(Not sure if this is the correct forum; as it concerns the NES, Super NES, and Mega Drive, I couldn't think of anywhere else that doesn't put a bias towards any single console.)
There's something I've been wondering about whenever anyone mentions what aspect ratio they prefer. And this is going to sound pedantic. And maybe someone posted about it before already.
Some people will say that they prefer 4:3 aspect ratio for the NES and Super NES. But is that really accurate?
The pixel aspect ratio of both consoles is 8:7. If one applies this pixel aspect ratio to a 256×240 image, the result would translate to (2048/7)×240 (approximately 292.57×240) on a display that only supports square pixels. But that's not 4:3. With a height of 240 scanlines, the width would need to be 320, not 2048/7 (292.57). In actuality, the display aspect ratio would be 128:105 (3.28125:3), not 4:3. Note that this is not counting the border regions to the left and right of the NES's visible region where the background color is displayed.
I don't think I've seen "128:105" mentioned anywhere on the NesDev wiki. But that is the display aspect ratio used when the pixel aspect ratio is 8:7 and the borders are excluded.
The Mega Drive also has the same pixel aspect ratio when using 256px mode, and in 320px mode, its pixel aspect ratio is instead 32:35. With a height of 224px, its display aspect ratio is 64:49 regardless of whether its horizontal resolution is 256px or 320px. Even if one counts the blank scanlines at the top and bottom, the display aspect ratio will still be 128:105 instead of 4:3.
I don't have an NES Classic Edition, but I suspect that Nintendo may also be guilty of this same misconception (using 4:3 instead of 128:105). In its internal files is an image that is used to represent the CRT Filter option. It is titled "capture_analog.png", though it isn't actually a file all to itself; it is part of a larger composite image that contains all the graphics in use. That being the case, its exact dimensions are 240×180, which is a 4:3 display aspect ratio.
So when people request a 4:3 display, they are actually getting a display that is even wider than what the actual consoles output. In order to stretch a display this far, the pixel aspect ratio would need to be 5:4, not 8:7 (1:1 in the case of the Mega Drive at 320px). Is this actually desirable to some people? Does it actually look better at 4:3 instead of 128:105? Or are they actually referring to 128:105 with some all-black padding to make it 4:3?
Here is an example with perfectly square pixels: (PAR: 1:1, DAR: 16:15)
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Here is an example of what a 4:3 display would actually look like: (PAR: 5:4, DAR: 4:3)
[spoiler][/spoiler]
And here is an example that is closer to what the consoles actually output: (PAR: 8:7, DAR: 128:105)
[spoiler][/spoiler]
There's something I've been wondering about whenever anyone mentions what aspect ratio they prefer. And this is going to sound pedantic. And maybe someone posted about it before already.
Some people will say that they prefer 4:3 aspect ratio for the NES and Super NES. But is that really accurate?
The pixel aspect ratio of both consoles is 8:7. If one applies this pixel aspect ratio to a 256×240 image, the result would translate to (2048/7)×240 (approximately 292.57×240) on a display that only supports square pixels. But that's not 4:3. With a height of 240 scanlines, the width would need to be 320, not 2048/7 (292.57). In actuality, the display aspect ratio would be 128:105 (3.28125:3), not 4:3. Note that this is not counting the border regions to the left and right of the NES's visible region where the background color is displayed.
I don't think I've seen "128:105" mentioned anywhere on the NesDev wiki. But that is the display aspect ratio used when the pixel aspect ratio is 8:7 and the borders are excluded.
The Mega Drive also has the same pixel aspect ratio when using 256px mode, and in 320px mode, its pixel aspect ratio is instead 32:35. With a height of 224px, its display aspect ratio is 64:49 regardless of whether its horizontal resolution is 256px or 320px. Even if one counts the blank scanlines at the top and bottom, the display aspect ratio will still be 128:105 instead of 4:3.
I don't have an NES Classic Edition, but I suspect that Nintendo may also be guilty of this same misconception (using 4:3 instead of 128:105). In its internal files is an image that is used to represent the CRT Filter option. It is titled "capture_analog.png", though it isn't actually a file all to itself; it is part of a larger composite image that contains all the graphics in use. That being the case, its exact dimensions are 240×180, which is a 4:3 display aspect ratio.
So when people request a 4:3 display, they are actually getting a display that is even wider than what the actual consoles output. In order to stretch a display this far, the pixel aspect ratio would need to be 5:4, not 8:7 (1:1 in the case of the Mega Drive at 320px). Is this actually desirable to some people? Does it actually look better at 4:3 instead of 128:105? Or are they actually referring to 128:105 with some all-black padding to make it 4:3?
Here is an example with perfectly square pixels: (PAR: 1:1, DAR: 16:15)
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Here is an example of what a 4:3 display would actually look like: (PAR: 5:4, DAR: 4:3)
[spoiler][/spoiler]
And here is an example that is closer to what the consoles actually output: (PAR: 8:7, DAR: 128:105)
[spoiler][/spoiler]