Trebor Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Please pardon my ignorance or/and stupidity, but could someone please tell me the max display resolution of an NTSC Atari 2600? For instance: Atari 5200: 320x192 Atari 7800: 320x200(some claim 320x240) ColecoVision: 256x192 Atari 2600: From what I've read and trying to comprehend - 48x192 or 160x262. I know this is probably inaccurate. Could someone *please* tell me what is the acutal numbers? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mos6507 Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 The sprites' pixels, if stretched across the entire width of the 2600's potential output, would be 160 pixels horizontal. The playfield limits you to 40 pixels, however. The vertical is a different story. For NTSC you can draw to any scanline you want up to the point where it goes off into overscan. So that's about 200 pixels or so. However, we recently discovered that the 2600 can also generate an interlaced display like a regular broadcast signal. Therefore it can really draw 400+ pixels vertically, although there probably isn't much you can do productively with that extra resolution, given the added flicker of interlace and the wide horizontal pixels and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 The sprites' pixels, if stretched across the entire width of the 2600's potential output, would be 160 pixels horizontal. The word "would" is very important here, because in practice you can only use 48 of the 160 pixels (except when you want to repeat the same pattern again and again). That's the usual resolution of e.g. six digit score displays or hires title graphics. The recommened vertical resolution of a NTSC game is 192 lines, but many (esp. later) games display a few more lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doron Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 However, we recently discovered that the 2600 can also generate an interlaced display like a regular broadcast signal. Therefore it can really draw 400+ pixels vertically, although there probably isn't much you can do productively with that extra resolution, given the added flicker of interlace and the wide horizontal pixels and all. Are you sure there's absolutely not a single game-concept that would benefit from this technique? Mabe it could be used for a scrolling background for a shootemup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doron Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I just began using Mozilla, on a different computer, it's not bad, but it does everything twice, obviously. I just began using Mozilla, on a different computer, it's not bad, but it does everything twice, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Andrew Davie Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Please pardon my ignorance or/and stupidity, but could someone please tell me the max display resolution of an NTSC Atari 2600? [snip] Atari 2600: From what I've read and trying to comprehend - 48x192 or 160x262. I know this is probably inaccurate. Could someone *please* tell me what is the acutal numbers? Thanks. Background graphics resolution is 40 pixels across. Vertical resolution is standardised at 262 pixels, of which some 200 or so lines may be used for graphics display. It's up to the programmer, but not all TVs will fit larger numbers of lines on the visible display area. Recent developments have extended the display resolution to 525 pixels INTERLACED (that is, 262.5 lines over 2 frames, each frame offset by half a line). Sprites missiles and ball have a finer horizontal pixel resolution (160 pixels), but these are limited in number and usage. So the "straight answer" is that "it depends". Theoretical resolution: 160 x 525. Practical resolution: 40 x 262, with some sprites over that. In short, the best actual image you will be able to display, full-screen, is roughly 40 pixels across by 400 lines deep (interlaced). Using sprites gives you better resolution but much less screen coverage. As you see, there's no simple "straight" answer at all! Cheers A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Are you sure there's absolutely not a single game-concept that would benefit from this technique? Mabe it could be used for a scrolling background for a shootemup? There might be, but don't forget this automatically causes some flicker (each line is updated only every 2nd frame). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mos6507 Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Are you sure there's absolutely not a single game-concept that would benefit from this technique? Mabe it could be used for a scrolling background for a shootemup? Scrolling causes problems with interlace unless you animate at only 30fps, otherwise you get this comb or strobing effect. You don't notice it that much on live action or antialiased stuff on modern consoles, but on the 2600, it would be pretty annoying. One thing you might be able to use it for is to interface with 3D LCD goggles. Most LCD goggles designed to be used with special VHS or DVD videos separate the two images by field. These are now quite inexpensive. http://www.i-glassesstore.com/h3dvidviewsy.html If you attempted to drive goggles like that with a regular 2600 kernel or via any other console that outputs "noninterlaced" video you'd only wind up with an image on one side of the goggles, most likely, assuming the synchronizer loses sync and blanks out every other field. Maybe someone should buy a pair and see what happens with a standard kernel vs. interlaced. You could probably write a port of Subroc 3D this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 well heres a question, we know the 2600 cant PLOT more than X graphic elements horizontally, but in its 'highest resolution' what is the number of horizontal pixels across? even though it cant fill all those pixels, that would still give you the resolution and aspect ratio. so, the 525 & 260 would stay the same. but the other number would be the actual horizontal resolution (even thought it may only be able to fill 1/2 or 1/3 of that with image....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybergoth Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi there! well heres a question, we know the 2600 cant PLOT more than X graphic elements horizontally, but in its 'highest resolution' what is the number of horizontal pixels across? even though it cant fill all those pixels, that would still give you the resolution and aspect ratio. so, the 525 & 260 would stay the same. but the other number would be the actual horizontal resolution (even thought it may only be able to fill 1/2 or 1/3 of that with image....) The normally visible, non-interlaced NTSC resolution would be 160 double-width pixels * 192 lines. (This ~ matches a C64 in Multicolor mode.) Greetings, Manuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 so even tho its technically 320 X 260 or 525, since the 2600 cant do a single horizontal pixel, its effective res is 160, even thought it couldnt plot 160 different double-pixels on a single scan line. can it plot and move the double-pixels in single-pixel increments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 can it plot and move the double-pixels in single-pixel increments? