Explanation of what a NOAC (NES on a chip) is

[gamecat80]

You completely missed what I said. Here it is again:

 

By the way, that "video smoothing" effect doesn't just make it look like a Flash game, it makes it look like a badly drawn Flash game, i.e., one where every object was lazily "autotraced" from raster images to vector images, i.e., many of the outlines are malformed, including the "Nintendo" text at the bottom of the screen having gaps in the "N" and the "e". If it were created with vector drawings to begin with, instead of having the appearance of raster drawings hastily converted to vector drawings, it wouldn't look so bad. For example, the outline around the big "3" in the center wouldn't be all wobbly, it would look like this instead:

 

And then I posted my manually drawn "3" to show what the "3" would look like had SMB 3 been made as a vector/Flash game to begin with, rather than hastily and poorly converted to a vector/Flash-like appearance. Pay particular attention to the sentence that I bolded.

 

No, I didn't miss anything you said. I pointed out that the "3" in SMB3 wasn't perfect in itself. Look at it closely. The top of the "3" is flat and some of the pixels jut out slightly further than the others on the curves. The video smoothing just "copies" that with smooth lines. The smooth lines are only "wobbly" because the original "3" isn't perfectly rounded itself, even if it's "intent" may be.

HDMI is irrelevant. The picture is not "crystal clear" because it has the Gaussian blur effect that is inevitable when forcing a low resolution source to fully fit a high fixed-resolution digital display (inevitable in all cases other than mere line-multiplying).

 

That's your issue, not mine. You don't seem to know how to interpret those images. For example, you think it is "fuzzy", even though it is demonstrably not fuzzy (the smallest text on the screen is clear). As I posted in my previous post:

 

I pointed out in my first post that pictures don't do a CRT justice, as anyone who has ever taken a picture of a CRT can tell you. People familiar with CRTs vs. pictures of CRTs can generally "translate" the image in their mind to a pretty good approximation of what it looks like in real life. Then you have people who look at it and think the colors are "washed out" and the picture is "fuzzy", which is false.

 

Here's something you can try: take a picture of a turned-on light bulb. Now display the picture on your PC monitor and see if it lights up the room like the actual light bulb does. A CRT is a source of light; the idea that you can make any valid assessment of its color vibrancy from looking at a picture taken with a cheap digital camera on your LCD monitor, is absurd.

 

 

Still looks better than your CRT examples. And I know how to "interpret" your CRT pics because I still own and use a high-def CRT TV for my NES. I still think that LCD/LED TV's give better picture; especially with HDMI.

 

 

What do you mean by "you of all people"? What do you think you know about me that suggests I would like the smoothing effect?

 

You had commented earlier in another thread that SMB on the NES has good cartoony graphics....or something to that effect. The video smoothing (even with the autotraced "wobbly lines") still gives a much more "cartoony" look than do the original pixelated graphics.

 

Automated processes don't know that, so they smooth the edges of each pixel one at a time, resulting in pure crap. They can't "see" or "comprehend" intent / the whole picture.

 

 

Totally fine with that. The automated/autotracing still looks better, imo. Takes away the jagged pixel edges. Doesn't need to be "perfect" geometry; especially when the original pixelated Raster image isn't Actually, in a way the video smoothing autotrace is more accurate than "well drawn, 'perfect geometry' Vector drawings" BECAUSE 'video smoothing' traces over the actual pixels and smoothes their edges instead of completely altering the image to make it "geometrically perfect". So what you like and prescribe actually makes it more "fake" and even further from the original Raster image.

 

We all have opinions. Quit trying to force yours on other ppl. You like old CRTs and the original NES more. I like LCDs/LEDs and the RetroN 5 more.

[MaximRecoil]

No, I didn't miss anything you said. I pointed out that the "3" in SMB3 wasn't perfect in itself. Look at it closely. The top of the "3" is flat and some of the pixels jut out slightly further than the others on the curves. The video smoothing just "copies" that with smooth lines. The smooth lines are only "wobbly" because the original "3" isn't perfectly rounded itself, even if it's "intent" may be.

Yes, you did miss what I said, and now you've missed it for the second time, despite the fact that I reposted it, and even added bolding. Your post here is the second non sequitur (meaning it doesn't logically follow from anything I typed) in a row, even though you've had two chances now to read what I said.

