Thread 11787401

The SNES has an internal resolution of 256×224, which is an aspect ratio of 8:7. However TVs at the time had an aspect ratio of 4:3, which would stretch out the display.

Apparently some games cater for this but I wanted to see how many did. The best way to do this seemed to be to play the games and see which sprites which would make sense as squares (password boxes, character portraits, UI elements) actually are squares at 8:7 and not rectangles. Based on that assumption:

359 SNES games was the sample size (my rom set)
256 had perfect squares (or circles)
103 can't determine, or might be better at 4:3

Therefore
70% at least are 8:7

Here's the results

>>11787401 (OP)
Can you show an example screenshot from a game that is designed for 4:3 displays, presented in 8:7 so it looks too thin? I usually only see examples of the opposite.

Not a problem on my CRT

>>11787402
post screen shots

>>11787402
Rockman & forte is 8:7
look at the moon:

>>11787413

This fuckin topic again...surely it'll be settled in this time... *thread hidden*

>>11787401 (OP)
snes aspect ratio differs per game and sometimes even per art asset

>>11787401 (OP)
SNES games don't really have a single correct aspect ratio. The snes is a tile based system, that means even if the art is otherwise drawn with 4:3 taken into account, there is still a significant pressure to have various game objects be a whole number of tiles.

Also, another thing, the SNES is not actually 4:3. The pixel clock is not quite right for 4:3.

>>11787425
sure

>>11787415
>Can you show an example screenshot from a game that is designed for 4:3 displays, presented in 8:7 so it looks too thin?
Some of the JRPGs definitely had this quality, I'll see if I can work on one

>>11787415
G.O.D - Mezame yo to Yobu Koe ga Kikoe - definitely looks like it was designed to stretch, the menu screen circles look weird at 8:7 but better at 4:3

>>11787425
Megan Man

>>11787436
Yup. You just posted THE ONLY SCENE IN THE ENTIRE Game that is 4:3. The rest of the entire game is 8:7

>>11787464
>it doesn't count because uh um well er uh
lmao

>>11787401 (OP)
>>11787402
Turtles in Time is on SNES is 8:7 as seen by this stretched circle. The arcade game is 288 x 224 or 9:7 which is only slightly narrower than 4:3. SNES sprites at 8:7 seem to match the arcade sprites at 9:7 so SNES sprites at 4:3 are stretched wider than in the arcade.

>>11787470
stop projecting.
>The entire game being 8:7 doesn't count because of one background you only see for 3 seconds
Tranny retard nonsense.

>>11787472
fantastic example

>>11787401 (OP)
i plug my SNES into my 27" slot mask with composite video and play :-)

Reminder that the 4:3 ratio used in emulators is incorrect. I forgot the average value, but CRTs shows SNES video differently.

>>11787402
Your "proofs" are not good enough and highly subjective to your own interpretation.

>>11787428
all corrections welcome, will update THE LIST

>>11787473
>The entire game being 8:7
you know, except the parts that aren't

>>11787484
Nah they're pretty valid.
A a square is a square bitch

>>11787490
Literally only 1 part.

unlike you I've actually played the game

>>11787492
You have no idea if these squares are intended to be perfectly square or not.

Consumer CRTs do not show the image as 4:3 when they are properly calibrated. They actually squeeze it a little bit, and then the black bar gets cut off by the overscan bezels on most consumer CRT televisions.

I forget the actual SNES display ratio on a consumer CRT but it's in between 4:3 and 8:7.

>>11787494
>I've actually played the game
on a crt? because it was certainly 4:3 for me

>>11787501
I looked it up in the archive, it's 64:49. It's because of some blanking time in the analog video signal the SNES sends out.

>>11787495
>You have no idea if these squares are intended to be perfectly square or not.
Macho Man would like a word with you

I once measured my CRT monitor's visible display area to see how much off it was from true 4:3 when I stretched the image to the edge of the visible display.
It was right on the money 4:3 down to the millimeter.

>>11787507
proves nothing? If anything he looks a little skinny to me. So maybe that square is supposed to be a rectangle. Go find the actual image of Macho that is sourced from and compare it. I ain't gonna do it for you tho.

>>11787495
Yeah I do. Also all the circular objects throughout all of these games, including the checking moon you like to cherry pick like this one:
>>11787413

cope

>>11787503
Yeah, and it was stretched wrong the entire game because the super Nintendo is a piece of shit

core 3seethe and dialate faggot

>>11787509
better, anon?

>>11787507
randy was never that slim

>>11787501
Can the usual capture systems record footage with the black borders? I have a cheap usb capture device with composite but I've never tried to capture SNES stuff and that device's capture quality is pretty poor

>>11787525
you take that back

>>11787531
His face is noticeably wider in this photo than the square you posted. His shoulders are also only less broad in this shot because he's stepping forward and angled.
You kinda played yourself, anon.

>>11787518
Not him, but he wins because you write like you're desperate to fit in with the retards of this site. Sort your life out.

