Are there any retro consoles / computers that actually had a

Why would you ask if a certain console had 1:1 pixels when all that would depend on the TV being used?

>>4157180
It's assumed that any TV at that time would be 4:3.

Japanese computers like the PC98 had square pixels. I don't think you'll find a single game that looks 4:3 rather than 16:10.

>>4157169
nothing on a crtv has square pixels because a crtv renders half images

>>4157208
I need to correct myself. PAL tvs render full images at 50 fps and NTSC tvs render half images at 60 fps. So NTSC renders a full image at 30 fps. Thought you never really see the full image, except maybe by the delay of the cooling off of the "screen pixels" whatever they are called. NTSC sucks if ya ask me. Very bad for screenshots or pause frames.

>>4157193
It was assumed that VGA monitors would be adjusted on a game by game basis so it's not entirely inaccurate to say that computer games don't have a consistent "pixel aspect ratio"

>>4157186
And this, the exact opposite can be assumed about console games meant to be played on TVs.

To find a "pixel aspect ratio" multiply the game's native horizontal resolution by 4, its vertical resolution by 3 then reduce.

Certainly there were some idiots who didn't know how to adjust the dimensions of their computer monitors, some hardcore nerds who DID adjust the dimensions of their consumer TVs and no shortage of developers who designed their games with little to no consideration of the displays players would be using

In short there is no completely objective "pixel aspect ratio" for anything and the most authentic thing you can do is adjust the way games look to suit your personal taste but if your taste is to stretch them to 16:9 I'm going to assume you and everyone you know are super fat

>>4157186
if you assume that is the only aspect ratio possible, then just find consoles that output at that ratio. If you take a moment to consider that CRTs can often be adjusted, you realize that's not a great assumption to make.

>>4157169
why even fret, Boba

>>4157227
I think you are confusing display aspect ratio with pixel aspect ratio.

>>4157215
The PAL broadcast standard is interlaced just like NTSC is (PAL is 50hz/25fps vs NTSC's 60hz/30fps). Of course, most retro consoles didn't output the half-scanline needed to tell the TV to interlace, so the images were displayed progressively at 50hz/50fps or 60hz/60fps. The assumed pixel aspect ratio for 4:3 PAL is 59:54 (wider than tall), vs 10:11 for NTSC (narrower than tall). In still frames, the only difference between PAL and NTSC, assuming correct hue/saturation, would be PAL's higher vertical resolution, which most games didn't even take advantage of (used borders instead).

Given that analog video works with lines rather than pixels, perfectly square pixels didn't really become a thing until HDTV standards and fixed-pixel displays.

>>4157169
https://pineight.com/mw/index.php?title=Dot_clock_rates

>>4157396
That's probably the closest to what OP is looking for, though it would have been nice for them to also include each system's video resolution.

>>4157236
>I think you are confusing display aspect ratio with pixel aspect ratio
"pixel ratio" has nothing to do with the geometry of what is displayed, just how many things are displayed. This is set by the hardware is is utterly unambiguous.

"display aspect ratio" is the ratio of the physical dimensions of the output image, not what the image consists of.

The question "does a console output square pixels?" is meaningless because the console does not determine how the pixels are displayed. To output square pixels, the only requirement is that both the "display aspect ratio" and "pixel aspect ratio" are equal. I was pointing out to >>4157186 that if one assumes the aspect ratio, then you only have to find a console that outputs the pixel ratio. If you don't make that assumption, then any console output can be displayed with square pixels because you can adjust the aspect ratio.

>>4157536
If the DAR and PAR are equal, all you get is a square picture. That's not what OP is talking about; he's asking whether any retro game system has a PAR of 1:1 that maps perfectly onto a 4:3 CRT without stretched, rectangular pixels.

I still think you are confused as to what PAR actually is.

>>4157657
>all you get is a square picture.

What I meant was the system renders a square picture before the CRT takes it and stretches the individual pixels to a 4:3 PAR.

