Best "open" handheld for emulation?

[Foxi4]

Woah, I didn't even know you could still order 320x240 LCD screens in this age and day.

Exactly. 320x240 really isn't a whole lot in my opinion and if you want to squeeze out more from this thing, you have to connect to a bigger screen via miniHDMI... and, well, a bigger screen isn't something you always have handy when dealing with a portable system.

Plus 3D-capable consoles can render at resolutions higher than native anyways, so it wouldn't negatively impact PSX/N64 emulation much. I don't see why people would want to have a screen like this.

 

[reprep]

Uhm... yeah, no.

SNES: 256 or 512 pixels horizontal resolution and 224, 239, 448, or 478

Meaning in some instances, even with SNES you'll experience cropping. It's better to have a higher resolution and use 1:1 + screen border than to crop or downsize the image.

SNES uses 256x224 except a few games and usually just menus and/or still images in games that use higher resolution. even though snes uses 256x224 it was meant to stretch to 4:3 resolution and be used with a 240p crt tv.

consoles prior to ps2 and dreamcast use resolution around 320x240 (add or substract some). That includes arcade games etc. too. 480i became mainstream with ps2, gamecube, dreamcast and N64.

so if your main aim is retro-console emulation 320x240 is the best resolution imho. But if you care about video, new games or multimedia capabilities of course you need a higher resolution screen.

 

[Foxi4]

so if your main aim is retro-console emulation 320x240 is the best resolution imho. But if you care about video, new games or multimedia capabilities of course you need a higher resolution screen.

You're forgetting that the system runs on Linux, so it'll get a lot of PC ports - I've already seen it running Doom. For those games, one would naturally want a resolution higher than 320x240 and it's still considered Retro... but I digress.

 

[Rydian]

320x240 (aka 240p) is the best resolution you can choose if your main aim is emulation. Choose a higher resolution and you have to do resizing which both increases the cpu load and looks bad.

This is all false.

In short...
1 - The SNES can actually use a higher resolution so the GCW Zero makes text in games that do that for the text unreadable (like the main menu text in Seiken Densetsu 3, somebody that had a GCW Zero pre-release model took screenshots for us).

2 - Scaling via the GPU is virtually free. It does not impact on CPU-bound things like emulation.

3 - 1:2 scaling on a double-resolution screen is the exact same image, pixel-for-pixel on DPI, that 1:1 on the normal-resolution screen is.

The GCW Zero's screen resolution is, unfortunately, a concrete detriment (at least for SNES emulation). People are aware of these issues, they simply stated that nobody cares enough about the small number of games it affects. Apparently the cost saved was worth it.

I can try to get you a link to the thread where people posted shots from actual GCW Zero units and I posted info and benchmarks and such if you want.

 

[reprep]

This is all false.

In short...
1 - The SNES can actually use a higher resolution so the GCW Zero makes text in games that do that for the text unreadable (like the main menu text in Seiken Densetsu 3, somebody that had a GCW Zero pre-release model took screenshots for us).

2 - Scaling via the GPU is virtually free. It does not impact on CPU-bound things like emulation.

3 - 1:2 scaling on a double-resolution screen is the exact same image, pixel-for-pixel on DPI, that 1:1 on the normal-resolution screen is.

The GCW Zero's screen resolution is, unfortunately, a concrete detriment (at least for SNES emulation). People are aware of these issues, they simply stated that nobody cares enough about the small number of games it affects. Apparently the cost saved was worth it.

I can try to get you a link to the thread where people posted shots from actual GCW Zero units and I posted info and benchmarks and such if you want.

1) i already told snes high res mode is only used in a few games and only for still images/menus. also the post you quoted talks about retro consoles generally, not just snes. and 320x240 resolution is a good choice for pre-ps2 consoles.

2) yup, that might be true, though it doesn't change the fact that rescaling decreases the image quality. That is why people always complain about playing DS games on 3DS.

