What's the 16:10 equivalent of 480:272?

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Fri May 30, 2008 8:34 pm

I was making a homebrew for the PSP when I decided to scrap that and work on the prototype I had made with Gamemaker instead. This means that I'm now stuck with a resolution of 480:272. This looks fine enough on widescreen monitors and I have implemented an option to stretch the play area to fullscreen if your monitor is something else than 16:9. On a monitor with an aspect ratio of 4:3 the black borders on top and bottom get a little to big though and fully stretched the game is just a little too stretched. What I'd like to do is offer an option to choose a 16:10 ratio so that the borders get smaller without excessive stretching. Now, since I'm to lazy (or to dumb) to work out what resolution a 16:10 version of 480:272 gives, I thought I'd ask here. Any takers?

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:02 pm

It's reasonably close to 480x302

Even 480x272 isn't exactly 16:9

What the hell is 16:10 used for though??? There are monitors with this aspect?

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:06 pm

indstr wrote:What the hell is 16:10 used for though??? There are monitors with this aspect?

Yes, 16:9 would be a strange ratio for laptops - too wide. So 16:10 is used as a compromise ratio.

1920x1200 is increasingly common (my laptop uses this).

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:39 pm

I'd like a monitor with a 1:1 ratio, please. The first person who can make me this, I will deliver you $100

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:57 pm

indstr wrote:I'd like a monitor with a 1:1 ratio, please. The first person who can make me this, I will deliver you $100 :D

I'll send you my Game Boy Color ASAP. I have blacked out a few lines of the width with a sharpie.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:29 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:1920x1200 is increasingly common (my laptop uses this).

So what laptop is that ?
A link would be marvelous !

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Sat May 31, 2008 2:52 am

Ed Oscuro wrote:
indstr wrote:I'd like a monitor with a 1:1 ratio, please. The first person who can make me this, I will deliver you $100
I'll send you my Game Boy Color ASAP. I have blacked out a few lines of the width with a sharpie.

FUCK

OK, now that I'm out $100,

I will give $100 more to the next person who delivers me a 21" high x21 wide monitor

Wonder what the diagonal on that would be, now I'm too lazy to calc

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 am

real answer: 320x200

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 3:55 am

indstr wrote:I'd like a monitor with a 1:1 ratio, please.

5:4 is close enough, rite? Because 1280x960 would have been too cool, we get 1280x1024.

Also, I want a flat 56.5" tube. 32" x 32". Coulda been done. Woulda weighed >400 lbs. Want it anyway. Gameboy player makes GameCube an actual cube; it's kismet.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:12 am

Yes because your total peripheral vision is 1:1

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:15 am

yes because I sit 2 ft. from a 40XBR800

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:17 am

Unless you're adamant about not rotating the monitor or sitting closer to play shmups there is little point in a theoretical 1:1 monitor

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:19 am

CHO REN SHA BITCH

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:21 am

cho ren sha renders in 640x480 hope u liek black bars in all sides

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:23 am

Hope I know how to use the sizing controls that would be included on a 1:1 TV

Hope I know how to use one of those X68000 emulators coded in moon language

Protip: YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:03 am

Yeah the x68000 totally uses a 1:1 monitor and manufacturers trust consumers to not totally destroy the display with readily-available full-function resizing settings

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:09 am

The emulator does the cropping, the hand does the talking

I honestly am amazed you dismiss this idea so casually. I have a tate 32", but my 304 lb. monster isn't going there

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:11 am

Yay anamorphic mode viewing horrible nearest-neighbor stretched and contracted 320x240 on a 1:1 display

I am very excited

in before ultimarc which rarely works as intended on anything but dedicated rgb multisync monitors

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:14 am

Twiddle wrote:Yes because your total peripheral vision is 1:1

It's certainly not 3:4, tate lovers. Why would 1:1 be any worse?

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:14 am

trivial wrote:I honestly am amazed you dismiss this idea so casually. I have a tate 32", but my 304 lb. monster isn't going there

true low res

indstr wrote:
Twiddle wrote:Yes because your total peripheral vision is 1:1
It's certainly not 3:4, tate lovers. Why would 1:1 be any worse?