 

Once again, that big "3" I posted is what the "3" would have looked like if SMB 3 had been drawn from scratch as a vector/Flash game in the first place. It would not look like it does on the Retron 5, i.e., like a pixel drawing of a "3" that has been converted to vector automatically ("autotrace").

 

- Pixel drawings autotraced to vector appearance = ugly (wobbly/shaky outlines)

- Drawing created by competent vector artists from scratch = not ugly (smooth, geometric outlines)

 

This is why it looks like a badly-drawn Flash game, because Flash games are drawn in vector format, and anyone who draws with wobbly/shaky lines has drawn badly.

 

Still looks better than your CRT examples.

I've already pointed out more than once that the pictures are not an accurate representation of the CRT in real life. See above.

 

And I know how to "interpret" your CRT pics because I still own and use a high-def CRT TV for my NES.

I've already pointed out the reasons why "high-def CRT TVs" aren't relevant. See above.

 

I still think that LCD/LED TV's give better picture; especially with HDMI.

Neither of them give a good picture with simplistic graphics, for reasons I've already pointed out.

 

You had commented earlier in another thread that SMB on the NES has good cartoony graphics....or something to that effect. The video smoothing (even with the autotraced "wobbly lines") still gives a much more "cartoony" look than do the original pixelated graphics.

Again, I don't like badly drawn anything.

 

Totally fine with that. The automated/autotracing still looks better, imo. Takes away the jagged pixel edges. Doesn't need to be "perfect" geometry; especially when the original pixelated Raster image isn't ;

The original pixel art is perfect geometry, squares to be precise, and those perfect squares are arranged in nice geometric patterns to form images. The autotrace outlines are wobbly/shaky/erratic; they look like crap. Again, it is the difference between good pixel art and bad vector art. If it were a case of good pixel art vs. good vector art, that would be a different story. Competence always looks better than ineptness.

 

Actually, in a way the video smoothing autotrace is more accurate than "well drawn, 'perfect geometry' Vector drawings" BECAUSE 'video smoothing' traces over the actual pixels and smoothes their edges instead of completely altering the image to make it "geometrically perfect". So what you like and prescribe actually makes it more "fake" and even further from the original Raster image.

It isn't a matter of "accuracy" when converting from simplistic pixel art to a vector appearance; if you want accuracy you would simply trace the pixels precisely, resulting in an exact duplicate of the pixel art, but in a vector format (which would be pointless). The goal when converting simplistic pixel art to vector is to make it look hand-drawn, like a cartoon, turning the pixel-based outlines into smooth outlines. In other words, you makes smooth strokes along the centerlines of the pixels, rather than rounding off the corners of each pixel like the Retron 5's filters are doing. The Retron 5's filters make it look hand-drawn alright, hand-drawn by someone having a seizure.

 

For example, say you have a pixel drawing of a circle in an old video game; it looks like this:

 

 

Retron 5's filters would make it look like this:

 

 

A real vector artist would make it look like this:

 

 

Because a real vector artist is human, and knows a circle when he sees one, even if it is in a crude pixel form, unlike the Retron 5 filters, which don't "know" anything, and just blindly round off the edges of pixels without regard for the whole picture. Now, if a vector artist doesn't even know a circle when he sees one, or a Bézier curve, I'd much rather he keep his shaky paws off the art, rather than half-assing it.

 

We all have opinions. Quit trying to force yours on other ppl. You like old CRTs and the original NES more. I like LCDs/LEDs and the RetroN 5 more.

If I am trying to force my opinions on other people, then you are as well, obviously. Also, much of this has nothing to do with opinions.

Edited December 15, 2013 by MaximRecoil

[SoulBlazer]

I think I stepped into the middle of the biggest nerd argument I'd seen all year.

[JamesD]

I think I stepped into the middle of the biggest nerd argument I'd seen all year.

That's a pretty tall claim knowing this forum.

[onmode-ky]

mk so I looked up the 6578 and what little I found on it, it seems to be a generic 6502 core micro, with ram and rom, intergrated video (undescribed) and a generic gate array (aka small fpga) mostly used in picture frames and small embedded touchscreen solutions for kiosks, not exactly what I would call a from the ground up recreation of the NES hardware.

