File talk:Tuttifrutti.png


Aspect ratio[edit]

Looks 4:3 to me. 640x480. --Quasar 00:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not the final file size, it's the "pixel" dimensions, or so I've heard.  The marine's hand is too fat in this file, signifying non-ideal rendering, right?    Ryan W 00:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Doom 95 is "special," it doesn't do 4:3 correctly. Changing Doom 95 shots by rescaling them won't make it better, they still won't be identical to a vanilla shot. That shot in particular is used as an example of it. Is this one also a Doom 95 shot? The HUD and weapon do look a bit off compared to the rendering. --Quasar 04:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah.  In that case I've no idea how to approach the "fat hand" files; a Doom95 screen shot is AFAICT indistinguishable from a modern screen shot with rendering configured like vanilla (unless demonstrating a DirectX bug or something).  Examining this category more closely, I'm not even sure Kyano's bulk conversion will be a net positive.  Surely this and this are legitimately 16:10?
Yes those are both 16:10 (320x200) shots. To be aspect corrected, they should be scaled to 320x240 or 640x480, with a quality rescaling filter. In some cases I feel it's worth noting that the quality of the image will suffer as a result of the rescaling. This is particularly true of any text such as status bar numbers. They will appear unevenly scaled because a discrete pixel rescaling is nothing like the scanline based stretching effect of VGA rasterization. Care needs to be taken IMO to avoid making the pics look really ugly. --Quasar 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
On closer examination of the first shot you linked, that one appears to have been rendered with aspect ratio correction by a source port. Even though the image is 16:10, the graphics appear correct. It is clear that a simple categorization by the dimensions of the image is insufficient. If a sweep is done to just blindly resize files based on dimensions or logical aspect ratio, cases like this will be caught incorrectly. I think we need to rethink this entire thing. --Quasar 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)