>>11787537
Oh no! If only there were a Mega Drive port at 4:3 to compare it to :)

>>11787507
Here's a trading card that has the almost the same photo. 8:7 doesn't match it, but 4:3 does.

>>11787545
That doesn't really change the fact that he's clearly thinner in the game's portrait than he should be.
The most likely explanation is that the Genesis portrait (which obviously has less color information than the SNES version) is a reused and compressed asset. And since the Genesis already outputs at 4:3, the image doesn't stretch to compensate.

>>11787545
reused asset

>>11787401 (OP)
>but *I* need *YOU* to play with the toy the correct way!
You're emotionally stunted if you care about this and probably have no personality or friends whatsoever.
just use whichever one you like better
if you give a shit about how other people play it, find a rope

>>11787401 (OP)
>256 had perfect squares (or circles)
The game having a perfect square or circle isn't evidence the entire art design was intended for 8:7. There could and would have been compromises for geometric shapes like that which need to be pixel perfect to look their best.

>>11787552
>>11787556
are these re-used assets too? Battletoads-Double Dragon

>>11787560
play it in 16:9 I don't give a shit, I was curious to see if 'the developers cater for it' was real

>>11787568
>are these re-used assets too?
Of course not, they're clearly entirely different sprites. How is that not obvious?
What's also obvious, is that the Genesis portrait has a wider face.

>>11787563
>The game having a perfect square or circle isn't evidence the entire art design was intended for 8:7
Squares maybe I can see an argument for, but circles? Nah. Not buying that for a second anon

>>11787573
>What's also obvious, is that the Genesis portrait has a wider face.
Maybe 'he's stepping forward and angled' lmao

>>11787552
>The most likely explanation is that the Genesis portrait (which obviously has less color information than the SNES version) is a reused and compressed asset
That makes the argument for 8:7, not against it

People on TV back in the day would often mention that "you look fatter on TV"
Everything on CRT was meant to look slightly wider than it is. It's fine.

>>11787568
They're not the same image so your question is incoherent.

>>11787598
>Squares maybe I can see an argument for, but circles? Nah. Not buying that for a second anon
Then you are of small mind and should be disregarded.

>>11787660
Anon that was just because people don't realize how fat they actually are until they see themselves in a photo or video, it had nothing to do with CRT technology.

>>11787671
Then why did they stop saying it after CRTs were phased out? Besides it's not like mirrors didn't exist back then.

>>11787492
Don't talk about the square like that.

>>11787616
No, it doesn't.
Try thinking about it for a few seconds.

>>11787709
sure - if it'd been changed on the SNES to account for stretch, then it'd be a skinny rectangle on the Genesis. But it's not - perfect square on Genesis at 4:3, perfect square on SNES at 8:7

>>11787678
>hen why did they stop saying it after CRTs were phased out?
They didn't.

>>11787483
I knew it

>>11787495
Ha get a load of this faggot! Thanks for the sensible chuckle retard.

>>11787728
Right. Which is why Randy Savage looks like Randy Savage in 4:3.

>>11787749
are you being serious? WWF Royal Rumble was made by the same studio for SNES and Genesis. You're saying that the asset being square at both 8:7 (SNES) and 4:3 (Genesis) means that it wasn't made for 8:7 on the SNES?
Are you saying the GENESIS version is wrong?

>>11787401 (OP)
Ntsc

>>11787764
This was already explained to you.
>>11787525
>>11787549
>>11787552
If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it didn't happen, that's not my problem. But everyone else can scroll up and read it if they really want to.
Since we both know you did read it, there's nothing else to discuss anyway.

here it is, the image that anal raped OP so hard he pretends it doesn't exist. Super Mario World, the launch title for the SNES, the very foundation on which he puts his square fetishism, contains these two versions of Mario's sprite. the one on the right is seen sideways when running up a wall, and, curiously, it appears too short and wide when the game is displayed in 8:7. could it be that, possibly, 4:3 is the actual intended aspect ratio and the pixels are intended to be viewed wider than they are tall?!
>n-no that doesn't count!
>I-I can't tell any difference anyway, they look the same!

>>11787804
>This was already explained to you.
No, no it wasn't. Suspiciously so.

>>11787813
counterpoint picrel - pepper your angus buddy

>>11787402
Seems weird to use obscure examples like a password box or portrait when it was likely these games had several people on staff handling a variety of graphics and programming tasks, who is to say someone designing the password interface or a d-pad graphic would have the same priorities as a map/tile designer or character sprite designer?

Also all of these games are 4:3 on a CRT, so 4:3 is the intended ratio.

>>11787464
What other scenes are definitely 8:7?

>>11787678
Because people are so fat now they don't need a photo to verify they're obese

>>11787831
That's why I used a large sample size, and why you'd expect to see taller, skinnier elements such as in G.O.D, which was clearly made for 4:3 and looks strange at 8:7

>>11787401 (OP)
>4:3 too wide
>8:7 too thin
Why the fuck do you think there are only two options? Use 5:4.

>>11787850
I want more diagonal.