Would eliminate black bars and an aspect ratio problem on a total of one known system: a gameboy to TV output system

plus 1:1 does not increase the viewing size of not cho ren sha games compared to a rotated 4:3 monitor

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:15 am

I was talking about the outer limits of what could be done in leaded glass. I still call you friend, friend.

-Dale Chihuly

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:19 am

You're not my friend, guy

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:36 am

Twiddle wrote: Would eliminate black bars and an aspect ratio problem on a total of one known system: a gameboy to TV output system

I'm not concerned with systems though, I'm talking about using it for windows, bayyybee!!

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:56 am

indstr wrote:It's reasonably close to 480x302

Even 480x272 isn't exactly 16:9

Thank you.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:03 am

you'd want to use 480x304 or 480x288 if you're using something that requires 16 pixel multiples

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:32 am

indstr wrote:I'm not concerned with systems though, I'm talking about using it for windows, bayyybee!!

My point too. Even when its a freeware shmup on a freeware emu proggie, the anti-emulation bias raises its head here. Not pretty. I own shmups that I emulate, in DOS, because I like 120Hz.

Doujin windows shmups have fewer video options by far. MESS has all the options MAME has, basically everything you could ask for. And videocards can make custom rezzes right in their config dialog now. Now if now were years ago.

twiddle has my gut all a-twitter, I don't like being taken this seriously. Square aspect is not in danger of adoption.

edit: So I don't get quizzed about DOS: it reduces sound lag and it's over 60/70Hz if you know how to make it be. NVidia register tweak (not "registry"). Frames displayed twice. Scaling and filtering disabled.

worstplayer · Post by **worstplayer** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:04 am

trivial wrote: edit: So I don't get quizzed about DOS: it reduces sound lag

I know this is a bit off topic but i always wanted to ask this.
Why doesn't any Windows game support lag-less ASIO sound drivers?
Almost all music programs do,so why not games? Is there something that prevents their use in games?

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:37 am

I'm not a programmer, but this is how I understand it: for emulators, very specifically, it's sort of like a threading issue. ASIO wouldn't help all that much, unfortunately.

Realtime audio effects constitute predictable work on an easily-cached stream, but maintaining the states of a set of simulated chips doesn't. I'm not explaining well because I know just enough to be in awe of the folks that got emulation started in the days of 100MHz CPU's. Stuff like Sparcade and Nesticle, then a little later JROK's single-game emus, and some 100% assembly Atari 2600 emulator whose name I've forgotten. It wasn't
STELLA!

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:27 am

320x240 wrote:Any takers?

To adjust a resolution to a certain aspect ratio:

1. Take the second number (272) and multiply by aspect ratio factor (16:10=1.6); use it instead of the first number (480). The result is 435:272.
2. Take the first number (480) and divide it by the aspect ratio factor; use it instead of the second number. The result is 480:300.

It depends on what would you like to preserve: number of lines (#1) or horizontal resolution (#2). For DVD rips, option #2 is used somewhat more frequently to reduce the upscaling artifacts or make the files playable on low-res screens (PDAs, etc.).

Also, there is a TON of 16:10 displays, as they are used predominantly in widescreen laptops. Resolutions as common as 1280x800, 1440x900, and 1680x1050 are all 16:10, fyi.

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Sat May 31, 2008 3:13 pm

moozooh wrote:Also, there is a TON of 16:10 displays, as they are used predominantly in widescreen laptops. Resolutions as common as 1280x800, 1440x900, and 1680x1050 are all 16:10, fyi.

Yeah, I know. I'm actually developing the game on two different laptops , both of which have the 16:10 aspect ratio. Luckily the game looks okay in both stretched and normal mode on a monitor with that aspect - it's just that I don't want to alienate those that are stuck with a 4:3. Of course, when I release a demo later this summer people will be asking for a TATE option

I've already got the scanlines down though

shmups.system11.org

What's the 16:10 equivalent of 480:272?

What's the 16:10 equivalent of 480:272?

Re: What's the 16:10 equivalent of 480:272?

Re: What's the 16:10 equivalent of 480:272?