by Gez » Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:45 am
Food for thought:
1:1 scaling (no aspect ratio correction) results in 100/120=83.333% of intended height. In other words, it's 16.667% too short.
5:6 scaling offers pixel-perfect aspect ratio correction, 120/120=100% of intended height. However, it requires at least 1200 pixels in vertical resolution to fit (200*6).
4:5 scaling offers an exaggerated aspect ratio correction, 125/120=104,167% of intended height. In other words, 4,167% too tall. It's less error than 1:1 scaling. It requires 1000 pixels in vertical resolution, which is quite common (1280x1024 screens are commonplace).
3:4 scaling offers an even more exaggerated correction, 133.333/120=111.111% of intended height, or 11.111% too tall. Still less error than 1:1 scaling. Requires 800 pixels in vertical resolution, which we can assume everyone has nowadays (unless perhaps if playing windowed).
Food for thought:
1:1 scaling (no aspect ratio correction) results in 100/120=83.333% of intended height. In other words, it's 16.667% too short.
5:6 scaling offers pixel-perfect aspect ratio correction, 120/120=100% of intended height. However, it requires at least 1200 pixels in vertical resolution to fit (200*6).
4:5 scaling offers an exaggerated aspect ratio correction, 125/120=104,167% of intended height. In other words, 4,167% too tall. It's less error than 1:1 scaling. It requires 1000 pixels in vertical resolution, which is quite common (1280x1024 screens are commonplace).
3:4 scaling offers an even more exaggerated correction, 133.333/120=111.111% of intended height, or 11.111% too tall. Still less error than 1:1 scaling. Requires 800 pixels in vertical resolution, which we can assume everyone has nowadays (unless perhaps if playing windowed).