A Way Of "cheating" For A Higher Resolution?


idjit626

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
138
I was thinking, what if the Pandora was to render a resolution higher then it is supposed to show. Then it can "zoom out" to show the entire picture on its smaller resolution screen? It would take more CPU power but there are a whole 900MHz to work with! :lol:

Let me try again.

Pandora 800X420 so...
1: Render the image at 800X600(or needed resolution)
2: Zoom out or "squish" the image so that it can fit into 800X420 (in this case only vertically)
3: Add Anti Aliasing/remove jaggies
4: Higher resolution games on Pandora!
5: ?????????????????????
6: PROFIT! B)

Or is this already something that is done? :unsure:
 
Do you mean a virtual screen of larger resolution that you can pan and zoom on the pandora screen?
 
Let me rephrase.

Stop creating topics on the developer forum. Why not just post this in the general section. It's wrong to dilute the quality of the developer section with insane requests.

This isn't a PSP developer forum. :p
 
You're talking about scaling down. A lot of things already do this (e.g. my STPPC2x runs at least one of its games, maze3d, at 640x480 and just lets SDL resize it to 320x240 for the GP2X screen). This is short, simple, obvious to anyone who programs and the Pandora SDL libraries will probably have it "built-in" like the GP2X's libraries do. It's also incredibly ugly and nowhere near the best way to do things.

The problem is more pragmatic - a "doubling" of resolution is a "quadrupling" of needed CPU time, memory, etc. To show 640x480 takes four times as much data, processing, memory etc. to do than 320x240, no matter how you do it (there are certain tricks, e.g. if you are ray-casting/tracing but they can only be used in a handful of circumstances). On top of that, if you are "pretending" to be 640x480 and then showing on a 320x240, the actual resize can take significant CPU time too, even though all you're doing in the simplest case is missing every other pixel it has to be "copied" to video RAM as a properly sized bitmap.

Anything that renders at too high a res will vastly increase the requirements (literally to the point where they will kill slow hardware) and will look really ugly unless you do a lot more processing to compensate. Run MAME to see this - load up a high res game and force it to show in low res on a slow machine. Even with the best optimisation in the world, you can kill a sub 1GHz processor easily with the right games (Championship Sprint comes to mind because my 600MHz laptop can't run it in a playable manner because of it's high res, despite being able to run similar-era games very easily).

Basically, if something's designed to run a certain resolution, it's for a reason (the detail is required, it's a standard screen size for hardware capable of running the game etc.). Especially where emulators are concerned, rendering at the "natural" screen size is obvious - manufacturers of arcade equipment etc. wouldn't specify a more-expensive high resolution monitor "just because" - they are doing it because the game requires it or the machine is more than capable of brute-forcing its way through the data. That means that emulators of that system won't save anything by rendering at lower resolution.

There are a few exceptions (e.g., the programmer hard-coded 1024x768 because he felt like it) but that's about the gist of it.

Having said that, I'm looking at allowing larger "resolutions" and allowing pan/scan/zoom in a future version of STPPC2x, but mainly because you are limited in the size of puzzle you want to do on a small screen and display performance is a very minimal element of that particular set of games.
 
sindbad said:
Do you mean a virtual screen of larger resolution that you can pan and zoom on the pandora screen?
Actually, in Linux it's a feature that is included in most X layer (altl +,- ), then we should get it when a full desktop distro will be available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about squishing 1680x960 into the screen to get a sweet desktop?

#!/bin/sh
export ME=Milan
echo $ME asks whether anybody knows where he's left his coat\?

Might try virtual 2560x1600 on my 1280x800 laptop, though. Just for the sake of it.
 
Like Ledow said, you are pretty much talking about scaling. Scaling is not a way of "cheating" for a higher resolution. Dude, the screen is 4.3 freaking inches, the main reason for things using higher resolution is for a larger usable real-estate; in effect for smaller displays it makes pixels and all the images/text that is made up by said pixels, smaller. Higher Res images are just images with more pixels, enough pixels that the artist can add more details to the images. 800x480 is a very high resolution for a 4.3 inch screen. I this would have been a valid question if you where referring to up-converting when using TV-Out, but since TV-out is via S-Video it that probably would be either.
 
Back
Top