>>4157169
Gameboy? Game.com?

>>4157657
>If the DAR and PAR are equal, all you get is a square picture.
wtf? 4:3 isn't square.

A PAR of 1:1 would indicate a raster with an equal number of horizontal and vertical pixels.

>>4157169
There's no point to square pixels, because it gives you less resolution. You are limited to 240 scanlines, so if you want less blocky graphics you want to increase the amount of pixels per scanline. This results in non-square pixels, but sharper graphics.

>>4157672
Except it doesn't. The NES has no framebuffer, the PPU draws the picture as it's sent to the TV screen. The NES outputs a 4:3 picture because most TVs aren't designed to handle 8:7.

>>4157904
>A PAR of 1:1 would indicate a raster with an equal number of horizontal and vertical pixels.

No, that would be a SAR (storage aspect ratio) of 1:1.

A PAR of 1:1 just means the individual pixels are square / not stretched on a CRT. On a 4:3 display, that would mean a 4:3 SAR, meaning the system renders internally at 4:3.

Doesn't the Genesis render at true 4:3?

>>4157915
Low-definition retro systems don't exceed 320 pixels of horizontal resolution, so there's zero visual benefit to having non-square pixels.

>>4157923
Wrong, the NES puts out a 7:6 picture (280x240, with some automatic padding at the sides to account for overscan) that is then stretched horizontally to 4:3 on a CRT.

>>4157971
>280x240
The NES's resolution is 256x240.

>>4157971
To (hopefully) clear up some of the confusion regarding different types of aspect ratios:

SAR x PAR = DAR

or

(7/6) x (8/7) = (4/3)

>>4157974
Wrong. It's 280x240 with 24 horizontal pixels of automatic padding.

Please see: https://wiki.nesdev.com/w/index.php/Overscan

>>4157983
>But there is a recurring misconception that the picture is 256x224 pixels on NTSC.
>This article explains how both are true.

>>4157959
From what I've read, the Colecovision, MSX, NES, Master System, Genesis, and Super NES all use similar video chips (based on TMS9918) that output at 7:6 SAR.

>>4157991
>didn't read LOL

In order to get the correct SAR and therefore the correct PAR, you must use the full 280x240 overscan resolution.

File: IMG_0650.gif (12KB, 512x342px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 512x342px

The original 1984 Macintosh was famous for displaying square pixels on its 9" screen, enabling WYSIWYG printing when paired with a powerful (yet relatively affordable) PostScript printer like the LaserWriter.

>>4157169
Macs had square pixels

>>4157193
>PC98
Nope

>>4157215
>I need to correct myself
Yes, you still do. kek

>>4160784
How do PC98 not have square pixels?

>>4160785
Many ways. But mostly basic mathematics. lol

>>4158002
genesis H40 mode outputs pretty much square pixels.

>>4157971
>Low-definition retro systems don't exceed 320 pixels of horizontal resolution, so there's zero visual benefit to having non-square pixels.

Square pixels on such a system would be 1:1 ratio, but if the system has non-square pixels, usually by increasing the horizontal resolution, then it has more pixels on screen resulting in a sharper screen due to higher resolution.

Which is a very visual benefit.

For consoles it was the 16-bit era when they first started using more than 256px res, and 32bit ones sometimes used even more (sometimes even leaving the vertical res at 240px to avoid flickering).

But, arcades used large horizontal res much earlier. Capcom CPS1-2 being the best example with its 384x224 res.

>>4161832
How did capcom made its sprites then?

File: nomark_franciakockas[1].jpg (30KB, 312x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 312x450px

>>4163670
>How did capcom made its sprites then?

On these.

File: BuXHVuQCIAILZKy.jpg (109KB, 852x1136px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 852x1136px

>>4163670
They drew the lineart for them on special graph paper with rectangular cels that matched the displayed pixel aspect ratio. This let them keep track of things at a pixel/tile level (necessary for memory allocation) while also ensuring the desired proportions.