Aspect Ratio

[Nightmare]

Nightmare: You're not correcting the pixel. You are correcting the IMAGE taking into consideration the type of pixels that compose it! So just let it be, cause this has gone too far already.

you're right concerning the explaination, it's because we can't correct a pixel, a computer or a console don't have access to the tv/monitor parameters, and this has gone too far, i completly agree... forums are generally a place where you can talk/exchange/learn... so i can't admit that some guys cast false believes like that, those guy are read... remember that... it's already difficult to make people understand programming process, there's no need for that...

Editing DV or D1 source footage accurately in Adobe After Effects can be challenging because DV and D1 footage consists of non-square pixels while computer monitors use square pixels to display images; this difference often causes DV and D1 footage to appear stretched on computer monitors. Because of the discrepancy between square and non-square pixels, graphics created with square pixels may not scale correctly in non-square compositions.

let me ask you only few questions... it's gonna be funny, you'll see... you said that there is non-square pixels on tv right ?, so it's larger somewhere, in wich way ? horizontally ? vertically ?

horizontally i guess...

so here the killing question : how can you explain, in that case, that the aspect is larger on the second screenshot... it should be the contrary, isn't it ??? :happy:

you should stop refering yourself to professional video dedicated tools... these tools were made to change the aspect ratio between differents systems pal/ntsc/16:9 etc... nothing to see with emulating... (there si no pal/ntsc/16:9 screen on pc)

 

[Nightmare]

For the record I am fully aware that IF the DC does EVERYTHING internally at 640X480 than it should be proper on both pc and tv. However, the original post pics on this thread looked exactly like a classic ntsc capture that did not scale properly on a pc. The DC's signal mode must be dynamic. Does RE have variable output modes?

OR, the orignal pics were CAPTURES rather than Chankast in which case it makes sense that they are the inconsistent.

why don't you have explain this to these guys at the begining ? lot of post could be avoided. see my point, i have nothing against you or the other guys, i only had to stop these believes before they infect someone else

 

[Buff Jigsaw]

Nightmare, please chill out. I dont understand why you are so obsessed with "stopping beliefs" or controlling information. This is a discussion forum. If you dont like the thread, then dont seek it out. Why are you so hostile towards the healthy discussion of image aspects?


Anyhow, I just spent 2 hours playing Street Fighter ALpha 3 on Chankast (the single greatest version in existance) for the first time in 2 years. I gotta say Chankast is a delight.

 

[mezkal]

Nightmare, please chill out. I dont understand why you are so obsessed with "stopping beliefs" or controlling information. This is a discussion forum. If you dont like the thread, then dont seek it out. Why are you so hostile towards the healthy discussion of image aspects?


Anyhow, I just spent 2 hours playing Street Fighter ALpha 3 on Chankast (the single greatest version in existance) for the first time in 2 years. I gotta say Chankast is a delight.

"non square pixels" ....Umm no, nope. Never gonna happen. I think what would be nice is if all areas of technology could integrate and standardise thier jargon. Now we have vid editors and mac heads quoting that 16:9( or rather any ratio aside from 4:3) produces "non square pixels". Lets get this straight. If we're going to take into account that a REAL PIXEL can only ever be square then actually ALL DV content 4:3, 16:9, 2:1, etc produces NON SQUARE PIXELS. Unless we finally get 2:2 or 8:8 or 1:1 picture tubes and screens we will always have some differential in either X or Y. Jesus! What a stupid discussion.

But anyway I wish moronic video noobs would stop calling them pixels. Pixels are ON A SCREEN. Not in a file. A file contains data. So even if your DV file has 16:9 video data inside the little bits that make up the video, those little dots, square or not (of course they're bloody square) ARE NOT CALLED PIXELS.

I mean this is a stupid discussion, but really? Next we'll define UP as SIDEWAYS. Oh yeah and it can only be achieved (general sideways uppness) with a brasillian coffee bean and some twine. OK? cool.

Look don't get me wrong people but the amount of impossible theories, jargon and general nonsense hookum that surround electronics is unbareable sometimes : Dummy files magically "pushing data to the outside of the CD" (I explained why that's wrong in another post. And now This. I mean jesus, of all the stupid conversation about the squareness of pixels?

Anyway...

The Dreamcast DID have a couple of games that SUPPORTED 16:9. Starlancer even mentions it in the settings menu. That said, who knows how well anything other than 4:3 games will display under chankast. I hated Star Lancer and thus never bothered checking. I will test and report back my results.

