My incorrect aspect ratio tolerance is limited to playing 320x200 and 640x480 games on a 5:4 LCD monitor with a native 1280x1024 resolution. The image scales correctly on the horizontal axis and there's some minor stretching on the vertical axis which doesn't bother me.

But no, I couldn't play games meant for 4:3 displays if they are stretched to fill a widescreen monitor. That just looks wrong to me. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

There was that time around the turn of the millenium when I enjoyed 1280x1024 at 4:3 I suppose 😀

leileilol wrote on 2020-11-05, 16:52:

There was that time around the turn of the millenium when I enjoyed 1280x1024 at 4:3 I suppose 😀

Reverse squash? 😁

sorry couldn't resist... 🤣

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2020-11-05, 13:01:

My incorrect aspect ratio tolerance is limited to playing 320x200 and 640x480 games on a 5:4 LCD monitor with a native 1280x1024 resolution.

^this

I played a lot of 4:3 resolutions at 5:4 and later some 16:9 games on a 16:10 monitor, such slight differences aren't that bad, but 4:3 stretched to 16:9/16:10 i.e. square pixels on 320x200/640x400 just looks way off.

Hey man, play whatever way you want. They are games after all.

On a more serious note, I hate you and everything that you stand for.

I knew humanity was doomed in 2007 when it seemed like every window I passed revealed a new HDTV playing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9. Retro pain 😜

The UHD -era equivalent must be motion smoothing. My parents didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with films on their gigantic new TV looking like a shot-on-video behind the scenes extra.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-11-05, 17:42:

Hey man, play whatever way you want. They are games after all.

On a more serious note, I hate you and everything that you stand for.

Erm.... kinda serious, what gives?

Cyberdyne wrote on 2020-11-05, 18:08:

mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-11-05, 17:42:

Hey man, play whatever way you want. They are games after all.

On a more serious note, I hate you and everything that you stand for.

Erm.... kinda serious, what gives?

Sorry, there might be a bit of a culture difference. That was a joke.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-11-05, 20:11:

Sorry, there might be a bit of a culture difference. That was a joke.

I laughed!

To say something on topic, I can do some aspect ratio deviation when it's too eliminate very small black bars or when it's to do proper integer scale factors on a low resolution display.

Big Pink wrote on 2020-11-05, 17:55:

I knew humanity was doomed in 2007 when it seemed like every window I passed revealed a new HDTV playing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9. Retro pain 😜

The UHD -era equivalent must be motion smoothing. My parents didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with films on their gigantic new TV looking like a shot-on-video behind the scenes extra.

Looking like a technically superior product (a high framerate video) isn't wrong.

High framerate = bad is just the same dumb nostalgia that people have for listening to music on cassettes, vinyls and 128 CBR MP3s. There's nothing good about the choppy mess that 24 FPS films are. It was originally a measure to save money.

The artifacts that are introduced in trying to convert existing material to a higher technical standard is the (unsolvable) problem.

I don't really notice 4:3 vs 5:4. I might if comparing side by side but its been many years since I've had a 4:3 screen.
Now I'm working from home I've sadly replaced those 17" 5:4 for somewhat more modern 20" widescreen's

Some games like Doom I cant handle, others like Warcraft 1 are ok, for 640x480 and above I'm running the correct ratio, black bars don't bother me.

TV my tolerance is much less, especially the early days of the changeover and shows were broadcast at the incorrect ratio, So even my old CRT TV was showing stretched images!
This still happens, Was flicking though the channels last week and watched 10 minutes of the the original Charmed, was kind of funny seeing sexy Hollywood type's with a bit more weight then the industry would ever cast.

I used to stretch all DOS graphics to max on my 37" LCD TV those days, for want to play everything "FULL"screen. Also was playing stretched full screen on my laptops and desktops.
Until I realized everything's stretched too much and after comparing with 4:3 mode (selectable on TV), which is more familiar with my older CRT monitor experiences.
After that, I started reverting back to 4:3 mode in everything I use - laptops, desktops and LCD/LED TVs. It just looks more "natural" at 4:3 and I don't mind the black borders on either side. The aspect ratio is correct and the images are not distorted and that are all that matters.