>>11787836
literally every other circle and square in the game. every spell, every portal, every portrait. Also you can look at the portraits and compare to the official art, 4:3 is stretched wrong.

Almost all of the photos of SNES and SFC developer workstations show them creating graphics on a monitor which appears to be running in native SFC resolution (which would be stretched to 4:3). Not on a standard desktop PC monitor.

>>11787401 (OP)
>>11787402
I don't believe your method or results, the thing you don't understand is that in many cases some things in a game might take TV stretching into account while some others won't.

That's because adapting things like title screens, cutscenes, or even HUD/UI elements for TV stretching is simple, but adapting gameplay background elements that are based on a tile-based system ? Next to impossible.
Chrono Trigger is a famous example >>11787436 People see this and think "oh saw I should play this with stretching and not with square pixels!", but that moon is, like I said, a cutscene. Background elements during gameplay have perfect circles when using square pixels.

Which means that yes, within the same game, it is possible that some things are meant for TV stretching while others aren't. And it's more common than you think. The whole thing is a rabbit hole and the moment you think "one way" (either square pixels or stretching) is the Right way while the other way is Wrong, is the moment you've lost. The only thing to do is to stick to your preference and stop pretending you're playing How The Devs Intended.

>>11788101
if you want to continue your research about this you can watch old Japanese video game television shows which often show tours of offices and one of the common things they turn the camera to will be a paint-like program they're using to make sprites.

Here's a good article to read:
https://airshipnyc.tumblr.com/post/180175856793/designing-2d-graphics-in-the-japanese-industry

>>11788103
>The only thing to do is to stick to your preference and stop pretending you're playing How The Devs Intended.
I can agree with that

>>11787436
>>11788103
Here Bruh.

>>11787402
SMT II as well? Interesting, I'll look at that.

>>11787850
Here's how it looks in an actual SNES as well as Wii emulation, actual game capture signals have pillarboxing for overscan anticipation.

Here's how 256x224/240p should scale on game capture display and at 4:3 NTSC

Doesn't matter if games adjusted their art to stretching what you saw on TV is what you got.

>>11788230
Yes it does

>>11787507
Out to be able to find an exact match for one of the character photos in that game with an official poster or trading card.

>>11788186
what is that?

How do 8:7 fags account for games running in 512x224?

>Super Metroid routinely used as an example of an 8:7 game because of the fat morph ball in 4:3
>Shot of Zebes and a few other tile based graphics look too thin in 8:7.

There really is no winning. The PS1 is also a can of worms.

>>11788305
probably 'are you retarded, that's four games'

>>11788461
It's a lot more when you consider games using it for menus and textboxes and such. You can even have both 256 and 512 width on the same frame as mode can be changed mid-frame.

>>11788198
>>11788215
Since emulators tend to confuse ratios, which one is the correct settings? (assuming I'm using Mesen)

I use 4:3 exclusively. I have no care for "artist's vision" or "pixel count." I played these systems (SNES/MD) on a 4:3 TV, that's how I remember them. Anything else looks wrong to me. I also smear the shit out of 'em with blargg or ntsc-256px-composite shaders for maximum 'shitty TV' effect.

>>11788865
Sadly for you, 4:3 on an emulator is not the same as 4:3 on a CRT as you can see here from a bunch of posts, the overscan compensated for that. That's why the emulator options mostly looks like shit.

>>11788880
>Sadly for you, 4:3 on an emulator is not the same as 4:3 on a CRT
u fucking wot. If they're not the same one of them is not 4:3.

>>11788305
512 is a multiple of 256, so it makes no difference whether it's 512 or 256 as long as the pixels are or aren't meant to be non-square.

>>11788101
No it doesn't. They created their art assets in art programs on windows, wehere a square was a square.

>>11788198
Are coins ovals in Japan?
no?
mario is 8:7

>>11788975
>They created their art assets in art programs on windows
For the most part that is not true for SNES games. Maybe some NA developers.

I care about raidou, but at the same time I emulate and display SD games stretched on my HD screen.

>>11789013
Absolutely fucking incorrect. There is ZERO development software in a snes devkit. All the devkit does is run code you've made on your pc. Literally 100% of every single art asset ever made for any snes game, was made on pc where squares were squares and circles were circles.

Also, on big teams they'd only have 1 or 2 dev kits being shared by 30 people. The artists were passing their art off to the programmers, who actually compiled the code and tested it on the dev kit.

You're just completely wrong.

>>11789131
>PC
>Windows
Not the same thing. That you have confused the terms shows you should not post in this discussion and lurk more.

>>11789143
I don't care what os they used (they almost certainly used windows), the software they used did not account for the snes Stretch. You're grasping at straws and it's truly, truly pathetic. Go back to your chinkheld thread, subhuman shitposter.

>>11788970
The pixels output by the SNES do not fit exactly onto a TV screen. Some are cut off. But the proportion that is cut off are not equal in width and height. As such the true aspect ratio when including the hidden pixels is not 4:3. Emulators usually show all the pixels so fitting them into 4:3 is not correct.