Cheers,

 

[Buff Jigsaw]

"non square pixels" ....Umm no, nope. Never gonna happen. I think what would be nice is if all areas of technology could integrate and standardise thier jargon. Now we have vid editors and mac heads quoting that 16:9( or rather any ratio aside from 4:3) produces "non square pixels". Lets get this straight. If we're going to take into account that a REAL PIXEL can only ever be square then actually ALL DV content 4:3, 16:9, 2:1, etc produces NON SQUARE PIXELS. Unless we finally get 2:2 or 8:8 or 1:1 picture tubes and screens we will always have some differential in either X or Y. Jesus! What a stupid discussion.

But anyway I wish moronic video noobs would stop calling them pixels. Pixels are ON A SCREEN. Not in a file. A file contains data. So even if your DV file has 16:9 video data inside the little bits that make up the video, those little dots, square or not (of course they're bloody square) ARE NOT CALLED PIXELS.

I mean this is a stupid discussion, but really? Next we'll define UP as SIDEWAYS. Oh yeah and it can only be achieved (general sideways uppness) with a brasillian coffee bean and some twine. OK? cool.

Look don't get me wrong people but the amount of impossible theories, jargon and general nonsense hookum that surround electronics is unbareable sometimes : Dummy files magically "pushing data to the outside of the CD" (I explained why that's wrong in another post. And now This. I mean jesus, of all the stupid conversation about the squareness of pixels?

Anyway...

The Dreamcast DID have a couple of games that SUPPORTED 16:9. Starlancer even mentions it in the settings menu. That said, who knows how well anything other than 4:3 games will display under chankast. I hated Star Lancer and thus never bothered checking. I will test and report back my results.

Cheers,

a NON SQUARE PIXEL is a pixel that is prepapred to be shown on a display that is not 1 to 1. An example of a display that is not 1 to 1 is a telelvision. A pixel on a telelvision is 1.1111111 . The aspect of a computer monitor pixel is 1:1. A 4:3 TV display never produces square pixels.

 

[Buff Jigsaw]

Here read this...

http://www.animationpost.co.uk/bitmaps/aspect-ratios.htm

"The reason for this discrepancy is that digital video does not use square pixels.

When we described an image of 4 x 3 pixels, we naturally assumed that the pixels were tiny squares, whereas in the digital video world, they are not. "

for gods sake please understand the problem that has plagued mugen and other apps that neglect this rule of display.

 

[mezkal]

a NON SQUARE PIXEL is a pixel that is prepapred to be shown on a display that is not 1 to 1. An example of a display that is not 1 to 1 is a telelvision. A pixel on a telelvision is 1.1111111 . The aspect of a computer monitor pixel is 1:1. A 4:3 TV display never produces square pixels.

Buff....I'm not sure if you understand some fundamentals but before I traverse that gorge of misunderstanding understand at least this... I have worked in the film and television industry. I have done animation for Film and TV using 3DsMax, MAYA, Photoshop and After Effetcs. I KNOW what I'm talking about. Just because some undereducated animators misuse the term PIXEL in no way can ANYONE produce NON SQUARE PIXELS. Pixels don't exist anywhere but on a screen. Got it? Fine....then lets move too the monitor aspect ratio.....640x480 800x600 1024x768.....none of those are SQUARE they all follow 4:3 convention....coz well TV's did and they were the first monitors.....even so every pixel IS SQUARE.

 

[Nightmare]

there is too many guys here who can't set their tv paramaters correctly... it's a shame...

2 Buff Jigsaw
you said we can't have square pixel until we dont have a 1:1 screen ? then let me tell you that a tv screen has a 4:3 ratio... and a monitor has a 800x600 resolution (of pixels)... and if you had gone to shcool enough, you should know that 800:600 (or 640:480, or 1024:768) = 4:3
to make short : monitor = tv screen

and in the case of a 1:1 screen you should need a 800x800 (or 1024x1024, etc...) resolution to obtain square pixels...

Edit * and please stop to dig up this thread... if you don't understand that now, you will never do... :bye3:

 

[im_graet]

this is infuriating. buff isn't saying that a tv has an aspect of 1:1. he's also not saying that by having a pixel aspect of 1:1 that'd mean that your screen is now 1:1.

your tv screen has an aspect of 4:3... that's true. however, the signal sent to your tv, while it may be of 640x480 resolution, the pixels it's using are of 1.1111:1 aspect. they're rectangular... lengthwise. your tv when it receives the images that make up tv "shows" or playing video "games" makes everything look normal.

computers only have square pixels, so to compensate for the fact that these "shows" or "games" with a 640x480 resolution and rectangular pixels are being translated to your computer, the image gets scaled. depending on the source it'll be scaled to 720x486 or 720x480. to bring it back to how it'd be displayed on your tv, that is without making people look fat, you have to scale it down to 640x480 or up to 720x540 (both 4:3 aspects).