3) are you sure? does a game (or an emulator etc) with 320x240 resolution look same at two 3.5 inch consoles which one has native lcd resolution 320 x 240 and one has native lcd resolution 640 x 480?

 

[Rydian]

3) are you sure? does a game (or an emulator etc) with 320x240 resolution look same at two 3.5 inch consoles which one has native lcd resolution 320 x 240 and one has native lcd resolution 640 x 480?

If both are using the same size screen and the larger resolution's emulator is scaling up 1:2 with no filtering, then yes.

You just rarely find this in the wild when comparing two different devices because companies use screens of all different sizes, and lots of emulators/people will use interpolation and/or filtering when scaling, or they won't scale to whole ratios, etc.

So people are used to larger-resolution screens looking worse because of shitty filtering+scaling, while 320x240 is so limiting that no filtering is possible (to the point that SNES games that do their own filtering will fail)... which is where the whole "320x240 is godly" myth comes from.

That's why I pointed out 1:2 scaling. Double the size and that's it. No 1.5x bullshit, no interpolation, no bilinear filtering, etc.

 

[reprep]

If both are using the same size screen and the larger resolution's emulator is scaling up 1:2 with no filtering, then yes.

You just rarely find this in the wild when comparing two different devices because companies use screens of all different sizes, and lots of emulators/people will use interpolation and/or filtering when scaling, or they won't scale to whole ratios, etc.

So people are used to larger-resolution screens looking worse because of shitty filtering+scaling, while 320x240 is so limiting that no filtering is possible (to the point that SNES games that do their own filtering will fail)... which is where the whole "320x240 is godly" myth comes from.

That's why I pointed out 1:2 scaling. Double the size and that's it. No 1.5x bullshit, no interpolation, no bilinear filtering, etc.

For example let's take a red pixel in 320x240 lcd. This red pixel will be represented by 4 red pixels (2x2) in 640x480 lcd (no filter etc). as the distance between pixels is not zero, these 2x2 red pixels and one red pixel won't look the same even if the screen size is the same (3.5 inch).

i agree the difference is minimal, but i guess it is a good example to see the lesser the upscaling, filtering, interpolation etc, the better the final result will be. as i have already said, 320x240 resolution is a good choice for a device aimed for retro-console emulation. But it isn't a good choice if you want an all-in-one multimedia device etc.

 

[Clydefrosch]

I bought this one a few weeks agoo and it emulates perfectly up to the PSX and N64. Be sure to install a custom firmware like the NCCE to fix the bugs.

it always cracks me up how they randomly shopped an image of super mario galaxy 2 in there, right below the list of emulated systems that doesnt include a wii or even gamecube

not to forget the button placement. r1/2 and l1/2 next to each other, and start and select on the sides. terrible.

 

[Rydian]

For example let's take a red pixel in 320x240 lcd. This red pixel will be represented by 4 red pixels (2x2) in 640x480 lcd (no filter etc). as the distance between pixels is not zero, these 2x2 red pixels and one red pixel won't look the same even if the screen size is the same (3.5 inch).

Yes they will, because each individual pixel on the 640x480 screen is 1/4th the size of an individual pixel on the 320x240 screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

Here's an image I just made to show the concept. It's using the same base image, the first is 32x24 pixels, the second is scaled up to 64x48 pixels (320x240 and 640x480 both zoomed to show the pixels would be unweildly in a forum post).

You can see that, when both are displaying at the same size, the output is the same... obviously minus the overlay grid to show the pixel placement because if I removed the pixel grid there would be 0 difference.

Here's an animated one too, for the hell of it so you can see it clearer.

I hate to sound like I'm aggravated about this subject... but I am. Nobody who supports the GCW Zero's 320x240 screen seems to actually know what they're talking about, they're either involved with the project (so they're going to back up the decision to go 320x240 because it makes their profit margin higher) or they believe the "320x240 is perfect and ideal" line, so I keep having to explain that no that's not how it works every single time this comes up. :\

i agree the difference is minimal, but i guess it is a good example to see the lesser the upscaling, filtering, interpolation etc, the better the final result will be. as i have already said, 320x240 resolution is a good choice for a device aimed for retro-console emulation. But it isn't a good choice if you want an all-in-one multimedia device etc.

