View Single Post
Old 21 May 2009, 16:23   #745
Ed Cruse
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Cruces, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by aidenn View Post
I don't get it. When you use a 5:4 monitor you should select a 5:4 resolution like 1280x1024, then nothing gets stretched and everything is exactly the way it is on 4:3 monitors (with a little more vertical space). And in WinUAE you compensate by selecting 5:4 AS WELL as a 5:4 resolution, then you also get the same thing as 4:3 owners.

I have a 5:4 monitor, I'm using a 5:4 resolution and his screenshots look as they should (first three round, fourth squashed). There's nothing like "as accurately as I could", it's exactly the same when viewing screenshots. WinUAE is a different tale, but since 1280x1024 is much bigger than Amiga's native display, the difference after scaling is almost exactly close to zero.

Of course, you can also select 4:3 resolutions on a 5:4 monitor, but you have to disable hardware and driver stretching, so that you'll get black borders on top and bottom. Then it's no difference with 4:3 monitors.
The reason is you want the aspect ratio of the Amiga display to measure with a tape measaure 4:3. With full screen, filters on and setting themselves automatically, WinUAE always stretches Amiga display to full size of what ever the windows resolution mode is. Then the monitor will stretch what ever windows display mode to full monitor size. If you disable Aspect-Ratio then the Amiga display will fill the entire monitor screen. If you have a 5:4 monitor and measure the Amiga display with a tape measure it will have an aspect ratio 5:4, everything will be stretched. If you selct 5:4 Aspect-Ratio then the display will be squished down vertically and the measured aspect ratio will be 4:3.

You have to make the distinction between pixel aspect ratio and physical aspect ratio, the physcial aspect ratio of the Amiga display is what really counts.

Last edited by Ed Cruse; 21 May 2009 at 16:31.
Ed Cruse is offline  
Page generated in 0.04128 seconds with 11 queries