The text above that I boldfaced was gnawing at me. The specs of the NOAC 6578 chip have a TV-out encoder, but the chip has no LCD driver; it shouldn't be able to be used in picture frames and touchscreens. I went and searched "6578" and "lcd" on Google, and the reason became obvious: there is a chip called "PT6578" that is an LCD driver (just an LCD driver, not a NOAC of any kind). That must have been what you were seeing. The NT6578 and SH6578 are NOACs, but PT6578 is not. Unfortunately, it seems to have been the first "6578"-named chip you found.

 

so fine someone actually spent the time to design a already designed generic part from the ground up just to mimic a shitty pirate NES (unlike the more likely option that this specific make and brand has just been mask programmed)

 

grats you win

I didn't mean for you to feel offended by my attempts to convince you that NOACs are ASICs. It was just that I couldn't understand why you were so dead set on the stance that they had to be FPGAs, so I threw as much evidence to the contrary at you as I could.

 

As for why someone spent the time to design a NOAC, the business reason is simple: if you invest in designing and setting up to produce a cheap TV gaming chip, you can sell tons of cheap game systems chock full of already-finished games which you don't have to pay for because you steal all the software. The high initial investment pays off when you flood the market, and no other games system can compare to your products because yours have hundreds of proven games, none of which cost you any royalty payments. Beyond that, you can even make money selling your chips to companies that, for some reason, want to develop hardware with their own games instead of stealing someone else's. If your intention is to manufacture lots of cheap junk for years on end, you spend the money up front to make actual production cost as little as possible in the long run, right?

 

I should also point out that NOACs are not the only ASICs made for playing games on TVs. They're just the most notoriously used ones. Winbond has a series of 65816-compatible TV gaming chips, and Sunplus and Generalplus scored a hit with their SPGxxx and GPL162xx TV gaming chips running the u'nSP instruction set. Many millions of those have been used in the last decade in Jakks Pacific's TV Games line of plug-n-play game systems, as well as systems by other toymakers--the China market for these has been very big, from what I hear. These are ASICs that are really designed from the ground up, not based on some existing games architecture, and they're made to service a legal (i.e., having IP overhead costs) market. In contrast, compressing the NES, an existing design, so that you can sell unlicensed product, that sounds pretty cheap.

 

Those pre-programmed multi-games (that look like n64 controllers) are running an emulator. It's probably some small custom linux OS with a simple frontend (list of all 64000 games) to load the roms and play them in whatever pirated emulator they use. They don't use carts though.

Er, if you're talking about the plug-n-play units that look like N64 controllers and boast 9999 or so pirated NES games in 1, those are indeed NOAC-based, not emulator-based. I think they run a front end which is itself an NES program (I mean it runs directly on the NOAC, not that it was originally a cart released in the 80s), and once you choose a game, the system reinitializes to a different location in the ROM and plays that game. Some of these N64 wannabes do take carts, too; I believe the cart's presence just triggers the NOAC to load from it instead of from the onboard ROM.

 

No, I didn't miss anything you said. I pointed out that the "3" in SMB3 wasn't perfect in itself. Look at it closely. The top of the "3" is flat and some of the pixels jut out slightly further than the others on the curves. The video smoothing just "copies" that with smooth lines. The smooth lines are only "wobbly" because the original "3" isn't perfectly rounded itself, even if it's "intent" may be.

You didn't miss anything he said, but it sounds like you're misunderstanding what he likes and what he does not like. Assuming I'm understanding him properly, MaximRecoil appreciates the square look of pixel art and the absolute smoothness of hand-carved vector art; that wobbly smoothness that is in between the two, he does not like that. Telling him that the smoothing mixes the two together does not make him like it. It's the two extremes that he likes, so if you smooth out one extreme so that it ends up in the middle, it becomes unattractive to him. An analogous situation might be a person who likes the sound of both very primitive speech synthesis and actual human speech, but the sort-of realistic sound of Siri bothers him. Repeatedly telling this guy that Siri takes the simple tones of primitive synthesis and smooths them out won't change his mind.

 

My apologies if I've actually misinterpreted you both.

