PS3 [Attempt] Restoring XMB UI of Firmware 1.00 - 2.70 to 4.84+

Status
Not open for further replies.
Btw, at which size are you scaling them for imagefont.bin @DeViL303 ?
I still have a bunch of images from experiments i made with photoshop, i have "cleaned up" versions of them, just as a test... in this ones i made all this steps in both:
1) cleanup (keeping only white pixels)
2) fill background with color #808080
3) added layer effects, "drop shadow", color #000000, angle 135, distance 3, size 5, opacity 100%

tex_busy217 (left)
tex_busy251 (right)
0Uz2XMl.jpg
HCawWlp.jpg


If you tell me the size you are using for this imagefont.bin icons i can prepare the images for you (trying to achieve the highest quality posible, and generating that shadows well aligned)
 
I used the one from 2.50 OFW, so I guess I got lucky and picked the good one that is not inverted. :)

Both of the images are 32x960

I think they probably used a large shadow here on purpose to highlight the animation on any background color. The water drop could be hard to see otherwise.
 
DeViL303 said:
I used the one from 2.50 OFW, so I guess I got lucky and picked the good one that is not inverted. :)

Both of the images are 32x960
Click to expand...
If both images from 2.50 have size 32x960 then it seems are the "modern" version (same than 2.51) where the shadows are inverted
In the original version tex_busy was 29x750
Code: 
-system_plugin217.rco        MD5:8C320A8899E386C6743EFDD5C8EA2A71
-tex_busy217.gim             MD5:AC292D7AF3BA478A87400AC40FDA7574 (29x750 pixels -ps3rgba8888)
-tex_busy_shadow217.gim      MD5:862F858E85BEA609FF8E9C78EE73101A (32x960 pixels -ps3rgba8888)


-system_plugin251.rco        MD5:DDA512B03746913572121F8C5757B561
-tex_busy251.gim             MD5:AC24824CF4BD2DB82AE2FE512802968A (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)
-tex_busy_shadow251.gim      MD5:3D45ED809E9A81774D3CF5B3481105ED (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)
DeViL303 said:
I think they probably used a large shadow here on purpose to highlight the animation on any background color. The water drop could be hard to see otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think was looking fine in the old versions of the XMB that was black, but later they was looking bad because there are too many black pixels
 
sandungas said:
If both images from 2.50 have size 32x960 then it seems are the "modern" version (same than 2.51) where the shadows are inverted
In the original version tex_busy was 29x750
Click to expand...
But they are not inverted and both are 32x960, so I guess this must be a 3rd version.

Here are the 2.50 tex_busy and tex_busy_shadow GIMs and PNGs attached

upload_2021-4-1_16-23-46.png

upload_2021-4-1_16-23-34.png
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
The images from 2.50 and 2.51 are identical
Code: 
-system_plugin217.rco        MD5:8C320A8899E386C6743EFDD5C8EA2A71
-tex_busy217.gim             MD5:AC292D7AF3BA478A87400AC40FDA7574 (29x750 pixels -ps3rgba8888)
-tex_busy_shadow217.gim      MD5:862F858E85BEA609FF8E9C78EE73101A (32x960 pixels -ps3rgba8888)

-system_plugin251.rco        MD5:DDA512B03746913572121F8C5757B561
-tex_busy251.gim             MD5:AC24824CF4BD2DB82AE2FE512802968A (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)
-tex_busy_shadow251.gim      MD5:3D45ED809E9A81774D3CF5B3481105ED (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)

-tex_busy250.gim             MD5:AC24824CF4BD2DB82AE2FE512802968A (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)
-tex_busy_shadow250.gim      MD5:3D45ED809E9A81774D3CF5B3481105ED (32x960 pixels -ps3dxt5)
 
Well they are not inverted?

upload_2021-4-1_16-45-9.png


I'm happy with the one I used anyway, If someone else wants to make a different imagefont.bin with a different source image the tool is available to everyone.
 