 

[Nightmare]

computers only have square pixels, so to compensate for the fact that these "shows" or "games" with a 640x480 resolution and rectangular pixels are being translated to your computer, the image gets scaled. depending on the source it'll be scaled to 720x486 or 720x480. to bring it back to how it'd be displayed on your tv, that is without making people look fat, you have to scale it down to 640x480 or up to 720x540 (both 4:3 aspects).

oh my god !!! you had the same math teacher as buff ???
first : there is no resolutions on a tv screen just a 4:3 ratio !!! i don't know were you found your fantasy resolutions !!! tell me where !!!
2nd : if you don't have square pixels on your tv, it's because YOU haven't set your tv parameters correctly !!! a pixel is only the result of a signal !!!

ps : for the safety of our world, those guys should be assassinated (james bond, if your hear me it's time to use your license... :whistling )

Edit*

a NON SQUARE PIXEL is a pixel that is prepapred to be shown on a display that is not 1 to 1.

infuriating ? really ? how should i read that ?

 

[Samus]

Oh my god this is an annoying discussion.

A tv picture is made out of tiny little dots called pixels, ok.
A monitor picture is also made out of tiny little dots called pixels.

The difference is that in a television, the tiny little dots (pixels) are slightly rectangular in shape. Whereas in a monitor the pixels are square.

Hence, when an identical image is sent to a tv and a monitor, they look a little different. So an image designed for tv (a dreamcast game) looks out of shape on the monitor. This is why many emulators implement a feature to scale the image to slightly different proportions so that the image looks the same on the monitor as it would have done on a tv. That is the point of this topic. It really is as simple as that.

And just to reply to those last two comments made by Nightmare:

first : there is no resolutions on a tv screen just a 4:3 ratio !!! i don't know were you found your fantasy resolutions !!! tell me where !!!

An aspect ratio is calculated from the number of pixels on the horizontal and vertical. Of course a tv has a resolution. And it is around about 640x480.

2nd : if you don't have square pixels on your tv, it's because YOU haven't set your tv parameters correctly !!! a pixel is only the result of a signal !!!

What on earth is that supposed to mean? "Pixels are only the result of a signal"? Eh? A screen, be it a tv or monitor, is made out of lots of tiny little physical pixels, laid out in a grid. These pixels are simply lit up in various colours to make a picture. You can't change pixel sizes by altering any tv parameters; they're part of the hardware.

 

[Nightmare]

An aspect ratio is calculated from the number of pixels on the horizontal and vertical. Of course a tv has a resolution. And it is around about 640x480.

in that case how can you explain that you can have a 800x600 resolution (ie:your computer) on a tv screen ?

What on earth is that supposed to mean? "Pixels are only the result of a signal.

it mean (if you can understand that !!!) that your computer send a numeric signal to your tv (or monitor), this tv transform this signal to an analogic one, to be used by your screen... (and the pixel is only the impact of the signal on your CRT screen...)

These pixels are simply lit up in various colours to make a picture. You can't change pixel sizes by altering any tv parameters.

what do you thing you are doing when you change the h-size or the v-size of your screen ??? by the parameters !!!

please stop, if you don't understand the base, don't try to understand to rest...

 

[Samus]

in that case how can you explain that you can have a 800x600 resolution (ie:your computer) on a tv screen ?

Have you ever looked at an 800x600 display on a television? Is it as clear as it is on your monitor? No, because pixels are dropped from the 800x600 image in order to squeeze it into 640x480 pixels.

... (and the pixel is only the impact of the signal on your CRT screen...)

This is just blatently incorrect. Pixels are actually tiny little phosphors which react and glow when electrons, emitted from the cathode ray tube hit them. Their size can't be changed, they're physical pixels arranged on a grid as i said earlier.

what do you thing you are doing when you change the h-size or the v-size of your screen ??? by the parameters !!!

You're simply squeezing and stretching the image, you're not actually changing the pixels.

please stop, if you don't understand the base, don't try to understand to rest...

Please read up on this subject. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite.

 

[Nightmare]

Have you ever looked at an 800x600 display on a television? Is it as clear as it is on your monitor? No, because pixels are dropped from the 800x600 image in order to squeeze it into 640x480 pixels.

in that case you can certainly give me the size/resolution... no ? i'm impatient to know... :happy:
Edit* and if you use a paint/drawing program, you will see that EVERY pixels (800x600, or plus if you use a greater resolution) are in the screen !!!

This is just blatently incorrect. Pixels are actually tiny little phosphors which react and glow when electrons, emitted from the cathode ray tube hit them. Their size can't be changed, they're physical pixels arranged on a grid as i said earlier.

the chathode ray tube hit them, right, THIS IS THE IMPACT revealed by the phosphore !!! this ray is launched by the cannon as i know, right ?
Edit* and it still the signal to the end, because the color is the signal ! (in 3 analogic values called RGB)
and tiny little phosphors... please... it's a coat ! behind a grid !