 

While the curvature of the screen isn't something you consciously notice in real life (unless side-by-side with a flat screen, in which case the flat screen looks concave until you get used to it), it is a subtle effect that adds a bit of a sense of depth.

You keep talking about the sense of depth added by the curvature, but I don't see what you mean. The screen is convex; the only depth it adds is some warping at the corners. There is no depth added to the image itself, but rather the image "paper" is being curled up, away from the viewer. Are you talking about something else?

 

onmode-ky

[MaximRecoil]

You keep talking about the sense of depth added by the curvature, but I don't see what you mean. The screen is convex; the only depth it adds is some warping at the corners. There is no depth added to the image itself, but rather the image "paper" is being curled up, away from the viewer. Are you talking about something else?

A convex surface has depth, by definition; a flat surface doesn't. If you don't get a sense of depth from something that physically has depth, then I don't know what to tell you.

[The Usotsuki]

You might see with one eye?

[gamecat80]

 

You didn't miss anything he said, but it sounds like you're misunderstanding what he likes and what he does not like. Assuming I'm understanding him properly, MaximRecoil appreciates the square look of pixel art and the absolute smoothness of hand-carved vector art; that wobbly smoothness that is in between the two, he does not like that. Telling him that the smoothing mixes the two together does not make him like it. It's the two extremes that he likes, so if you smooth out one extreme so that it ends up in the middle, it becomes unattractive to him. An analogous situation might be a person who likes the sound of both very primitive speech synthesis and actual human speech, but the sort-of realistic sound of Siri bothers him. Repeatedly telling this guy that Siri takes the simple tones of primitive synthesis and smooths them out won't change his mind.

 

My apologies if I've actually misinterpreted you both.

 

 

onmode-ky

 

I understand what Maxim likes; he has drilled it into my head But he keeps making this a Vector/Flash graphics thing "in the first place". It isn't. The 'video smoothing' from the RetroN 5 does exactly what it says: video smoothing (graphics). The pixels are smoothed off and Maxim keeps bitching about them being all "wobbly" and how the curves are "supposed" to look perfectly geometrically rounded like in a Vector/Flash game. I don't think the RetroN 5's 'video smoothing' intent is to look like a Vector/Flash game (like Maxim wants to believe) --- it is just to smooth the graphics. It accomplishes that, wobbly lines or not!

 

And here is a video of the RetroN 5 with the graphics filtering off AND on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jit2XlZ_fZg

[MaximRecoil]

I don't think the RetroN 5's 'video smoothing' intent is to look like a Vector/Flash game (like Maxim wants to believe) --- it is just to smooth the graphics.

It doesn't matter what the intent is; the fact remains that the smoothing makes it look like a badly drawn (as opposed to a well-drawn) vector/Flash game. So instead of seeing well-drawn pixel art, you get to see something that looks exactly like vector drawn by someone with a shaky hand.

 

1. Well-drawn pixel art = good

2. Well-drawn vector art = good

3. Poorly-drawn pixel art = bad

4. Poorly-drawn vector art = bad

 

SMB 3 in its native form = number 1. SMB 3 after the Retron Epileptic Filter™ gets ahold of it = number 4.

[JamesD]

The angle of the dangle is directly cotangentally inverse to the coaxial approximation of the collateral ratio of disproportionate association of the radius biaxially rotated through the associated perpendicular isosceles vector graphic, hereby proving it's inaccuracy and it's importance to the universe.
Or you like something or you don't, it's a personal taste thing. Take your pick.

[onmode-ky]

 

You keep talking about the sense of depth added by the curvature, but I don't see what you mean. The screen is convex; the only depth it adds is some warping at the corners. There is no depth added to the image itself, but rather the image "paper" is being curled up, away from the viewer. Are you talking about something else?

A convex surface has depth, by definition; a flat surface doesn't. If you don't get a sense of depth from something that physically has depth, then I don't know what to tell you.

So the sense of depth you were talking about really was the corners of the image curving away from the viewer. Hmm, I'd assumed you meant something like tunnels looking deeper on a CRT, as in enhancement of an image's depicted depth, but you're talking about the warping effect applied to all displayed imagery. Well, if you prefer the look of scanlines, I guess this is part of the same package. I prefer the flat image, personally, though LCDs mean I do miss the intense Asteroids torpedoes of a solid vector display.

