Widescreen in past gaming generations

[Ganelon]

As I was replaying some Wii/GCN/PS2 games on an HDTV while setting the display to 16:9, I noticed something puzzling about the pictures each time I played. I had played many in 4:3 on an SDTV before and the 16:9 I was seeing now didn't look quite right. When I switched back to 4:3 display, I realized the issue: the 16:9 picture I saw was "fake widescreen." Here are some examples of what I saw games doing in an attempt to ouput widescreen on a 16:9 TV.

1. Designed for 4:3 on a system that can't output a 16:9 signal being compressed into a 4:3 image with bars on the side (e.g. Castlevania The Adventure ReBirth) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to keep the intended 4:3 aspect ratio by giving you some black bars on the sides. Unfortunately, since the system can't actually output 16:9, those bars are taking up part of the 4:3 picture that the Wii is transmitting before your TV stretches the picture to widescreen. Since 4:3 takes up 3/4 of 16:9's picture (12:9), you're basically losing 25% of the quality for the picture itself. Naturally, the resulting 4:3 picture looks awful.

2. Designed for 4:3 on a system that can output a 16:9 signal being displayed as a 4:3 image with bars on the side (e.g. Mega Man 9 for PS3 & 360) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to keep the intended 4:3 aspect ratio by giving you some black bars on the sides. Thankfully, the system is more than powerful enough to display a true 16:9 picture so it leaves the 4:3 picture in the middle and places bars on the side. You get the pure aspect ratio and the complete picture. This is the ideal handling of a 4:3 picture in widescreen.

3. Designed for 4:3 and output to a 4:3 signal (e.g. most games for Wii/GCN/PS2) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since your TV is receiving a 4:3 signal, it'll have to determine what to do with it (oftentimes depending on your TV settings). Some may stretch the image to fill the full 16:9 screen, which makes everything too wide. Some may leave it as is and add bars to the sides, which is great.

4. Designed for 4:3 and stretched to a 16:9 output (e.g. many PS3/360 ports) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to simply stretch the 4:3 picture into the 16:9 viewing area while ignoring the intended 4:3 aspect ratio. Everything looks too wide, turning circles into ovals, which makes this approach inaccurate.

5. Designed for 4:3 and cut to a 16:9 output (e.g. Final Fantasy XII) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to cut the 4:3 picture in order to fit the 16:9 screen. This means that the top and bottom will be missing while other on-screen identifiers may be shifted around. Since you lose 25% of the picture from the top and bottom (taking 16:9 out of 16:12), this widescreen approach is almost a punishment.

6. Designed for 16:9 on a system that can't output a 16:9 signal (e.g. most first-party Wii games) - These games are supposed to be 16:9 so you get to see the full picture without any cropped sides or other techniques to fit the picture into 4:3. You get to see more of the playfield on the sides. However, since the system doesn't support 16:9, quality can't be ideal since the 16:9 data has to fit within a 4:3 signal. Not perfect, but true widescreen nevertheless.

7. Designed for 16:9 on a system that can output a 16:9 signal (e.g. most modern PS3/360 games) - These games are supposed to be 16:9 so you get to see the full picture without any cropped sides or other techniques to fit the picture into 4:3. You get to see more of the playfield on the sides. True widescreen, no loss. Perfect.

So assuming my analysis is accurate, there's not much info on the internet about what specific type of widescreen a game supports. So I was curious what games on platforms other than PS3/360 offer true widescreen? I hear Primal on PS2 is one.

[Ed Oscuro]

As I was replaying some Wii/GCN/PS2 games on an HDTV while setting the display to 16:9, I noticed something puzzling about the pictures each time I played. I had played many in 4:3 on an SDTV before and the 16:9 I was seeing now didn't look quite right. When I switched back to 4:3 display, I realized the issue: the 16:9 picture I saw was "fake widescreen." Here are some examples of what I saw games doing in an attempt to ouput widescreen on a 16:9 TV.

1. Designed for 4:3 on a system that can't output a 16:9 signal being compressed into a 4:3 image with bars on the side (e.g. Castlevania The Adventure ReBirth) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to keep the intended 4:3 aspect ratio by giving you some black bars on the sides. Unfortunately, since the system can't actually output 16:9, those bars are taking up part of the 4:3 picture that the Wii is transmitting before your TV stretches the picture to widescreen. Since 4:3 takes up 3/4 of 16:9's picture (12:9), you're basically losing 25% of the quality for the picture itself. Naturally, the resulting 4:3 picture looks awful.

Not sure I can follow you exactly here. Are the black bars no longer present when the set stretches the image? Obvious answer...use the TV's 4:3 content setting instead.

3. Designed for 4:3 and output to a 4:3 signal (e.g. most games for Wii/GCN/PS2) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since your TV is receiving a 4:3 signal, it'll have to determine what to do with it (oftentimes depending on your TV settings). Some may stretch the image to fill the full 16:9 screen, which makes everything too wide. Some may leave it as is and add bars to the sides, which is great.

I'd return any set that can't center 4:3 content as defective in design. I've often wondered whether the screen settings on my own widescreen monitor add any lag - doesn't seem like it, so I'm not worried enough to try a test.