320x240 is not optimal. The inability to even display native text in some games is not optimal at all. "Everything but the text in a few games" is not optimal.

Everything the original game would display, readable text included, is what is optimal for emulation.

 

[reprep]

i know what dpi is , thanks. The lines between the 2x2 red pixels, do you see them? you will still see them in the 640x480 screen. 4 red pixels don't look the same as one red pixel as your gif demonstrates well. the space between the 2x2 red pixels is not zero. They don't just add up and create a perfect red pixel. is it too hard to understand?

 

[Rydian]

i know what dpi is , thanks. The lines between the 2x2 red pixels, do you see them? you will still see them in the 640x480 screen. 4 red pixels don't look the same as one red pixel as your gif demonstrates well. the space between the 2x2 red pixels is not zero. They don't just add up and create a perfect red pixel. is it too hard to understand?

There are no lines between the pixels, the lines themselves are overlayed on the pixels to make sure that the images are the same size.

I zoomed into the 32x48 one and put a little rainbow of pixels so you can count. There's sixteen dots per pixel... but there's only 15 in the red, since the grey lines are covering up the bottom-most and right-most 16th pixel of each square.

After all, if the lines were between the pixels then the image with more lines would be bigger, would it not? Since it would have added pixels. But it does not have added pixels, the grid is an overlay.

 

[reprep]

please look at a 640x480 pixel 3.5 inch lcd screen (or something near that) and talk to me again if there is a space between pixels or not. of course there is a space between pixels.

does "retina display" mean something to you? how it was advertised as dpi was so high that you can't see between the pixels? it means low-res (and this includes 640x480 too) devices have spaces between pixels which can be seen with naked eye.

if you can count pixels in a screen, it means there is a space between the pixels, right? if there wasn't, you wouldn't be able to count the pixels no matter how near you look at them, as all you would see would be one line of "red" going horizantally (or vertically).

 

[Rydian]

please look at a 640x480 pixel 3.5 inch lcd screen (or something near that) and talk to me again if there is a space between pixels or not. of course there is a space between pixels.

does "retina display" mean something to you? how it was advertised as dpi was so high that you can't see between the pixels? it means low-res (and this includes 640x480 too) devices have spaces between pixels which can be seen with naked eye.

if you can count pixels in a screen, it means there is a space between the pixels, right? if there wasn't, you wouldn't be able to count the pixels no matter how near you look at them, as all you would see would be one line of "red" going horizantally (or vertically).

... what? No, that's not how it works at all. There's no visible space between the pixels. The lines are overlayed onto the last pixels.

When looking at individual pixels and counting them, what you're seeing is a contrast, a difference from one pixel to another. The example image I created is a randomized mix of shades of red to grey in order to create contrast. In situations where there's no contrast, the naked eye cannot tell where one pixel begins and another ends, which is why my second example colored adjacent pixels different colors.

I really do suggest you go read up on modern pixel-based displays and concepts such a resolution, dot pitch, DPI, etc... before trying to have a conversation like this.

 

[person66]

please look at a 640x480 pixel 3.5 inch lcd screen (or something near that) and talk to me again if there is a space between pixels or not. of course there is a space between pixels.

does "retina display" mean something to you? how it was advertised as dpi was so high that you can't see between the pixels? it means low-res (and this includes 640x480 too) devices have spaces between pixels which can be seen with naked eye.

if you can count pixels in a screen, it means there is a space between the pixels, right? if there wasn't, you wouldn't be able to count the pixels no matter how near you look at them, as all you would see would be one line of "red" going horizantally (or vertically).

No. Just no.
Low res devices have larger pixels, not more space between the pixels. If the pixels are larger, they are easier to see. If you can count the pixels on a screen, it just means the pixels are large enough to see, not that there is space between them (visible space anyway).