 

onmode-ky

[malducci]

You guys are arguing about a bunch of circles and 3's, you know that - right?

[MaximRecoil]

You guys are arguing about a bunch of circles and 3's, you know that - right?

Your oversimplification (and thus, invalid representation) of the argument means one of the following things:

 

1. You are intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

2. You read the arguments, but the only things you grasped from what you read were "circles" and "3s".

3. You didn't read the arguments at all, but you remember seeing images of circles and a "3".

 

Which is it?

Edited December 19, 2013 by MaximRecoil

[malducci]

Your oversimplification (and thus, invalid representation) of the argument means one of the following things:

 

1. You are intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

2. You read the arguments, but the only things you grasped from what you read were "circles" and "3s".

3. You didn't read the arguments at all, but you remember seeing images of circles and a "3".

 

Which is it?

 

You know that's a logical fallacy right? Lol. (I've pulled that one a few times) Nice try

 

See.. I thought the ridiculousness of my response mirrored the ridiculousness of your guy's arguement. You know, in a fun bit sort of way. That wasn't apparent?

 

I dunno. I just think it's a little bit ridiculous arguing about 'filters' when it just comes down to preference (especially when the argument has dwindled down into squabbling sematics - to the point of uselessness. All because someone mentioned 'vector' or some such). I mean, as long as there's a choice - what does it matter?. Instead, you guy's are arguing over preferences (originally, anyway). Who's opinion is more valid, holds more weight, sinks more ships, whatever. But I think it's quite obvious that neither of you are going to convince or change the mind of the other. But, by all means - continue on

[MaximRecoil]

You know that's a logical fallacy right? Lol. (I've pulled that one a few times) Nice try

What are you talking about?

 

See.. I thought the ridiculousness of my response mirrored the ridiculousness of your guy's arguement. You know, in a fun bit sort of way. That wasn't apparent?

The ridiculousness of your response has been established. The alleged "ridiculousness" of the argument has not.

 

I dunno. I just think it's a little bit ridiculous arguing about 'filters' when it just comes down to preference (especially when the argument has dwindled down into squabbling sematics - to the point of uselessness. All because someone mentioned 'vector' or some such). I mean, as long as there's a choice - what does it matter?. Instead, you guy's are arguing over preferences (originally, anyway). Who's opinion is more valid, holds more weight, sinks more ships, whatever. But I think it's quite obvious that neither of you are going to convince or change the mind of the other. But, by all means - continue on

This baseless editorial of yours establishes that you don't know what the argument was about. For example, it had little to do with opinions, and had nothing to do with "convincing" or "changing the mind of the other", at least not on my part, because those things are irrelevant to an argument.

Edited December 19, 2013 by MaximRecoil

[JamesD]

This can only end in tragedy!

[godslabrat]

[+wood_jl]

The angle of the dangle is directly cotangentally inverse to the coaxial approximation of the collateral ratio of disproportionate association of the radius biaxially rotated through the associated perpendicular isosceles vector graphic

 

Heh heh. According to Will Ferrel, "The angle of his dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of his meat."

 

[shit - was going to embed the funny SNL skit, but embedding disabled. Here's the link that takes you right to when he says it]:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya_lVpDHYWQ&t=2m32s

 

:lol:

 

The rest of the discussion is interesting! I prefer the look of my old consoles on *quality* CRTs, with S-video if they'll do it, but that's just me.

[JamesD]

 

Heh heh. According to Will Ferrel, "The angle of his dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of his meat."

 

[shit - was going to embed the funny SNL skit, but embedding disabled. Here's the link that takes you right to when he says it]:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya_lVpDHYWQ&t=2m32s

 

:lol:

 

The rest of the discussion is interesting! I prefer the look of my old consoles on *quality* CRTs, with S-video if they'll do it, but that's just me.

That saying predates Ferrel by a long time... I was just trying to emphasize how people were making it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

When I was young I wanted solid colors rather than funky looking dots. Now that I have LCD TVs and monitors that can display "solid colors", I want those funky looking dots... for some things anyway,

Those dots make the game look like it originally did. I think it depends on the game too. But sadly, I don't have the room for a big CRT.