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-08, 11:54:

To say something on topic, I can do some aspect ratio deviation when it's too eliminate very small black bars or when it's to do […]
Show full quote

To say something on topic, I can do some aspect ratio deviation when it's too eliminate very small black bars or when it's to do proper integer scale factors on a low resolution display.

Big Pink wrote on 2020-11-05, 17:55:

I knew humanity was doomed in 2007 when it seemed like every window I passed revealed a new HDTV playing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9. Retro pain 😜

The UHD -era equivalent must be motion smoothing. My parents didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with films on their gigantic new TV looking like a shot-on-video behind the scenes extra.

Looking like a technically superior product (a high framerate video) isn't wrong.

High framerate = bad is just the same dumb nostalgia that people have for listening to music on cassettes, vinyls and 128 CBR MP3s. There's nothing good about the choppy mess that 24 FPS films are. It was originally a measure to save money.

The artifacts that are introduced in trying to convert existing material to a higher technical standard is the (unsolvable) problem.

Even worse, there was a time when historic videos from 18xx-1950s were sped up to get rid of flicker on 50/60Hz TVs.
That's why some old documentary films on CRT TV used to show people hushing through the streets. Thanks to modern technology, these old celluloid film reels can be restored/rescanned and adapted to modern standards. Either AI assisted by using intermediate frames or by using adaptive screens. Or just by filming off a TFT, screen. 😉

Edit: I'm guilty for playing 5:4 SNES games in 4:3.
To my defense, I use the zoom option on modern TVs to play old games or videos (CD-i, VHS) if possible. If not, I choose blackbars.

Cyberdyne wrote on 2020-11-05, 12:51:

My eyes just adjust o those "fat" characters. It is more better than those black bars.

I know one person in another forum with exactly the same views. Once he showed off some scrreenshots of playing Shadow Warrior that way (IIRC in 320x200 mode stretched to whatever native 16:10 resolution his display was), with the same explanation that it's better than playing in pillarboxed mode (this was before VoidSW came out).

Personally I fail to understand the logic. If you play on a widescreen display in pillarboxed mode, there's empty screen area on the sides where there would be, well, nothing (real world outside the screen borders 😀) if you played on a real 4:3 display. I can't imagine why black parts of a screen would make someone uncomfortable. I think it's better for the eyes than playing in windowed mode (e.g. DOSBox window rendering a 640x480 image) with your desktop in the background, especially if you play for a long time.

Point is, I appreciate more active screenspace than correct aspect ratio, it just does not bother me, my brain adjusts or something. but my brain just sees those black(dark gray if you do not have a super duper expensive screen) and asks itself why all the time. Maybe it is some sort of OCD.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-11-10, 02:45:

Edit: I'm guilty for playing 5:4 SNES games in 4:3.

SNES games are 4:3. That's the correct way to play them.

Do you mean you're playing SNES games at 5:4?

Cyberdyne wrote on 2020-11-10, 13:55:

Point is, I appreciate more active screenspace than correct aspect ratio, it just does not bother me, my brain adjusts or something. but my brain just sees those black(dark gray if you do not have a super duper expensive screen) and asks itself why all the time. Maybe it is some sort of OCD.

I am also more bothered by black bars than by sprite stretching.
While at retro-PC gaming, I do it on a 5:4 monitor, so neither black bars nor noticeable sprite stretching (at least to my limited brain).

When it comes to emulation, I´ve become an overlay devotee (Retroarch). No sprite stretching, no more black unused areas.

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-13, 14:03:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-11-10, 02:45:

Edit: I'm guilty for playing 5:4 SNES games in 4:3.

SNES games are 4:3. That's the correct way to play them.

Do you mean you're playing SNES games at 5:4?

Hi! Yes, in practice it is (was).
However, some emulator users insist on a pixel-perfect experience..
- Internally, old consoles often used screen resolutions with another aspect ratio (5:4 or 8:7).
Of course, the picture always was 4:3 on a CRT TV.
To make things worse, mediocre PAL support complicated the matter.

https://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php? … ect-ratio/page2

(Ideally, PAL would be 768x576 pels but in practice, 720x576 or 720x480 were used at best (by newer consoles, not the old ones, of course)).

Edit: Fixed.

Source: https://videogameperfection.com/forums/topic/ … ction-for-snes/