[feature request] widescreen res aspect ratio handling

Post by **Kirby** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:45 pm

randy wrote:How does this look?

Looks awsome dude!

I just kinda giggle at the way it sorta warped the edges of the ceiling and floor

arioch · Post by **arioch** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:50 am

There are also 16:10 resolution modes, which is what mine is.

Doom 3 has a stock list of resolutions going up to 1280x1024. You set a cvar r_aspectratio to select what aspect ratio you want to run: 0 = 4:3, 1 = 16:9, 2 = 16:10.

Steam Half-Life and HL2 has an aspect ratio dropdown box in the video properties. Selecting one of those limits the resolutions you can pick.

In HL2, 16:9 modes that it tells me I can use are: 848x480, 856x480, 1280x720, 1360x768.
The same for 16:10 ...: 720x480, 1280x768, 1680x1050.

For what it's worth, here's what ZDoom lists:

MartinHowe · Post by **MartinHowe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:36 am

randy wrote:
MartinHowe wrote:Also, what about people with TFTs of non-4:3 aspect ratio in their native full-screen mode (e.g., 1280x1024)?
As long as the physical dimensions of the screen are 4:3, it will be fine. If the screen is a little taller than 4:3 to make the pixels square, then things will be a little tall.

Well my laptop TFT' panel is physically 5:4 (311mmx248mm) as well as having a 5:4 (1280x1024) pixel matrix.

I guess ideally there needs to be a letterboxing function of some sort. I also found that the screen images are not 4:3 even though Doom's allegedly natural aspect ratio is; for example, TITLEPIC is 1.6:1 or 16:10. If there were no stretching or squashing, but exact scaling keeping the aspect ratio intact, we would have this:

Ideally, there are arguably four theoretical settings of interest to TFT users:

(1) Actual video resolution.
(2) DOOM framebuffer resolution
(3) SCREEN PAGES resolution
(4) FOV (is this easy to do in software rendering?)

with settings 2 and 3 being optionally stretched or letterboxed within setting 1. Setting 4 would affect in-game rendering but not screen pages like TITLEPIC. There should be the option of the letterbox filling being blank or else the usual tiling flats. While I think about it, there's no real reason to have DOOM be 4:3 and let's face it, the human FOV is something ridiculously big like 135 degrees.

If ZDoom really had these settings, I would probably use 1280x800 for both DOOM and TITLEPICs, with blank letterbox filling. But that's just me

Comments?

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:55 am

Doom's screens have a pixel ratio of 1.6:1. That is not to be confused with the aspect ratio. Even a 320x200 screen was displayed at an aspect ratio of 4:3 - as is a 1280x1024 mode on most monitors.

The screens have to be scaled to 1280x960 on your system to look correctly.

Ideally, there are arguably four theoretical settings of interest to TFT users:

(1) Actual video resolution.
(2) DOOM framebuffer resolution
(3) SCREEN PAGES resolution
(4) FOV (is this easy to do in software rendering?)

3 is irrelevant. All screens in existence assume a 4:3 aspect ratio because that's all that existed in 1993.
4 is possible of course. ZDoom can alter the FOV. There's a CVAR for it (but I don't remember its name.)

arioch · Post by **arioch** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:06 am

And I have a laptop with a widescreen panel that goes up to 1280x800.

Heh.

Chilvence · Post by **Chilvence** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:23 am

That sounds pretty good actually. Does it have nice big keys, or is it still quite narrow? Thats one of my main gripes with laptops, they're uncomfortable to type on... Seems to make much more sense to have the screen more or less the same shape as a regular keyboard.

Piezo · Post by **Piezo** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:32 pm

I sure feel behind, I thought the standard was still 4:3, 4.2:3 and 16:9. I didn't think there were any others. Also, wouldn't 16:10 be referred to as 8:5 or 4:2.5?

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:02 pm

It's all 1.6:1 so why bother?

MartinHowe · Post by **MartinHowe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:22 pm

Graf Zahl wrote:Even a 320x200 screen was displayed at an aspect ratio of 4:3

Thanks, Graf, I wondered how this was handled. Though why ID couldn't have just made the screen image pages 4:3 in order to have one logical pixel per each real pixel (or square group thereof), I don't know.

Post by **randi** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:44 pm

MartinHowe wrote:Though why ID couldn't have just made the screen image pages 4:3 in order to have one logical pixel per each real pixel (or square group thereof), I don't know.

Because the 256 color mode offered by MCGA is 320x200, even though that doesn't produce square pixels.

Post by **Enjay** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:56 pm

Yes, 320x200 was the resolution for all the 256 colour games I had on the PC "back in the day". (MCGA was usually the option if there was a setup menu of any kind, along with things like EGA and CGA - ahhh memories.) IIRC, the Amiga had quite a few games, and other programs, that ran in 320x240.

Post by **randi** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:26 pm

Actually, since you are in a PAL region, your Amiga games would have run at 320x256. Here in America, they were 320x200 because NTSC doesn't have as many scanlines.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:42 pm

randy wrote:Actually, since you are in a PAL region, your Amiga games would have run at 320x256. Here in America, they were 320x200 because NTSC doesn't have as many scanlines.

Really? I thought they were 320x240 which is half the resolution of NTSC.

Post by **Enjay** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:49 pm

320x256 eh? You know something, I think you're right. That does ring a bell now.

Piezo · Post by **Piezo** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:29 pm

Piezo wrote:. . . 4.2:3 . . .

D'oh, I meant 4:3.2.