Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I don't understand your issue, you can't have 4:3 on a 16:9 TV without black
borders on left/right side.
As for vertical borders, this is how it is supposed to look, you can adjust
vertical scaling to fit your own TV byy using SCALED mode but accurate aspect
ratio is how a real Mega Drive will look on your TV.
Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com
on 5 Nov 2011 at 2:50
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Also, if your 16:9 TV has a 4:3 mode, I strongly advise you to use this instead
oh having the emulator compensates 16:9 upscaling (which ORIGINAL 16:9 option
does), this will give you much better video quality.
Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com
on 5 Nov 2011 at 2:54
No ekeeke. If I connect my Mega Drive to the TV I have a correct 4:3 Picture in
the middle of the TV.
Also other emulators like Wii64, SNES9x GX etc. are showing the correct 4:3
Picture.
Genesis GX displays a picture which is too small.
I used as workaround the scaled method.
Normally it should look like this if I choose 16:9 (Original):
http://www.hdtv-praxis.de/praxis/formatchaos/bildschirm-16zu9-anamorph-in-4zu3.j
pg
However it's similar to that:
http://www.hdtv-praxis.de/praxis/formatchaos/bildschirm-16zu9-bild-4zu3-letterbo
x.jpg
Original comment by starlord...@googlemail.com
on 5 Nov 2011 at 10:32
No way those borders are supposed to be that high, at least it doesn't for me.
Also, top and bottom borders have absolutely nothing to do with 16:9 correction.
That's probably because you are using PAL games with console region set to AUTO
in System Settings, or have this option forced to EUROPE, which in both cases
emulate a PAL system.
A PAL Mega Drive will display such vertical borders and has different aspect
ratio than NTSC, which this emulator faithfully reproduces.
SCALED mode default values (0,0) will force NTSC aspect ratio to ensure games
are always displayed full-screen, even when emulating PAL Mega Drive.
Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com
on 5 Nov 2011 at 10:48
Indeed. The Top and Bottom boarders are independent of the 16:9 correction.
The vertical boards are correct, but the horizontal boarders seems to be not
correct.
Is it possible to stretch the image to have a "full" picture.
The smaller high of the picture (which are the root cause for the horizontal
boarders) results from the different lines.
NTSC has 525 active lines and PAL has 576 active lines. To get the same
presentation the PAL games were rammed.
To get the correct view you have to stretch the picture vertically.
Original comment by starlord...@googlemail.com
on 13 Nov 2011 at 6:25
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Ok, after reading your message again, it seems to be a confusion with what you
call "vertical borders". For me, vertical ones are the ones on top & bottom.
Anyway, my first answer still stands: it's how games are supposed to look on a
PAL Mega Drive.
PAL Mega Drive is emulated when "console region" is set to EUROPE or when it is
set to AUTO and you are loading a known PAL game (either from region indicator
in ROM header or info from internal ROM database, some games being incompatible
with NTSC consoles).
Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com
on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:19
And to be exact, PAL video signal is 625 lines (interlaced), out of which
approx. 576 hold active display. NTSC is 525 lines (again, interlaced) with
approx. 480 lines available for active display.
Genesis active height however is fixed to 224 lines (non-interlaced), which
maps to the 448 centered lines of active video signal, the rest being filled by
border color.
For that matter, 448 lines approximately match the height that most 60HZ CRT
TVs can show (because of overscan) so genesis picture appears fullscreen. PAL
TVs, however, show more lines within the same display area (i.e lines are
"thinner") , but since genesis active height does not change, it results in
higher visible borders and squeezed image.
A few PAL optimized games use a higher resolution mode (240 lines, only works
on PAL Mega Drive) to improve image aspect but borders are still visible (just
slightly reduced).
Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com
on 13 Nov 2011 at 9:14
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
starlord...@googlemail.com
on 5 Nov 2011 at 2:17