Which resolutions do you use/want to use?

[Noxious Ninja]

640x480 DR Full w/ HQ2X. I just wish I could get KitchenSync working, but I think that's a problem with Windows not realizing my monitor can do it.

[snkcube]

Using 512x448 DR windowed mode + HQ2X.

[Esturk]

Well I use 640x480DR Full on my desktop with no filters. I use 1024x768DR Full on my laptop because it's the native resolution.

[Gil_Hamilton]

I'd like to see a 512*448 fullscreen mode, if it's possible.

We are divorcing windowed/fullscreen from the video modes thing. *sigh*

Oh.
If I read that right, then Yay!

[funkyass]

how hard would it be to have zsnes enumerate the avalible video modes?

[Dead]

I wish I looked at the results before I voted. It would be a shame if 1024x896 / 1024x956 wasn't supported. I consider these to be the ultimate resolutions, (even though they are non-standard) because the game image would fill the screen without stretching, when running ZSNES in full screen mode. The game image would be quadrupled with the aspect ratio preserved, making a perfect HQ4x processed image.

Of course, these modes are useless unless you have a CRT monitor. LCD monitors would have to rescale the image, which diminishes any advantage to using it. CRTs look good in any odd resolution.

[creaothceann]

I'm switching between "512x448 D WIN" and "640x480 DR FULL" here.

[kieran_]

512*448 DR
Perfect.

[Aerdan]

It would be a shame if 1024x896 / 1024x956 wasn't supported.

Of course they'll be supported. It's 4x NTSC/PAL; why wouldn't it be supported?

The only reason I have 1280x1024 in there is for those weird people who bought LCDs where that's the native res, nonstandard though it be.

[Nightcrawler]

It would be a shame if 1024x896 / 1024x956 wasn't supported.

Of course they'll be supported. It's 4x NTSC/PAL; why wouldn't it be supported?

The only reason I have 1280x1024 in there is for those weird people who bought LCDs where that's the native res, nonstandard though it be.

Because the aspect ratio on these monitors is 1.25, you can use 1280x1024 and stretch the image to full screen and it is a much better image than scaling it on your standard 1.33 ratio monitor. I honestly think it produces just enough scaling to mimic the TV much closer and not enough to degrade image quality that much as opposed to the 1.33 ratio modes. I love it.

[MaxSt]

The only reason I have 1280x1024 in there is for those weird people who bought LCDs where that's the native res, nonstandard though it be.

What's weird about that?

Nothing wierd about widescreen notebooks 1440x900 either.

[Reznor007]

The only reason I have 1280x1024 in there is for those weird people who bought LCDs where that's the native res, nonstandard though it be.

What's weird about that?

Nothing wierd about widescreen notebooks 1440x900 either.

1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio. Every previous computer, console and arcade game is designed for 4:3(or 16:9 for widescreen).

LCD's should be 1280x960, but I guess if manufacturers make both the h/v resolution over 1000 pixels it sounds better, even if it does screw up the aspect slightly.

Even 1440x900 isn't the standard 16x9 ratio. The proper resolution for a square pixel device with 1440 horizontal res should be 1440x810 for 16x9.

[Jdurg]

I use 800x600 since my monitor (Dell 2001FP LCD) has a native resolution of 1600x1200. I don't see any degredation in image quality when I'm running it at half the native resolution.

[MaxSt]

1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio.

Different ratio doesn't make it weird. It's a different standard, that's all. Nothing weird about that.

Even 1440x900 isn't the standard 16x9 ratio.

It's a standard 16:10 ratio. There are lots of notebooks with such ratio:

- 1920x1200 (WUXGA)
- 1680x1050 (WSXGA+)
- 1440x900 (WXGA+)
- 1280x800 (WXGA)

MaxSt.

[Reznor007]

It's weird because most video content was designed assuming either 4:3 or 16:9.

I really don't see why they came up with new "standards" that don't really fit most video content, and upcoming content(HDTV) will be based on 16:9 anyway.

It also would probably be cheaper to manufacture since they would be using slightly smaller LCD's, but like I said before, having over 1000 pixels for both h/v probably sells better. Older LCD's were 800x600 or 1024x768...why drop 4:3 now?

[Gil_Hamilton]

It's weird because most video content was designed assuming either 4:3 or 16:9.

I really don't see why they came up with new "standards" that don't really fit most video content, and upcoming content(HDTV) will be based on 16:9 anyway.

It also would probably be cheaper to manufacture since they would be using slightly smaller LCD's, but like I said before, having over 1000 pixels for both h/v probably sells better. Older LCD's were 800x600 or 1024x768...why drop 4:3 now?

1280*1024 originated because it was the maximum size allowed by a certain amount of video RAM, if I recall correctly.

[MaxSt]

It's weird because most video content was designed assuming either 4:3 or 16:9.

Since when notebooks are all about watching video?
You can do lots of other stuff of notebooks, you know... Nothing weird about that.

MaxSt.

[Cebu]

It's a standard 16:10 ratio. There are lots of notebooks with such ratio:

- 1920x1200 (WUXGA)
- 1680x1050 (WSXGA+)
- 1440x900 (WXGA+)
- 1280x800 (WXGA)

Add another to the "16:10 notebook users" tally. (1280x800).

When connected to an external monitor I tend to use 1280x1024.

[Aerdan]

ZSNES is *not* going to support every aspect ratio under the sun, or at least, not in the official distribution.

[They will be *defined*, sure, but not actually available unless a flag is passed to the compiler. That's about all I'm prepared to do, mind.]

[MaxSt]

That's about all I'm prepared to do, mind.

What about my idea of adding only one mode to the end of the list, called "CURRENT"?
It would represent the current desktop mode. Everybody will be happy that way.

MaxSt.

[Aerdan]

Are you willing to write a function that asks what the current resolution *is*?

It's not as simple as it sounds; remember, the SDL port doesn't use X at all, so we can't ask SDL to figure out what the current resolution is.

[Nightcrawler]

Well, it can be done on the Windows port in about 2 minutes. Sucks for Linux users.

[Kagerato]

I wouldn't say it's unfortunate that linux/gnu (or more generally, SDL-compatible) systems cannot be uber-easily queried for the current resolution. The price of having the capability of using such a variety of display mechanisms (framebuffer, OpenGL, X, and so on) is low compared to the benefits.

It all comes down to the same concept, programming-wise: abstraction. The greater the level of abstraction, the more possibilites are available. However, this creates a trade-off with the ease of constructing a solution for any particular case.

[MaxSt]

Are you willing to write a function that asks what the current resolution *is*?

For Windows version, sure. No problem.

At least Windows users will be happy.

It's not as simple as it sounds; remember, the SDL port doesn't use X at all, so we can't ask SDL to figure out what the current resolution is.

Well, the lists of video modes in Linux and Win versions are quite different already, so...

[Nach]

Are you willing to write a function that asks what the current resolution *is*?

For Windows version, sure. No problem.

It shouldn't be a problem at all for any platform.

http://sdldoc.csn.ul.ie/sdllistmodes.php

Basically, for DOS we leave as is, since we can't do much for that anyway.
For Win/Lin, we ask DX or SDL for a list, delete ones that are too small or don't match other requirements we give, and write code that can handle any case thrown at it properly.