Widescreen Gaming Forum

If a game uses vector graphics, as all 3D games do, the vectors have basically infinity information. The higher the resolution, the more pixels are used to render the vectors, and every single pixel represents a piece of the infinity information. The more pixels you have available when rendering, the more information you grab from the vectors.

With GPU scaling of a lower resolution, the games are rendered at a lower resolution, and the scaler doesn't care that the images are rendered vectors. It just sees a grid of pixels, which represents finite information, and it can only guess what would have gone in between the pixels if there was more information.

However, if you're talking about DOSBox, then this is a completely different matter. Take something like The Secret of Monkey Island - the graphics are rendered at 320x200, and there's nothing you can to do override this. If you increase the resolution of DOSBox to 1920x1200, you aren't rendering at 1920x1200. You're simply making your system perform scaling at the software level instead of the GPU level (and your GPU is probably doing the scaling routines anyway).

Here are some pictures:

Rendered at 720p:


Rendered at 720p, scaled up to 1080p:
(contains no more information than the original 720p image does)


Rendered at 1080p:
(contains more information than the original 720p image does)


Here are some closeups:

I should note that what cranky is doing in his image editor ends up producing a better picture than GPU scaling. Their algorithms really are not that great compared to the decent image editors.

hmmm.

but is gpu scaling still the best way to enjoy a game when its max rez is still less than the display?

say, playing Starcraft for example. you're either gonna play it in a small native rez box in the centre of the widescreen, or scale it up with the GPU

or are there other solutions that scale up the game better than the GPU does?



also:
in dosbox I can either set the fullscreen resolution to something really big, and not use nvidia scaling, OR I can leave it small or 800x600 (I think the driver's minimum) and turn on scaling to get it filling the picture?

what's the difference in practice? in image? performance? is one software scaling (done on the cpu) and the other gpu scaling?

or are there other solutions that scale up the game better than the GPU does?

Monitors with built in scaling circuitry usually do the best job.

I should note that what cranky is doing in his image editor ends up producing a better picture than GPU scaling. Their algorithms really are not that great compared to the decent image editors.

I don't think that's true, really. There's only so much "great" you can get out of an algorithm that turns a low resolution into a high resolution. Nvidia scaling doubles every other scanline and interpolates. How much more can you improve on that? Plus, I'm using MS Paint. I'll eat my hat if MS Paint produces a better picture than my GPU does.

say, playing Starcraft for example. you're either gonna play it in a small native rez box in the centre of the widescreen, or scale it up with the GPU
or are there other solutions that scale up the game better than the GPU does?

Hack solution aside (since trying it with Battle.Net is a bad idea), scaling it up with the GPU is the best solution.

in dosbox I can either set the fullscreen resolution to something really big, and not use nvidia scaling, OR I can leave it small or 800x600 (I think the driver's minimum) and turn on scaling to get it filling the picture?
what's the difference in practice? in image? performance? is one software scaling (done on the cpu) and the other gpu scaling?

If you set DOSBox to use your native resolution, then the software will scale the 320x200 game up to your native resolution. However, the software may very well accomplish this through GPU scaling routines anyway. So the end result would be the same, only the GPU scaling is controlled by DOSBox instead of your drivers.

Personally, I just let DOSBox use default behavior, in which it doubles the lines, making the games go from 320x200 to 640x400. That 640x400 is then scaled to my native res through GPU scaling.

Monitors with built in scaling circuitry usually do the best job.

No they don't. Most monitors do a horrible job of scaling, and make the image look awful when it isn't native resolution. Even ones with decent scaling, such as mine, still aren't as good as GPU scalers. Consoles are the only reason to use monitor scaling.

Monitors with built in scaling circuitry usually do the best job.

No they don't. Most monitors do a horrible job of scaling, and make the image look awful when it isn't native resolution. Even ones with decent scaling, such as mine, still aren't as good as GPU scalers. Consoles are the only reason to use monitor scaling.

Eh my 2007WFP does a much better job than my 8800GTX. But yeah I'm sure it depends on the monitor. (and the card.. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1509360 )

Yes scaling is 100% guesswork. nothing more nothing less

Depends on personal taste... Starcraft in a small native rez box will give a very accurate but small (so a bit less immersive) image, which is what I like when the image is not too tiny ...
Starcraft upscaled will give a slightly fuzzy or blurry, bigger image ... no details are lost but since it's bigger it might give the impression to be less detailed ..

in dosbox I can either set the fullscreen resolution to something really big, and not use nvidia scaling, OR I can leave it small or 800x600 (I think the driver's minimum) and turn on scaling to get it filling the picture?
what's the difference in practice? in image? performance? is one software scaling (done on the cpu) and the other gpu scaling?

in performance with today's computer I doubt there's that much of a difference between dosbox doing the scaling itself or the GPU or the monitor doing the scaling

in image quality, I would advise against using the monitor for such a purpose.... Between the GPU & dosbox itself, it is a matter of taste. In general emulators allow more options, such as upscaling to a specific res or by a specific multiplier (double size) and/or several rendering choices which can affect the end result so as to look sharper or blurrier ... and then again, it's a question of taste, there's no single answer to something like that.

here's another: there's a field in the dosbox config called "scaler" which offers a bunch of different algorithms.

however, wouldn't it be more accurate to call this field "smoothing" or "filters" ? though some like normal also indirectly scale up the game, isn't the purpose to smooth pixel jaggies in various means? don't modern ports of old games on the 360 and such, and also emulators I've seen, have the same options but call this by my suggestions above?

comparing a game like Hexen with normal2x turned on and off (but higher resolution from fullresolution field) - normal2x makes the game look like shit and introduces more jaggies than were ever there.

isn't the fullresolution field for handling the actual "scaling" ? Why would you ever use the scaling field to do your scaling? seems you would only do it for smoothing out pixels

since it's an upscaling algorithm at the start with filtering options included , I guess "scaler" does make sense since it's purpose is not always to smooth jaggies, some smooth them but some also makes the image very sharp looking, and others are middle ground plus those old "scanlines type of look"

http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Scaler if you didn't find it before you might find that useful

normal2x doesn't introduce any more jaggies than were there at the start, however since it doubles all pixels in all dimensions it makes them more obvious to the naked eye, a bit like watching a photoshop image at a higher than normal zoom .... the photoshop image is not any less detailed, however jaggies appear when you saw none at normal zoom ...

you may think of this "scaler" like an initial scaling before any other modifications
as for the fullscreen resolution, it's been a while since I did use dosbox and I don't quite remember right now how it all works...
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox.conf don't say much

edit: removed the negation from "didn't use"