Here, have an example. You are currently using an LCD screen to read this. This is a solid, 64x64 green image:

Here is the same image, upscaled to 128x128:

By your logic, I should now be able to see lines between the pixels, because the 2x2 green pixels don't look the same as a single green pixel, right? Wrong. There is no space between pixels, and a 320x240 picture stretched to fit a 640x480 screen will look exactly the same as the original. End of story.

EDIT: Rydian beat me to the punch. Ah well.

 

[reprep]

oh please read this:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display"

"Retina Display is a brand name used by Apple for liquid crystal displays which they claim have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."

if the pixel density isn't high enough, you will notice pixellation, and if you look at your green pixels near enough, you will see the pixelation (or empty space between pixels whatever you would like to call.) You can still count the pixels horizantally or vertically even if all of them are red (or green). and yes with naked eye if you are below a value of certain dpi (apple claims it to be 300 dpi)

this is my last post here, as we are unable to understand each other for sure.

 

[Clydefrosch]

i have no idea whats going on, but if i look at the two green blocks on my screen, i pretty much see the pixels being seperated by thin black lines. but i'm pretty sure, if the pixels were 1/4th the size, the lines would probably be harder to see...

 

[SybreTiger]

I bought this one a few weeks agoo and it emulates perfectly up to the PSX and N64. Be sure to install a custom firmware like the NCCE to fix the bugs.

Does this thing REALLY emulate N64 perfectly? I've been wanting to run a full speed N64 emulator on a handheld for years, but have found nothing that actually does it. If this thing does, I would definitely buy it.

 

[Rydian]

oh please read this:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display"

"Retina Display is a brand name used by Apple for liquid crystal displays which they claim have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to notice pixelation at a typical viewing distance."

if the pixel density isn't high enough, you will notice pixellation, and if you look at your green pixels near enough, you will see the pixelation (or empty space between pixels whatever you would like to call.) You can still count the pixels horizantally or vertically even if all of them are red (or green). and yes with naked eye if you are below a value of certain dpi (apple claims it to be 300 dpi)

this is my last post here, as we are unable to understand each other for sure.

None of the articles mention space being between the pixels because that doesn't come into play at all. If there was a specific space "between the pixels" that affected scaling, then (like it was pointed out) an image scaled 1:2 would not be exactly four times the area of the original 1:1 image. But it is.

It's simple math. Double the dimensions of a rectangle and you quadruple it's area. Check the green images person66 posted. The second one is scaled 1:2. Each side length of the large one is exactly double the side length of the small one, and the area is quadrupled. These are exact measurements.

64 x 64 = 4096
128 x 128 = 16384

128 / 64 = 2 (doubled side length)
And
16384 / 4096 = 4 (quadrupled area)

The numbers work out exactly on the screen as well because "the space between the pixels" you keep talking about does not come into play. When you can discern the individual pixels, it's because you can see a contrast between adjacent pixels of a different color.

So to show you what I mean, I made two images in Photoshop. One is a 4x4 cube of a rainbow color inside a white square, and then I resized it 1:2 so it was 8x8 pixels.

I then took macro pics of my computer screen displaying these images down to the point that you can see the individual red, green, and blue phosphors that make up the pixels.

And of course an animated gif overlay.

It's not our fault you're believing the lines that 320x240 is somehow better (because you have no idea how this stuff works). It's worse, it's noticeably worse (unreadable text in some games). They're just trying to convince people otherwise because it's cheaper for them to do.

 

[SpaceJump]

I bought this one a few weeks agoo and it emulates perfectly up to the PSX and N64. Be sure to install a custom firmware like the NCCE to fix the bugs.

How long does the battery last?

 

[Relys]

I have a Samsung Galaxy S4. It has a quad core processor, 2GBs of RAM, 1080P screen and works with PS3 Bluetooth. It's pretty much as good as it gets right now.