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 so even tho its technically 320 X 260 or 525, No, it isn't 320 x anything. It's 160. Stop confusing the issue... it's confusing enough as it is. With regards to the 2600's sprites, the most accurate thing to say is that their maximum resolution is 1 color-clock horizontally by 1 scanline vertically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted October 14, 2003 Author Share Posted October 14, 2003 WOW! So much for trying to get a 'straight' answer...lol. Let me rephrase... From a 'practical', what an original (aka Non-Home Brew - Retail) game used as a resolution is what I'm shooting for. The best I think is 160x192 which does makes sense. I'm not denying the theoretical 160x262/525 - but what I'm looking for is what the actual games used. Most games I have tried *appear* to be using the 160x192... The only exception I have seen (or perhaps noticed) is running Sneak'N'Peek. Right when you start the ROM up on an emulator the path and the person walking up is cut off at the start under any emulator I've tried - No matter what resolution I set. If I try to adjust the screen then the top portion of the display runs off the screen. Play it on a real 2600 and you'll see what I mean. Nonethless, the answer I believe I'm looking for is 160x192. Under this assumption, the possibly closest resolution settings under an emulator (which doesn't support *exact* resolutions but 'standards') is: Atari 2600 actual- 160x192 ----------------Emulator- 320x200 Atari 5200 actual- 320x192 ----------------Emulator- 320x200 Atari 7800 actual- 320x200(240/242) -----Emulator- 320x240 Atari Jaguar actual 768x567----------------Emulator - 800x600 Intellivision actual 192x160 ----------------Emulator - 320x200 ColecoVision actual 256x192---------------Emulator- 512x384(x2 size) SMS actual 256x192-------------------------Emulator- 512x384(x2 size) NES actual 256x224(240)-------------------Emulator- 400x300 TG-16 actual 256/320x256------------------Emulator- 400x300 Sega Genesis-CD-32X 320x224 -----------Emulator- 320x240 Super Nintendo 256x224--------------------Emulator- 400x300 I've spent *a lot* of time researching this info (actual resolutions). I couldn't believe the difference in opinions on some of these systems. Most difficult is the 2600, 7800, NES, TG-16. Seems to be several different viewpoints. However, I went with the most logical and generally accepted against the facts. Some (as you can see) I still undecided on (IE NES & 7800 - Notice the alternatives in parantheses). Don't mean to drag this out for so long, but for the most part I was basically using 800x600 (Older Radeon) or 1024x768 (New Radeon) with hardware stretch for everything. Recently, I started taking note of distortion and aspect ratio in respects to image. Particularily with Rygar on the NES. Characters looked smaller and fatter. Then I realized the problem and changed resolution settings and the game look *much* better than before (Closer to the *real* console display). Obviously, the 2600 is a *very* high priority with respects to this as well. And although the proud owner of a 4-switch wood grain and 150+ cartridges, sometimes emulation is my only or better option for playing. Nonetheless, I want the image being displayed via emualtor to match the actual display of a real 2600 as close as possible. The specific numbers (ie 160x192) become even more important now as Direct X 9 supports specific resolution and outputing (So I've read). Hopefully with time, emulators will also allow this to be done (Some already do). In other words, for the user to select the exact resolution they want the emulator to run a game at. For now, I'm trying to come as close as possible with the 'basic' available resolutions. Again, I apologize. Call it the perfectionist that I am (Just ask my wife...lol) Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Atari 2600 actual- 160x192 ----------------Emulator- 320x200 That might be to small for some games (esp. PAL but also some NTSC games), IMO 320x240 is a better choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted October 14, 2003 Author Share Posted October 14, 2003 Atari 2600 actual- 160x192 ----------------Emulator- 320x200 That might be to small for some games (esp. PAL but also some NTSC games), IMO 320x240 is a better choice. How is it too small for some NTSC games? Again, please excuse my ignornance, but if the actual display used by the games is 160x192, how is 320x200 not big enough? 160 less than 320 192 less than 200. Why/how is 320x200 an issue? Could you please explain? Let me clarify again and state I am an NTSC user and are only concerned with *Original* *Retail* games - nothing 'Home Brew'. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 I believe that he's referring to the total screen resolution (i.e. including the "empty" scanlines where nothing is displayed). Therefore, if you use 320x200...the image might be squashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Why/how is 320x200 an issue? Could you please explain? Let me clarify again and state I am an NTSC user and are only concerned with *Original* *Retail* games - nothing 'Home Brew'. Since it is completely up to the programmer of a game to decide how many (visible and invisible) scanlines a game produces, some games (e.g. Hole Hunter) display a few more scanlines than 200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 When specifying these things, it's easier, in my opinion, to separate the 2600 into 2 displays: 1. A 2 color playfield display that's 40 pixels across 2. Dual single color sprite (player/missile) engines that produce pixels 1/4 the width of playfield pixels, although they cannot span the screen. This is why it's deceptive to say 160. They only provide limited areas of higher resolution. As has already been pointed out, you can make as many lines visible as you want, so the vertical resolution isn't set in stone (although it's subject to the limitations of the broadcast standards). That said, in theory you would need a display that can handle a 160 x 220(ish), and in practice you'll need to double up on the horizontal pixels (this is where people are getting 320 from) to make them the right aspect ratio (since they're wider than tall). You might want to display some left and right border area as well. -Bry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Super Nintendo 256x224--------------------Emulator- 400x300 Actually, the SNES has a 512*348 video mode, though it's not often used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doron Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 There might be, but don't forget this automatically causes some flicker (each line is updated only every 2nd frame). Yes, well mabe it wouldn't be that bad. Could you produce a demo? Mabe just a scrolling background colors and floating sprites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.