/vr/ - Retro Games

>>6514269
I would say handled ports are the equivalent of pan&scan.

Crystalis on GBC. Rockman&Forte or Super Mario Bros on GBA, etc

>>6514269
What about Soul Calibur?

>>6514269
So you mean they're superior in every way? Why would I want a rectangular image on my square TV?

>>6514476
>why would I want the entire image?

Only if the arcade game used a vertically oriented monitor.

I think it's more akin to VHS vs the theatrical print.

This is bullshit right?....

>>6514654
The joke is still there, but more subtle.

>>6514273
It's almost like it wouldn't be cost-effective to sell arcade-quality hardware to a home audience.

>>6518292
Yeah if only the Saturn was double or triple the price maybe it would have succeeded!

But most home arcade ports were just made by playing a cab and trying to recreate the game from memory, the programmer never even had access to the original source code or art assets.

No the video game equivalent to pan and scan is stretching SD consoles to widescreen. Or maybe it's smoothing filters.

Mario Bros and Popeye both have slightly better controls on NES (Mario Bros has easier horizontally-short jumps, Popeye registers diagonals)

>>6518292
they tried that
the Neo Geo AES was literally the same hardware are the arcade Neo Geo MVS
it was super expensive, but it was the complete arcade experience(tm)

FACT: reported and saged

>>6514654
Look, buddy, I paid good money for this 40 inch TV and I'm not gonna have some ugly black bars crowding out half the screen.

>>6519521
Boomers unironically think this way, these days with 16:9 displays. They see nothing wrong with stretching the image of some 4:3 TV show from 40 years ago to fill the whole screen. Even worse is when the people mastering the show actually zoom in on the image to fill the whole screen and cut out like 40% of the picture.

>>6519529
friend of mine who's 40 does the same thing, stretches everything, can't stand it
obviously i want to use as much of my display as i can as well, but not by ruining the picture in the process

how was this allowed

>>6519521
Didn't he?

>>6519564
No one but the most diehard Trekkie cares about TMP. That's how.

>>6519572
1. Cringe, TMP is still the only good Star Trek film.
2. I was talking about cutting off like 50% of the picture.

at least they had better audio and difficulty balancing

>>6519580
>1. Cringe, TMP is still the only good Star Trek film.
Sorry, we're not gonna agree on pretty much anything else, Anon.

>>6514269
So what is this they cropped the movie for TV displays?

>>6519564
Holy shit that panning

>>6520381
how young ARE you?

>>6519564
Because when you did SFX back in the day, it meant all effects end up in the master and not the footage.
Which means pan and scan, instead of using the source footage to avoid cropping from a crop.

>>6514269
Perhaps, but didn't some old vhs movies use non-cropped 4:3 versions? I mean the full image before the movie was letterboxed for theater.

>>6520623
Yes.
Fundamentally it depends on storing the master as the master, instead of the letterbox crop.
Or as seen in television: Store the master as the master, instead of the tv cassettes limited to analog 480p.

>>6520623
I've got a CED copy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in letterboxed 16:9. It did happen, just rarely

>>6520381
t. Zoomer

>>6519580
You fucking baiting retard

My dad, to this day, after I've explained ratios multiple fucking times, still thinks widescreen is 4:3 with the top and bottom cut off. He's in his 70s now, he can just have it.

>>6521401
at least he's not stretching 4:3 to widescreen.
those people are just bad to the core.

>>6521401
4:3 is widescreen
What you're thinking of as widescreen is called CinemaScope.

>>6520381
why are you even on /vr/?

>>6521401
a widescreen picture letterboxed onto a 4:3 display is widescreen in the sense that the /content/ is widescreen, it's just letterboxed as well
if he means that more in the sense that if you take like, a piece of 4:3 paper and cut the top and bottom to make it 16:9, yea, that is a correct way to think about the relationship between the aspect ratios, just as it would be to say it's 4:3 and you can add to the sides to make it 16:9

>>6522072
>>6521401
Boomers are so clueless when it comes to this stuff. For example, you know how you trick boomers into thinking a display is good? Crank up the saturation a good 25% higher than it should be, I guarantee you they'll say "WOW look at the color!!!" Literally gets them every time.

>>6522721
That's because half of them grew up with black-and-white TV. You'd say that too.

>>6514273
Post moar comparisons.

The real evil is motion smoothing.

>>6520623
Those are called 'open matte' or 'unmatted' films.
A good example is Mask of the Phantasm and The Princess Bride. The film frame is square and they used the whole frame for tv/home video but cropped it for the theatre.

>>6522181
Widescreen and cinemascope are two different things. You can end up with a similar image for both but cinemascope is an anamorphic format in order to achieve a greater horizontal resolution.

I would simply like to take this opportunity to say FUCK MACROVISION AND FUCK HOLLYWOOD.

>>6514654
Why are they using the simpsons for this example? What the hell aspect ratios are these supposed to be?

>>6519564
Obviously watching TMP in 4:3 is a waste of time but this image is pretty interesting. Are there more comparisons like this? It's cool to see how they approach the problem.