5. Designed for 4:3 and cut to a 16:9 output (e.g. Final Fantasy XII) - These games are supposed to be 4:3 but since you selected 16:9, the developers decided to cut the 4:3 picture in order to fit the 16:9 screen. This means that the top and bottom will be missing while other on-screen identifiers may be shifted around. Since you lose 25% of the picture from the top and bottom (taking 16:9 out of 16:12), this widescreen approach is almost a punishment.

Pretty close to what is known as vert-, or "the damn Bioshock approach." You mean that resolution is lost, correct?

6. Designed for 16:9 on a system that can't output a 16:9 signal (e.g. most first-party Wii games) - These games are supposed to be 16:9 so you get to see the full picture without any cropped sides or other techniques to fit the picture into 4:3. You get to see more of the playfield on the sides. However, since the system doesn't support 16:9, quality can't be ideal since the 16:9 data has to fit within a 4:3 signal. Not perfect, but true widescreen nevertheless.

I remember right, the 16:9 image gets squashed into 4:3 when you play on a 4:3 set - apparently the widescreens treated each scanline the same (in widescreen mode at least) as a regular-ratio NTSC image, carrying each from one end of the screen to another.

7. Designed for 16:9 on a system that can output a 16:9 signal (e.g. most modern PS3/360 games) - These games are supposed to be 16:9 so you get to see the full picture without any cropped sides or other techniques to fit the picture into 4:3. You get to see more of the playfield on the sides. True widescreen, no loss. Perfect.

The Bioshock problem still reigns, except of course that you aren't losing resolution. It's also worth mentioning that some "true widescreen" games on systems with true native widescreen (tm) apparently have black bars on the edges of varying widths - a possible explanation I saw is that up until recently, many developers could assume that a bit of the sides of the screen would be lost to overscan and so opted to gain back a bit of performance by not rendering into that space.

So assuming my analysis is accurate, there's not much info on the internet about what specific type of widescreen a game supports. So I was curious what games on platforms other than PS3/360 offer true widescreen? I hear Primal on PS2 is one.

Can't say I have an answer for you. Well, there's Widescreengamingforum . com but they are assuming that each kind of game is actually "true widescreen," and then look at how the widescreen output compares with 4:3 output (mainly in terms of field of view, an issue affecting FPSes most). So that's similar to what you're asking for, but not exactly close. Another setback: WSGFwiki and the site are oriented towards PC gaming.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Sega's F355 Challenge running on the DC platform has built-in support for both 4:3 and 16:9 screen aspect ratios via S-Video input method (using an old-school CRT-based TV monitor, of course). Black bars at the top and bottom of the screen will be present indeed if used on a 4:3 type of TV monitor with 16:9 screen option turned on -- this is what I used with a Sony 27" Vega CRT TV monitor setup back in the day. Playing the three screen endowed deal of Sega's F355 deluxe arcade racing cabinet is even better.

Even Namco's Ridge Racer Type 4 on the PSX has an option to select either 4:3 or 16:9 modes as well. It looks awesome in 16:9 mode on a true widescreen CRT-based TV monitor indeed even though it's running at 30fps. Same can be said with Polyphony Digital's first Gran Turismo game with support for both 4:3 & 16:9 mode (even in High Spec Mode running at 480i at 60fps).

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[E. Randy Dupre]

Would this explain some weirdness that I have when trying to run supposedly 16:9 games from previous generations on my set? I get borders at the sides on most PS2 and a lot of Wii games, which means that I'm not getting true 16:9, but something closer to, I suppose, 16:10. It also occurs in a lot of 4:3 titles on those machines, oddly enough, effectively rendering the image as 1:1 (a bit like a lot of SNES and PC Engine titles).

I'd assumed that this was a fault with my screen until I got the Wii, when my opinion changed due to certain titles - Super Mario Galaxy 2 being the most recent example - filling the screen entirely.

PS3 and 360 games display perfectly, too.

[Zeron]

I never understood why so few PS2 games have support for 16:9 fine I can únderstand the early games but for releases in 2005 and up there is no excuse not to have it.

[linko9]

Would this explain some weirdness that I have when trying to run supposedly 16:9 games from previous generations on my set? I get borders at the sides on most PS2 and a lot of Wii games, which means that I'm not getting true 16:9, but something closer to, I suppose, 16:10.

This is a separate problem from what was talked about in the OP. Unfortunately, lots of Wii games just have small borders on all sides off the screen, I don't know why it is, but it's pretty common, even in some very good and polished games, like RE4, MP3, and Zelda TP. There's no way to fix it, because those borders are part of the image.

Regarding the OP, I'm pretty sure the Wii cannot display any resolution other than 480i and 480p, non-widescreen, so the only way to get widescreen on the system is by "fake widescreen," whereby a 4:3 image must be stretched in order to get the correct aspect ratio. Same goes for GC and PS2 (I believe). This brings up a question; what hardware is capable of outputting a 480i or 480p native widescreen image? Even all DVD players I've run across work in the same way as the aforementioned consoles.