You're simply squeezing and stretching the image, you're not actually changing the pixels.

read my SECOND POST here... you should read the post carrefully before talking...

Please read up on this subject. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite.

you want i read book ? you should start by reading the posts... i'm an asm coder, i have to know how it work before coding...

 

[Samus]

in that case you can certainly give me the size... no ? i'm impatient to know...

That doesn't make any sense...

the chathode ray tube hit them, right, THIS IS THE IMPACT revealed by the phosphore !!! this ray is launched by the cannon as i know, right ?

Yes, but this is not what you were saying before. I quote:

(and the pixel is only the impact of the signal on your CRT screen...)

This is what i was saying was incorrect. The pixels are always there. They're simply lit up as a result of the electrons from the tube hitting them.

read my SECOND POST here... you should read the post carrefully before talking...

What about it? Pretty much every point you try to make in your second post in this thread is incorrect.

And, just to clarify.

an image with 640x480 pixels on chankast has also 64Ox480 pixels with the dreamcast, so want do you want to correct ? those guys clearly don't know what they're talking about...

Yes, this is correct. The image is 640x480 pixels on both the television and the monitor. But the point is, pixels on a tv and on a monitor are a slightly different shape. Hence when an identical image is displayed on a tv and a monitor, the image looks different. And this is why correction should be implemented, to change the shape of the image slightly so that when it is displayed on a monitor it looks the same as it did on the tv.

EDIT: You edited your post, so i'll add:
Being an ASM coder doesn't instantly mean that you have knowledge of how televisions and monitors work.

 

[Nightmare]

1. the size... the resolution if you want...
2. i take a short cut to make all people understand
3. in my second post, i think i have said "a pixel is a pixel you can't change his aspect..." and tell me wich point is incorect ???
4. 640x480 is the example for the dreamcast, but an amiga has 640x512 (or 320x256 or 352x288 or 1280x1024 ), an amstrad cpc has 320x200, etc... the display is good for all of them... because there is no resolution, just an analogic 4:3 ratio...

you're right it doesn't look the same on tv and monitor, but the technologie isn't the same too... you have a tuner on your tv, and in spit of that it cost cheaper than a monitor (when we compare with the same size/diagonal). monitors has smaller pitch to allow resolutions that can't be supported by tv (because the tv cannon can't support the frenquencies)...

correction ? explain me what sort of correction ? and how you attempt to do that ? please, i'm curious... really curious...

you're right, being an asm coder doesn't mean that i have knowledge on how televisions and monitors work. but since you have to read lot a of book/docs/txt to understand how the chips work, your curiosity always go beyond...
Edit* (and i start to code when i had an amiga ! the video chip was in the motherboard ! at this time, you had to know how it work !)

 

[Samus]

I really don't know what it is you're trying to prove. The only reason i joined in on this discussion was because you, and a couple of others, tried to debunk what was a perfectly good thread. Now that we've established that what the original guys were saying was correct; that television and monitor displays are different, and that the emulator could include a feature to correct the difference, we can stop going off on a tangent.

 

[Nightmare]

I really don't know what it is you're trying to prove. The only reason i joined in on this discussion was because you, and a couple of others, tried to debunk what was a perfectly good thread. Now that we've established that what the original guys were saying was correct; that television and monitor displays are different, and that the emulator could include a feature to correct the difference, we can stop going off on a tangent.

what i trying to prove ? is i know what i'm talking about... i have asnwered all of your questions, you have answered none of mine !

here i need answer :
1. what is the resolution of a tv ?, you said there is one
2. for correction (you said it need one), what correction, and how you attempt do to that ?

let show us the amount of your knowleges... if i don't know what i'm talking about...

 

[Samus]

I think you have already proven from previous posts that you're not particularly clued up on the subject. I mean, i'm not trying to make out that i know everything there is to know about televisions and monitors, i am merely trying to correct some of your wildly incorrect claims from earlier.

1. As far as i know, the resolution is around about 640x480, but it varies slightly between NTSC, PAL, etc. Try reading this for more info.
2. The image just needs to be stretched ever so slightly to account for the different shape of the pixels in a television.

All these answers are in this very thread. If you'd read it properly and try to understand what people are saying, rather than simply disagreeing at every turn.

 

[Nightmare]

i see... YOU don't know what you talking about, your ignorance is...

1. 640x480 but it varies... of course... it's a clear answer !!!
2. the image just need to be streeched... i see you have read my second post... so you must know it's not a correction !!!

now if it's the amount of your knowleges... return to sleep... it's time for you...

Edit * and the next time, use your real nicks... if your are not too afraid to... :happy: