I haven't played flashback but i've played NESticle at 256x224x8 before on real CRTs some decades back and it looked more like picture 2, probably using 320x240@60's frequencies on a Trio64. (also, unrelated and not the same mode, but the odd pixel aspect 256 mode NESticle had was 256x256 since it'd be squished with no doublescan, and that could be knobbed up for natural scanlines)

This is something I've wondered about too. This kind of thing even causes debate within console fandom about what's the "correct" way to display things, because while it can be demonstrated what aspect ratio was displayed on TVs of the time, there can be the question of what aspect ratio the art in certain games was actually created for. Did the creators of the artwork take into account that the art would be displayed with non-square pixels and would therefore be displayed stretched at 4:3 ratios, or did they create art that looked correct with square pixels but is distorted on actual hardware? Hell, I've bumped into a few games where this is even mixed up because they change res in-game but use the same assets and didn't seem to have considered the difference in aspect ratio (Primal Rage on the Mega Drive/Genesis does this, for example).

Flashback's a good example because at 4:3 ratio the Mega Drive/Genesis version looks like the top picture. The problem is that there are some parts of the art, such as that blue thing around the selected item in the top right corner and some fans in the background of the second level, that look like they should be circular but are stretched into ovals. At 1:1 pixel aspect it looks like the second picture, and the pieces of artwork that appear to depict circles are circular. Emulated I always play Mega Drive Flashback at 1:1 pixel aspect because while it's not what I actually saw when I played it back in the day, the art looks like it was created to look correct that way.

I did play the PC version on a CRT back in the day too, but I can't remember what it looked like and I suspect I would have used the monitor's controls to fit it to the screen anyway.

Silanda wrote on 2020-10-08, 13:12:

Hell, I've bumped into a few games where this is even mixed up because they change res in-game but use the same assets and didn't seem to have considered the difference in aspect ratio (Primal Rage on the Mega Drive/Genesis does this, for example).

Not to mention some games that came with both DOS and Windows versions, ran at different resolutions depending which one you used. For example a game that used 320x200 (4:3) for cutscenes under DOS would play the same video using letterboxed 320x240 (1:1) under windows.

After spending considerable time over the years looking into correct aspect ratio (I'm kind of a purist) I came to the realization the 'correct' is what feels best to me. If soldiers in Doom need to look fat so sphere upgrades (among other things) appear spherical then so be it. Easier to aim if nothing else. As Silanda mentioned, even designers had trouble maintaining consistency in own games' art. Early Wing Commanders (or was it Privateer) is a good example: in one ratio planets were spherical; in the other dashboard display instruments were. So how do you choose? Point being what CRT displays isn't necessarily definitive.

In Flashback case the correct way seems to be the bottom example, but top one feels more natural to my eyes. Maybe additional info provided by game's cutscenes would probably convince me one way or the other. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best I can offer, going off few decent YT videos I found: all used bottom pillarboxed 4:3. Maybe you could ask some retro gaming dude from YT to send you a screeny of his CRT (probably what I would do as extreme measure). If you ever do find out please post your result, mtf game is on my to-do list.

Don't rely on aspect=true to be true for everything though. The Incredible Machine/Toons games and Jazz were always letterboxed for example

The closer you can get to the original target platform, the better -- because that's likely what the artists tested on.

Late 80s and 90s game companies were like school kids trading pokemon cards in terms of re-licensing and porting successful games to new platforms. Meanwhile the original developers and artists were already working on new projects and watched some other company port their game.

I can only imagine those people stuck with porting games similarly wrestled with these nuances.. with the results being like the Game of Telephone or Chinese Whispers ("Players form a line or circle, and the first player comes up with a message and whispers it to the ear of the second person in the line. The second player repeats the message to the third player, and so on.")

leileilol wrote on 2020-10-10, 00:01:

Don't rely on aspect=true to be true for everything though. The Incredible Machine/Toons games and Jazz were always letterboxed for example

Jazz was letterboxed with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. That's the same ratio that DOSBox uses to display it when aspect=true, it just skips displaying the blank areas of the screen (the letterboxing). But if you view it fullscreen on a 4:3 monitor it will have the same vertical padding added to centre the image.
I suspect flashback is likely the same situation.

Which was the original platform Flashback was developed for? If it's one with square pixels than I guess that would mean the sprites and backgrounds were made for that.

Does Amiga have square pixels?

I remember playing Flashback on the Amiga and SNES, both looked like the 2nd picture on a CRT. Except for the cutscenes.

Like this (not my pic)

I think the whole correct aspect ratio topic varies game to game and is influenced by both artists and devs.

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-15, 01:17:

I think the whole correct aspect ratio topic varies game to game and is influenced by both artists and devs.

I completely agree! I just thought that if we solve this on a case-by-case basis, then knowing that the art was originally created for a system with square pixels (and then not altered for non-square pixels when ported to DOS) would help determine the "correct" way of presenting that game.

MrFlibble wrote on 2020-11-14, 18:29:

Which was the original platform Flashback was developed for? If it's one with square pixels than I guess that would mean the sprites and backgrounds were made for that.

