Originally Posted by Photon
It's not about pixels. It's about what screens Amiga games were made for. Try Zany Golf on a 16:10 fullscreen and get back to me. Or try any 320x256 PAL game on it. The 256/512 scanlines will be squashed to fit vertically in 480 vertical lines, and the 320/640 pixels will be stretched to fit in 800.
Unless you're claiming that fat black bars on the sides of the vertically shrunken PAL graphics is the 'ideal screen format' for said gfx.
16:9, 16:10 and other abbreviations refer to the ratio of screen width and height, not the number of pixels.
Did you even read what I wrote? Where did I suggest 320x256
was suited for 16:10? I clearly stated those games are suited for standard screens (4:3 or - even better - 5:4).
I was talking about 320x200
-games. They all have black bars at top and bottom in 5:4-and 4:3-screens.
But on a 16:10-screen these games fit perfectly without any black bars!
Of course 320x256-games have black bars on the left and right on 16:10-screens. But that wasn't the matter.
This is Superfrog, a game with a resolution of 320x256 pixels:
This is in 5:4-format and would be fullscreen on a 5:4-screen.
Hence this game has black bars on the left and right on 16:10-screens:
I never claimed anything different.
This is Wings, a game with a resolution of 320x200 pixels:
It has black bars on a standard screen.
On a 16:10-screen this 320x200
-game would be fullscreen without any bars
Computer screens have square pixels. Because of that the ratio of vertical pixels to horizontal pixels matches exactly the ratio of screen height to screen width.