| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2839 |
NTSC on 16:9 screens
On NTSC, pixels have an aspect ratio of 0.75:1 (http://codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:pixel_aspect_ratio), so square graphics and characters are taller than wide, the latter appearing rather narrow.
However, when displayed on a 16:9 screen, stretching the 4:3 image makes pixels have a ratio of 1:1.
So it seems quite natural to use an NTSC C-64 on a 16:9 screen.
But is this done by old-time NTSC users? I can imagine that they are so used to 0.75:1 (unlike PAL users) that they won't use a 16:9 screen. But then i can also imagine that games look much better with a 1:1 pixel ratio - and demos, too, when intended for 16:9 use. |
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
I bet most people are too used for the factory ratio, why would games look better, when it distorts how they were designed, and intended to be ? |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2839 |
So you say all those American games (with unchanged graphics, mind) look a lot worse on your square pixel PAL display compared to 0.75:1?
I think not, and i can also guess that many games were designed with a somehow stretched screen in mind (think those controls on 1084s et al.) - but in any case, i was hoping for some Americans to give us some facts. |
| |
alwyz
Registered: Dec 2011
Posts: 31 |
I've done this a few times in my living room playing games (Yes I'm in NYC - NTSCer). Gaming wise, nothing looks out of the ordinary playing on my living room 16:9 TV either. Text can and does usually look a little horizontally stretched, in much the same way as using an emulator in full screen mode would horizontally stretch it. I still think the look of the 1702 feels the best. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2839 |
Alright, so nothing speaks against making a demo that is supposed to viewed in 16:9, it seems. :) |