Does Amiga have square pixels?

I've literally explained this in the OP. >_>

Another person has opted to test the game on their setup with a CRT and S3 Trio64 and it appears pillarboxed there, too, as seen in the attachment. Curiously, it doesn't fill up the whole screen height either (other mode 13h games appear fine). I guess the mystery is finally solved.

Silanda wrote on 2020-10-08, 13:12:

Flashback's a good example because at 4:3 ratio the Mega Drive/Genesis version looks like the top picture. The problem is that there are some parts of the art, such as that blue thing around the selected item in the top right corner and some fans in the background of the second level, that look like they should be circular but are stretched into ovals.

I hate this particular way of people trying to determine aspect ratio for two reasons:

1) Smaller art is more difficult to correct aspect ratio for. That a small sprite isn't aspect corrected, doesn't mean the game and other art isn't.

2) People assume any abstract art must be spherical or square. I mean, how do you know they art designer didn't want that to be oval?

I'm fine with the "looks better for me" crowd, but the people using weird arguments like that to argue a game was designed for an aspect ratio that was never actually used is a bit weird. On a general basis of course, when it comes to cross platform ports like Flashback then you often need to use the original release for reference since ports often tend to screw with aspect ratio.

tl,dr

- 1st screenshot

- "square pixels" or "not square pixels" that is the questions here.

- Sometimes the AR setting of dosbox work for me but the overall complexity is wayyy beyond my motivation. Not an exact science, I'm afraid.

- Most games you may assume an intended AR of 4:3 like the TV screens back then. Never mind the theoretical resolution.

- Some DOS games in 320x200 actually look better in just that AR of 16:10. E.g. "UFO" of 1994 shows earth in the geoscape as a sphere (circle) instead of an egg.

- CRTs allow you to correct it by reducing the height of the picture for a certain video mode

ZellSF wrote on 2022-04-08, 09:31:

I hate this particular way of people trying to determine aspect ratio for two reasons: […]
Show full quote

Silanda wrote on 2020-10-08, 13:12:

Flashback's a good example because at 4:3 ratio the Mega Drive/Genesis version looks like the top picture. The problem is that there are some parts of the art, such as that blue thing around the selected item in the top right corner and some fans in the background of the second level, that look like they should be circular but are stretched into ovals.

I hate this particular way of people trying to determine aspect ratio for two reasons:

1) Smaller art is more difficult to correct aspect ratio for. That a small sprite isn't aspect corrected, doesn't mean the game and other art isn't.

2) People assume any abstract art must be spherical or square. I mean, how do you know they art designer didn't want that to be oval?

I'm fine with the "looks better for me" crowd, but the people using weird arguments like that to argue a game was designed for an aspect ratio that was never actually used is a bit weird. On a general basis of course, when it comes to cross platform ports like Flashback then you often need to use the original release for reference since ports often tend to screw with aspect ratio.

Oh it's certainly an imperfect way to determine anything, and I don't think abstract shapes alone to point to anything. With Flashback though, there are multiple objects that exist in real life that look horizontally stretched in-game at 4:3 ratio (e.g. ventilation fans, stars, planets, the Sega logo, possibly the Delphine logo, etc), and I do think it provides a basis to question whether the pixel aspect ratio vs display aspect ratio was taken account of. I'll admit though that I could be completely wrong, and the appearance could be down to low resolution or an oval fetish.

I think the art looks better at 1:1 and personally I think that objects that exist in reality appearing stretched suggests intent although it's not strong evidence. Can I be certain that all of the art was designed that way though? No. Can I be certain that any of the art was designed that way? Again, no. We'll never really know unless someone asks the artists and they remember their thinking from 30 years ago (or they have original design sketches).

As for using the original version to determine things, well, there are a few wrinkles there. The original version (though not the first released) was the Mega Drive/Genesis version. Firstly, was the system's PAL or NTSC output what the game's art was designed for? The PAL system has slightly more vertical resolution, leading to letterboxing and a slightly squashed ratio as most games don't take advantage of the extra height. It would seem unlikely that the art would assume a PAL aspect ratio but the developers were in a PAL region so it's not impossible.

Then there's horizontal overscan. The Genesis/Mega Drive has side borders that were usually hidden in the overscan region present in TVs of the day. Was the art designed to take that into account though, because if the console's output is displayed at 4:3 but with those borders visible (like it is using a modern TV or perhaps an RGB monitor back in the day) then it looks near as dammit like the second picture.

Silanda wrote on 2022-04-08, 16:24:

As for using the original version to determine things, well, there are a few wrinkles there. The original version (though not the first released) was the Mega Drive/Genesis version. Firstly, was the system's PAL or NTSC output what the game's art was designed for? The PAL system has slightly more vertical resolution, leading to letterboxing and a slightly squashed ratio as most games don't take advantage of the extra height. It would seem unlikely that the art would assume a PAL aspect ratio but the developers were in a PAL region so it's not impossible.

Oddly enough, despite being developed in France, Flashback was apparently designed for NTSC consoles since it appears with borders on PAL consoles and DOS version is displayed at 256x224 and not 256x240.