Last edited:
sandungas said:
At some point they decided to "invert" the order of the frames in the waterdrop animation, but they forgot to "invert" his shadows, the result is the shadows only matches at 2 points of the sequence (at the center and at the extremes)
Click to expand...
sandungas said:
The "inversion" of the frames order in between firmware 2.17 and 2.51 can be seen a lot better in this comparison, this is "composite" test i made...
Click to expand...
JmGnt3M.jpg

The image at top is from 2.17 (and others, im not sure how many other firmwares used it)
The image at bottom is from 2.50 and 2.51 (and others, im not sure how many other firmwares used it)

It can be seen how the order of the frames are inverted, if you watch this animations in movement you are going to realize what sony did was to change the direction of the waves
In one of them (as far i remember, the original) the waves moves to "outside" direction, this is the effect everybody is used that happens in real world if we throw a stone to the surface of a lake... there are waves in the water surface that moves to "outside" direction
In the other the waves moves in inverted direction (from outside to inside)

The problem is they never inverted the shadows.. the image with the shadows is exactly the same since the first time sony added this animation to the PS3 firmware
 
I cant explain it in different ways, i did my best to try to explain it in posts #330 and #309
if there is some doubts, misunderstanding or disagreements with what i wrote in that posts please refer to them and dont ignore them

Think in it this way... the main image contains a sequence of frames where the most important are the white pixels (tex_busy)... and another image with a sequence of his shadows (tex_busy_shadow)

If we invert the order of the sequence of the images with the white pixels... then we are supposed to invert the sequence of his shadows too, right ?
But the shadows image is the same in all them... so is imposible for the shadows to be correct in all them
 
Last edited:
over lay the main image onto the shadow image and you will see they line up perfectly.

I'm not ignoring your points, but I know the image is perfect so what you are saying makes no sense.

upload_2021-4-1_17-38-49.png


sandungas said:
I cant explain it in different ways, i did my best to try to explain it in posts #330 and #309
if there is some doubts, misunderstanding or disagreements with what i wrote in that posts please refer to them and dont ignore them

Think in it this way... the main image contains a sequence of frames where the most important are the white pixels (tex_busy)... and another image with a sequence of his shadows (tex_busy_shadow)

If we invert the order of the sequence of the images with the white pixels... then we are supposed to invert the sequence of his shadows too, right ?
But the shadows image is the same in all them... so is imposible for the shadows to be correct in all them
Click to expand...
You need to overlay the images, and then show me where its wrong and is not lining up. You will see that there is no issue, after you said this I tried every possible combination of inversion, flipping it vertically, rotating it 180 degrees, over laying image 1 onto image 30 etc etc.

There is no inversion in my image.

It's very easy to see by looking at them side by side that they are an exact match.

upload_2021-4-1_18-24-18.png


I will just assume this a brain glitch or an April fools joke that you can not see they are perfect matches. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DeViL303 said:
It must be but not very funny for me, I spent about 2 hours making animations with the order inverted in different ways last night only to realize afterwards that the original was perfect as I originally thought :D
Click to expand...

I agree with you... it looked perfect for me since your post #288... I don't understand all this discussion for something that is not wrong.
 
The differences are subtle when you invert the order of the shadows, overall they matches because are the same circles spinning around
What you dont seem to understand is sony made a mistake because they was using the same shadows in 2.17 (where the waves made by white pixels moves in one direction) and 2.50 and 2.51 (where the waves made with white pixels moves in the opposite direction)
So the question is which one is wrong... if you consider the modern version is right (firmware 2.50, 2.51, etc...) then the old version is wrong
And the other way around... if you consider the old version was right (firmwares 2.17, etc...) then the modern version is wrong
There is no way around, one of them is wrong

I never made this comparison in photoshop reordering the shadows but i made it today for the sake of it
Both "shadows styles" was used officially by sony, it doesnt surprises me you cant notice the difference because sony didnt noticed it either... but this doesnt changes the fact that is one of them is wrong

Left or right ?, i will let you figure which one is each

At 1x shadow intensity
sIOOWyw.png

At 3x shadow intensity
iXp6Jpw.png


----------------------
Anyway, im not trying to convince you to rebuild that images, do whatever you want
 
They are not subtle, there are very distinctive differences that makes it very obvious that the images are correct, if you stopped making your own images and looked at mine for a minute you would see that. :)

upload_2021-4-1_20-11-54.png


Maybe the image in 2.17 is wrong, but I have not done any work with that so I don't really care tbh.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top