extreme 34.4fps should be possible. That might actually be tolerable.

; Produces a repeating pattern where 31 of 54 pixels can be set (31*60/54)=34.4fps
;[--po0--][--gr1--][--po1--][--gr0--][--gr1--][--gr0--][--po0--][--gr1--][--po1--][--gr0--][--gr1--][--gr0--]
;         ________        00000000 111111100000000 11111111     ________        00000000 111111100000000 11111111

sta RESP0
sta GRP1
sta RESP1
sta GRP0
sta GRP1
sta GRP0

 

[Omegamatrix]

I got back to this today, and made a new kernel that flickers at 20Hz, but didn't do any overlap. I haven't been able to test it on real hardware yet.

 

 

160_Pixel_20180504.zip

 

 

There are three rows, and the bottom row should be the clearest. Each row can display all 160 pixels over a few frames (4 for the top two rows, and 3 for the bottom row).

[Mr SQL]

The 20HZ kernel is much better on the bottom line but the 15 HZ kernels on the two lines above make it seem to flicker more than it does.

I think a 96 pixel 30 HZ kernel would be easier to look at, particularly if you do it in blue.

To get more text per line with less pixels you could try a smaller font, this 4x4 is surprisingly clear:

[Sheddy]

Not surprising as it's not all 4x4!

Sure something passable can be done for M, N, V, Q, Y, W, Z. The others work well.

[iesposta]

Not surprising as it's not all 4x4!

Sure something passable can be done for M, N, V, Q, Y, W, Z. The others work well.

 

I like the 2x3 at the bottom.

This shows lots, even italic.

 

[iesposta]

 

...

To get more text per line with less pixels you could try a smaller font, this 4x4 is surprisingly clear:

 

 

How is more text per line possible with a 4x4 font when the demo is using a 3x5 font?

[Mr SQL]

How is more text per line possible with a 4x4 font when the demo is using a 3x5 font?

 

I didn't realize it was 3x5. I took a look at the 36 character demo and there's a pixel between each character, can that be 144 pixels (72 pixels per frame)?