>>6522836

>>6522857

>>6521401
>>6522721
>worked in a store that sold DVDs just as they were reaching mainstream market
>Widescreen and Full Frame were frequently sold separately
>"Yeah I need [Movie]"
>Which version
>"Regular"

>>6522860

Remember the people that would accidentally buy the widescreen version and then return them demanding the fullscreen edition?

>>6522863

>>6514269
I don’t really see why it’s an issue. It’s a less expensive way to enjoy something in your home. Sure there’s compromises but it’s still fun

>>6522860
At which point you should have just handed them the 4:3 you dumbass. That was the standard for the working class and poor.

>>6522752
This. FUUUUUCK that shit so goddamn hard, I hate it.

>>6522448
He's saying that his dad believes that a 16:9 video on a 16:9 display should be called "fullscreen" and not "widescreen."

>>6522898
His dad is technically right just outdated. For VHS or early DVDs that is how you would differentiate. The nomenclature just no longer makes sense

>>6522913
We still call 16:9 screens widescreen, but his dad probably wouldn't.

>>6521401
Sometimes it literally is. Look up the Seinfeld example. They actually cut off part of the top and bottom for the 16:9 versions of this show.

Uhm excuse me but the Genesis version of Phelios is better than the coin-op. So fuck you.

>>6523102
Disney+ does this for ALL their 4:3 content. Are people fucking retards or something? Do they really prefer filling the screen when it comes at the cost of reducing the already poor video quality even more?

>>6523109
>Disney+ does this for ALL their 4:3 content
The Mouse does NOT care about video-quality etc. at all.
>pic related is "Sword in the Stone"

>>6522830
Because Simpsons used pan and scan cropping for their (HD) conversions since the early seasons were all in SD 4:3. The one on the left is the HD version, the one on the right is the original. The left has been cropped to 4:3 to make both images fit better. This is pretty simple stuff anon.

>>6514654
>>6523117

>>6523109
CONSOOMING is imperative for many people.

>>6518439
it made a profit.it was like the Macs of gaming.

>>6523117
JESUS CHRIST HOW HORRIFYING
Glad I never fell for the Blu-Ray meme

>>6523460
got nothing to do with bluray, just with The Moustler's way of doing business.

>>6523476
Even so, can you imagine paying Disney Blu-Ray prices? Just to get *that* in return?

>>6523482
>can you imagine giving Disney any money
FTFY

>>6523493
Definitely. I've stopped doing business with them or their subcompanies (like Hulu). They're just too fucking obnoxious.

>>6523482
Kek, I just collect the laserdiscs.

>>6522898
oh, that makes sense, back in the day 4:3 was the standard, so widescreen was widescreen
at this point widescreen is the standard, so yea, it's not "wider than standard", it's the standard

>>6523810
I wish there were an archive for LDs. Same for VCD.

>>6523963
You mean copies of the video? or just a catalog of the releases with scans of the covers?

>>6522752
Fuck that shit

>>6522830
t. Retard

>>6523973
The whole thing: copies of the films, quality cover art, the works.

I really couldn't tell a difference between the Mortal Kombats as a kid

>>6514654
>Pan and scan is a method of adjusting widescreen film images so that they can be shown in fullscreen proportions of a standard definition 4:3 aspect ratio television screen, often cropping off the sides of the original widescreen image to focus on the composition's most important aspects.
That's the opposite of pan and scan.

>>6524626
Widescreen crops of 4:3 content are functionally the same thing, since I don't think it really has its own name, it works fine as a way to convey the concept.

I don't get why people hate black bars so much they can't hurt you or anything they're just bars wtf are they gonna do steal your car? retards I swear.

>>6524740
It comes from normalfag misconceptions about 4:3 'not being HD' and a general feeling of 'yeah but I want it to use my whole screen'.
And in all fairness, in the VHS days, proper widescreen meant sacrificing potentially over half of the image's resolution on what was already a not amazing quality medium.

>>6514273
>>6518292
Wasn't the first arcade perfect port the PS3 one

>>6524740
Lets see:
1. HD broadcast came along as 16:9, while SD television where 4:3
2. Movies always broadcasted in snowflake formats. But generally wide

Said, 4:3 -> 16:9 pan and crop as a terrible idea.
So is 1,85:1 -> 16:9 pan and crop.

>>6523117
It's not just Disney. Old animes get cropped for muh 16:9 fullscreen as well. I've tried watching Dragon Ball and DBZ on bluray and it's unbearable. Nothing but zoomed in faces that take the whole screen.
On the other hand, my Hokuto no Ken DVDs have kept the 4:3 format and it looks great.

>>6516607
sneed

>>6514654
Even on a borrowed d+ acct this exact fuck up annoyed the shit out of me. Went and torrented tv rips from the 90s and while the quality is garbage at least I can watch the show without missing visual gags.

>>6522721
Standard electronics store tactic. Some TVs even come with a store demo picture mode ('vibrant') so that the stores don't need to mess with the settings too much themselves.

Boomers and zoomers ruined everything

>>6525595
they fixed it on there like a month ago you can now choose the ratio and restore it

>>6525564
In all fairness the DBZ releases are infamously bad. The vast majority of anime physical releases don't do it.

>>6526823
Did they fix the hideous blur filtering too?

>>6527021
It was definitely an eyesore before. I don't really notice it anymore but maybe that's because it isn't so zoomed in now. I'm thinking it's ok