[Ganelon]

Not sure I can follow you exactly here. Are the black bars no longer present when the set stretches the image? Obvious answer...use the TV's 4:3 content setting instead.

Basically, in 4:3, the system outputs the full 4:3 picture. But in 16:9, the system doesn't display that same image but rather generates an alternative 4:3 picture that takes a subset of the original picture and attaches black bars to the side so that when stretched onto your 16:9 TV, the 4:3 center is preserved. The obvious answer here is indeed to force the system to display in normal 4:3 and use your TV to letterbox the sides instead.

Pretty close to what is known as vert-, or "the damn Bioshock approach." You mean that resolution is lost, correct?

Yeah, same as Bioshock. Horizontal lines at the top and bottom are lost.

The Bioshock problem still reigns, except of course that you aren't losing resolution. It's also worth mentioning that some "true widescreen" games on systems with true native widescreen (tm) apparently have black bars on the edges of varying widths - a possible explanation I saw is that up until recently, many developers could assume that a bit of the sides of the screen would be lost to overscan and so opted to gain back a bit of performance by not rendering into that space.

Yeah, this approach is basically anamorphic 16:9. It's not as dense in image quality as pure widescreen but for systems that can only display 4:3, this is the best approach so I consider it to be "true."

As for the bars on the side, I've heard the same. There's about 10% unfixable overscan on the TV I'm using (possibly via the service menu though) so it's useful for me when games don't go all the way, although that's obviously not ideal for those who have perfect scanning.

Even Namco's Ridge Racer Type 4 on the PSX has an option to select either 4:3 or 16:9 modes as well. It looks awesome in 16:9 mode on a true widescreen CRT-based TV monitor indeed even though it's running at 30fps. Same can be said with Polyphony Digital's first Gran Turismo game with support for both 4:3 & 16:9 mode (even in High Spec Mode running at 480i at 60fps).

Ah, forgot about that. Yeah, racers have always been at the forefront of providing anamorphic widescreen in systems that didn't support it. I know Virtua Fighter on the 32X is one of the earliest but these are great examples and exactly what I was looking for (completely forgot R4 had that option, ha).

Would this explain some weirdness that I have when trying to run supposedly 16:9 games from previous generations on my set? I get borders at the sides on most PS2 and a lot of Wii games, which means that I'm not getting true 16:9, but something closer to, I suppose, 16:10. It also occurs in a lot of 4:3 titles on those machines, oddly enough, effectively rendering the image as 1:1 (a bit like a lot of SNES and PC Engine titles).

This is the perceived response to TV overscanning that Ed and I are referring to above. Also, it could just be to make good on a performance requirement (e.g. cut some resolution to hold a steady 30fps or because the system doesn't support a higher polygon count).

I'd assumed that this was a fault with my screen until I got the Wii, when my opinion changed due to certain titles - Super Mario Galaxy 2 being the most recent example - filling the screen entirely.

Yeah, Nintendo's first-party games have always been at the forefront of anamorphic widescreen. Depending on how the pixels are drawn, I'm pretty sure you do lose some picture quality in 16:9 on systems that only output 4:3 (showing more of a picture in the same 4:3 frame) but the expanded view is much worth it IMO. But those expectations made it so disappointing when I realized almost none of my other Wii games displayed in true widescreen.

Regarding the OP, I'm pretty sure the Wii cannot display any resolution other than 480i and 480p, non-widescreen, so the only way to get widescreen on the system is by "fake widescreen," whereby a 4:3 image must be stretched in order to get the correct aspect ratio. Same goes for GC and PS2 (I believe). This brings up a question; what hardware is capable of outputting a 480i or 480p native widescreen image? Even all DVD players I've run across work in the same way as the aforementioned consoles.

Right, it's not a genuine widescreen, but for my own purposes, I'd consider any widescreen with an expanded view compared to 4:3 to be "true." So anamorphic 16:9 and actual 16:9 are both acceptable as long as the intended effect is to expand the picture. Basically, even though the Wii can't display native widescreen, if a developer put in the effort to squeeze the 16:9 picture in the 4:3 space, I won't hold it against them if they claim it's true widecscreen. It's the other forms of widening the picture that I don't support (stretching the picture itself, zooming in on the 4:3 picture, etc.).

As for your question, there isn't any gaming system capable of a 854x480 resolution that isn't capable of a higher 16:9 resolution. 480p was only designed for 4:3 EDTV viewing and not intended as a standard for 16:9 viewing. Even its standardized non-4:3 resolutions were abnormal (704x480). And that's why I'd be willing to bet that there isn't any hardware that outputs a 480p widescreen signal.

[ZOM]

This thread reminds me about the PS2 game "Shadow Tower Abyss"; there you have the option to choose how the widescreen resolution will display on your screen.
IIRC you can choose either zoomed, stretched, or a mix of both. Didn't like any of them, so I settled for standard 4:3 and noticed that it wasn't the game's actual native resolution since round objects looked slightly streched along the Y axis... passed a while since I last played that game but IIRC I never found a setting where circles were perfectly round.
Either that was my TV's doing(?), or the developers used some strange anisotropic resolution to make both 4:3 and 16:9 possible with less trade offs.