4:3 ratio vs 16:9 on LCD

[fatboy]

Having put my CRT TV in the loft (for now) I'm using a 19" Sony flat screen for my A1200. I've never been happy with the scaling and pixelisation inherent with modern displays, particularly when scaled up to 16:9 aspect ratio. In the end I settled for the Amigas original 4:3 aspect and put up with the thick black borders either side. Not ideal but a reasonable compromise, until I've got room sorted for my CRT display.

[Glen M]

Or pick up a cheap 4:3 LCD TV and use RGB to scart on the TV. Display is as good as it will get really on an LCD.

As for using a 16:9 display I agree the black bars either side are annoying but you do get used to them. I'm currently sat here laptop on knee watching Star Trek DS9 on the TV with 2 thick black bars either side.

[Jope]

The black bars are inevitable, just be happy your display supports 4:3 mode. :-)

[PeterK]

I'm happy with my old LG Flatron W2452TX 16:10 monitor (1920x1200). My favorite Workbench screenmode is 1280x800, but it is also good for old 800x600 or 1600x1200 pictures or HD videos where I can still see the Windows taskbar.

[oscillik]

I really don't understand why people get so bothered by letterboxing/pillarboxing.

[daxb]

Because they don't know how the stuff works?!

[NovaCoder]

My old LCD was a 5:4 display which scaled without distortion or borders (most of the time)

[ Show youtube player ]

[scuzz]

Originally Posted by fatboy

Having put my CRT TV in the loft (for now) I'm using a 19" Sony flat screen for my A1200. I've never been happy with the scaling and pixelisation inherent with modern displays, particularly when scaled up to 16:9 aspect ratio. In the end I settled for the Amigas original 4:3 aspect and put up with the thick black borders either side. Not ideal but a reasonable compromise, until I've got room sorted for my CRT display.

I was of the same mindset till doing that broke my SONY Bravia flat screen TV. In the end I just put the SONY Trinitron back in the lounge, which I watch most of the time as I prefer the aspect ratio.


I'm lucky with the Amigas cus I have so many monitors, especially the Microvitecs. The flat screens are truly dreadful... just doesn't work.

[Pyromania]

I used a 25 inch Sony Trinitron XBR TV for many years with my A500 and it looked great with RGB in. They might be hard to find in today's world and it was a heavy 4.3 aspect TV.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by oscillik

I really don't understand why people get so bothered by letterboxing/pillarboxing.

Originally Posted by daxb

Because they don't know how the stuff works?!

ASPECT RATIO, or the SHAPE of the image, is what you're talking about, and it is absolutely 100% more important that IT IS maintained, than having it fill your screen and making it stretched and distorted and ruin what was intended.

Whether you're talking about old 4:3 CRTs or 2.35:1 widescreen movies in the cinema, a 16:9 display is the perfect (literal) "middleman" for showing both, and most of all... BLACK BARS ARE A GOOD THING. Don't be ashamed to show them off.

[Mrz]

the best thing for the Amiga should be 4:3 lcd lPS screen, but don't exists or are very rare
just 5:4 and 16:9 are in the market

[Daedalus]

A PAL Amiga's native output is 5:4, not 4:3. If you have a 5:4 monitor and spend the time setting it up, you should be able to get rid of most of the scaling artefacts that otherwise occur when running an LCD panel at something other than its native resolution.

[Mrz]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

A PAL Amiga's native output is 5:4, not 4:3.

this is correct
but please note all the TVs in the era and monitors like the 1084s etc are 4:3 aspect ratio,
PAL resolutions are 5:4 , NTSC are 4:3 , anyways is better to have a 4:3 screen like in the old times because is better for both

[Jope]

Most Amiga screenmodes don't have square pixels! All Amiga resolutions were designed to be shown on a 4:3 screen, as that's what was available back then.

[Daedalus]

Indeed, 4:3 is closer to the ratio of the screens themselves. My point was though, that if you're using an LCD panel in a non-widescreen ratio, it's probably relatively low resolution, and as such the artefacts from scaling a 5:4 image to 4:3 would be quite prominent. Using a 5:4 display instead of a 4:3 display would reduce this effect, possibly even eliminate it, at the cost of having pixels ever-so-slightly off their intended shape (the difference in pixel shape between 5:4 and 4:3 is far smaller than the difference in pixel shape between NTSC and PAL).

[AmigaHope]

It's the reason theaters adjust their curtains to support different aspect ratios. Movie theaters of course have fixed aspect ratio on their screen, but they have vertical and horizontal curtains that they carefully open to match the aspect ratio of what they're showing to stop people from complaining that there's "missing space" on the screen.

In other words, people are stupid and some companies go the extra mile to hide things to stop the stupidity from triggering. =P

[rsn8887]

Well many Amiga games displayed 320x200 pixels with a big black bar on the bottom. Those games scale very nicely onto modern widescreens, keeping the aspect ratio intact and filling the height. So if you have a method to adjust scaling on your TV or scaler box, it can come in quite handy. Chaos Engine is a good example:

[Marchie]

Two grave evils of history: the black death of 1347 and 4:3 images displayed on 16:9 screens...

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Marchie

Two grave evils of history: the black death of 1347 and 4:3 images displayed on 16:9 screens...

Don't be silly, the latter with black bars is certainly much better than cropping or stretching. Above all else, the original aspect ratio MUST be preserved!

[Marchie]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Don't be silly,

Too soon to joke about the 14th century?

Originally Posted by Foebane

the latter with black bars is certainly much better than cropping or stretching. Above all else, the original aspect ratio MUST be preserved!

Black bars are fine, infinitely preferable to ugly distorted images. I think we're on the same page, preserving aspect ratio is essential.

Originally Posted by Mrz

this is correct
but please note all the TVs in the era and monitors like the 1084s etc are 4:3 aspect ratio,
PAL resolutions are 5:4 , NTSC are 4:3 , anyways is better to have a 4:3 screen like in the old times because is better for both

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but neither NTSC or PAL are 4:3 resolutions (if considered as square-pixel resolutions) they both require non-square pixels to fit a 4:3 screen. No?