What type of graphic filter you prefer ?

[Amiga]

Personally I really like SABR-XCOMified. Just wondering what type of filter you guys prefer....

[Meridian]

Only original (no filter)... everything else is heresy

[Solarius Scorch]

Only original (no filter)... everything else is heresy

A very blurry heresy

[The Reaver of Darkness]

How I feel when I see those filters:

[Amiga]

How I feel when I see those filters:

On my machine sabre is more sharp than original (no filter) .
I've played UFO on every platform starting in 95 on A600. I don't mind to use filters to enchance graphic

[KZad Bhat]

The problem with a lot of those filters for me is how they mess up text. On this machine I can't do much with filters on here, but with emulators for older consoles I've used them, and prefer the less drastic ones, because so many of the higher level ones make low-res text unreadable. I would like a filter that can make things look a bit sharper and clearer without distorting the text so much.

[The Reaver of Darkness]

I get the point of wanting the filter. The pixels are distracting at first. They reveal how little visual information is present. Your eye thinks it should be an easy task enhancing the resolution in order to gain new information. But the information simply isn't present. To the untrained eye, smoothing the edges may make the image appear sharper, but in reality it cannot gain any detail and in fact loses some.

The biggest reason I dislike the visual filter is that it prevents me from examining or manipulating the image at the pixel level. I don't always just see the image in situ, often it takes on a greater importance to me. Seeing the filter just shows me how many possibilities aren't there that could have been. Also, I'm just so used to seeing pixels that they don't phase me at all, and I see right past them to the image. So the minor loss in detail is noticeable to me. The image actually looks less detailed with the filter.

[KZad Bhat]

Maybe one day someone will redo all the graphics at higher resolutions, but I do understand that will be at least as difficult and time consuming as making them originally . . . and the original developers had nothing else to do at the time but the graphics for UFO Defense. And they got paid for it. So, not really expected high res textures made any time soon.

As far as filters reducing detail, I'm sure a filter can be designed that can make things appears sharper when you have a high resolution set without messing with detail. Something like HQX, but significantly less aggressive. Until that happens, though, I'm sticking with vanilla.

[Bloax]

Most of the shit I do tends to be far too complicated for even the best of these filters to scale up;

resulting in some pretty nasty deformation instead of the intended look

So obviously I've learned to love the big squares despite being a big fan of said filters some six years ago.

[wolfreal]

I use HQX.... but now I will try again using original openxcom... I´m feeling as an heretic now 

[KZad Bhat]

Actually looks to me like that image came out pretty decent with the filter, but I've seen enough to know how often you don't get results that good. As I said before, especially with text.

I would like to add about games made in the last 20 years using at least bilinear filtering, and most of those looking horrible without it, while applying it to unedited older games can look horrible with it . . . this is because those designed to played without it had textures designed with that in mind, so filters get unpredictable. From about '98/'99, when more were made with 3D acceleration in mind, and use of bilinear filtering, those textures were drawn with the filter as a major consideration, and had to be tested with them extensively. High end filters are likely to never really look good without a full graphics overhaul, and designing for a filter in mind makes the work even more extensive than before . . . so I understand why it's never been done yet.

[RockDoctor]

I won't vote because I don't know what the question means.
Does anyone care to link to a relevant explanation, because I suspect that Google would deliver billions of irrelevant results.

[KZad Bhat]

If you look in the video setting for OpenXCom, on the right is a setting for filters. These apply post processing effects to the screen, and they are pretty resource intensive compared to running with no filter.

[RockDoctor]

If you look in the video setting for OpenXCom, on the right is a setting for filters. These apply post processing effects to the screen, and they are pretty resource intensive compared to running with no filter.

"Disabled", "Scale", "HQX", "CRT-interlaced*", .... I'm not even sure if I have GL-accelerated hardware - it's not a factor I consider at all when buying machines. I'll try several, but the list is long.
"Scale" and "HQX", "Curvature", "HQ2x", "OpenXcom*", "Pixellate*", "Quillez*", "Row*", "SABR-XCOMified*", "SABR*", " scale4xHQ*", " have no visible effect on my system.
"CRT interlaced*", CRT-simple*" and "CRT*" introduces a curve, and lines reminiscent of an early 1980s glass teletype. Even I had a flatter, squarer tube when I first brought a PC (which was pushing 7 years old when the original game was released. Clearly a modification for the sadomasochist fraternity.
"Phosphor-simple*" has a slight effect on colour balance, as if your blue gun were under-current.
"dot_n_bloom*" just makes things dim.
"heavybloom*"makes it look as if your guns are flat-out misaligned.
"simplebloom*" is between the last two.

From the "*" modes working, I infer that I do have the appropriate hardware acceleration. SHRUG, but I'll file that information somewhere on the grounds that it might be useful somehow.

Ah, there's a setting for "grab mouse", which I had been wondering about.

OK, what were the poll questions? I don't see any reason I'd use any of these tweaks.

[RockDoctor]

I voted "other", because "disabled" isn't considered an option.