HQx4 Patch?

Firefairy · Post by **Firefairy** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:38 am

Okay, I read about the Scaler Policy, and I get that the devs want to avoid code bloat, so they won't be including many large scalers in the main code. I'm good with that.

I also notice that there were unofficial patches for scalers that weren't supported a few years ago, and now are.

Any chance of a patch for HQx4? The Wikipedia entry for the Hqx scalers includes links to sites that provide the source code (no clue in what coding language, though), and desktop monitors aren't getting any smaller. I think a lot of people would be appreciative if there was some way to add the HQx4 scaler to SCUMMVM, even if it takes a bit of work to integrate it...

Firefairy · Post by **Firefairy** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:14 am

Clarification- I looked more closely at the HQ4 site. They have/had (since it's an archive) code in assembly and C++, and even the executable is 34k.

http://web.archive.org/web/200707170648 ... /hq4x.html

I don't have my heart set on this one, it just seems to be the best of the filters that work in 2x mode. Any of the more advanced filters for higher scales would be nice.

Also, I agree with Zorbid's description of the situation in his feature request "Scalers cleanup - ID: 2013428". At some point, the fact that screen resolution keeps growing will need to be addressed, or eventually we'll need an emulator to run our emulator!

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:26 am

Firefairy wrote: Also, I agree with Zorbid's description of the situation in his feature request "Scalers cleanup - ID: 2013428". At some point, the fact that screen resolution keeps growing will need to be addressed, or eventually we'll need an emulator to run our emulator!

ScummVM is no emulator

To ill to use the search function but this has been discussed before

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 pm

ScummVM trunk now has some early support for OpenGL, which eventually will allow arbitrary scaling factors (my hope is also in combination with hq2x/hq3x -- i.e. scale first using one of these, then scale the rest up with a bilinear filter). This may make it into 1.3.0, that's not yet quite clear.

There are no plans to add an hq4x scaler (which is essentially hq2x applied twice, by the way). Source code or its binary size are not the reason for that, anyway.

Firefairy · Post by **Firefairy** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:40 pm

fingolfin wrote:ScummVM trunk now has some early support for OpenGL, which eventually will allow arbitrary scaling factors (my hope is also in combination with hq2x/hq3x -- i.e. scale first using one of these, then scale the rest up with a bilinear filter). This may make it into 1.3.0, that's not yet quite clear.

There are no plans to add an hq4x scaler (which is essentially hq2x applied twice, by the way). Source code or its binary size are not the reason for that, anyway.

Thanks very much for the info! I wasn't able to find anything more recent than sometime in 2008 about scalers. I was pretty sure I was missing something, but...

For the record, I would be perfectly happy with Hq2x applied twice as the scaler for my 1280x1024 screen. Is there a reason that an HQ filter and then bilinear is preferable to using the HQ filter twice?

Laserschwert · Post by **Laserschwert** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:39 pm

fingolfin wrote:i.e. scale first using one of these, then scale the rest up with a bilinear filter

Wouldn't it be better to use a HQ filter to scale up to the next resolution that's LARGER than the screen size, and do a bilinear DOWNscale?

But I'd really vote for adding stackable filters (be it HQ or just straight pixel-doubling) as well... I'm running at 1920x1200, which would work perfectly if I could switch up to 6x scaling.

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:25 am

Laserschwert wrote:But I'd really vote for adding stackable filters (be it HQ or just straight pixel-doubling) as well... I'm running at 1920x1200, which would work perfectly if I could switch up to 6x scaling.

Seeing that the real graphics aspect most games were made for is 4:3 even a 6x scaler wouldn't bring perfect results, the graphics would still look odd.

Laserschwert · Post by **Laserschwert** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:33 pm

LordHoto wrote:
Laserschwert wrote:But I'd really vote for adding stackable filters (be it HQ or just straight pixel-doubling) as well... I'm running at 1920x1200, which would work perfectly if I could switch up to 6x scaling.
Seeing that the real graphics aspect most games were made for is 4:3 even a 6x scaler wouldn't bring perfect results, the graphics would still look odd.

Well, the Scumm-games look still quite good when played at a 16:10 ratio. At least it would be pixel perfect scaling (with probably not that much more coding, in case of just pixel doubling).

LordHoto · Post by **LordHoto** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:14 pm

Laserschwert wrote:Well, the Scumm-games look still quite good when played at a 16:10 ratio. At least it would be pixel perfect scaling (with probably not that much more coding, in case of just pixel doubling).

I am not sure about you, but for me also SCUMM games look quite squashed with 16:10 ratio.

bobdevis · Post by **bobdevis** » Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:43 am

LordHoto wrote:
Laserschwert wrote:Well, the Scumm-games look still quite good when played at a 16:10 ratio. At least it would be pixel perfect scaling (with probably not that much more coding, in case of just pixel doubling).
I am not sure about you, but for me also SCUMM games look quite squashed with 16:10 ratio.

I would agree with Laserschwert. I feel as if the 320x200 games are just begging me to disable aspect ratio correction for full-screen 16:10.

Not that it matters ofc. The OpenGL patch allows everyone to have it the way they want it.