6 ms·

> Videos with non-square pixels are pretty rare... Before HD, almost all video was non-square pixels. DVD is 720x480. SD channels on cable TV systems are 528x4

by drmpeg 9mo ago

> Videos with non-square pixels are pretty rare... Before HD, almost all video was non-square pixels. DVD is 720x480. SD channels on cable TV systems are 528x480.

m132 9mo ago
>Before HD, almost all video was non-square pixels Correct. This came from the ITU-R BT.601 standard, one of the first digital video standards authors of which chose to define digital video as a sampled analog signal. Analog video never had a concept of pixels and operated on lines instead. The rate at which you could sample it could be arbitrary, and affected only the horizontal resolution. The rate chosen by BT.601 was 13.5 MHz, which resulted in a 10/11 pixel aspect ratio for 4:3 NTSC video and 59/54 for 4:3 PAL. >SD channels on cable TV systems are 528x480 I'm not actually sure about America, but here in Europe most digital cable and satellite SDTV is delivered as 720x576i 4:2:0 MPEG-2 Part 2. There are some outliers that use 544x576i, however.
- drmpeg 9mo ago
  Here's some captures from my Comcast system here in Silicon Valley. https://www.w6rz.net/528x480.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480sp.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480sp.ts
  - m132 9mo ago
    Cool! Doing my part and sending you some samples of UPC cable from the Czech Republic :) 720x576i 16:9: https://0x0.st/P-QU.ts https://0x0.st/P-QU.ts 720x576i 4:3: https://0x0.st/P-Q0.ts https://0x0.st/P-Q0.ts That one weird 544x576i channel I found: https://0x0.st/P-QG.ts https://0x0.st/P-QG.ts I also have a few decrypted samples from the Hot Bird 13E, public DVB-T and T2 transmitters and Vectra DVB-C from Poland, but for that I'd have to dig through my backups.
- ErroneousBosh 9mo ago
  My DVCAM equipment definitely outputs 720x576i, although whether that's supposed to render to 768x576, or 1024x576 for 16:9 stuff. It still looks surprisingly good, considering.
- mrandish 9mo ago
  Good post. For anyone wondering "why do we have these particular resolutions, sampling and frame rates, which seem quite random", allow me to expand and add some color to your post (pun intended). Similar to how modern railroad track widths can be traced back to the wheel widths of roman chariots, modern digital video standards still reverberate with echoes from 1930s black-and-white television standards. BT.601 is from 1982 and was the first widely adopted analog component video standard (sampling analog video into 3 color components (YUV) at 13.5 MHz). Prior to BT.601, the main standard for video was SMPTE 244M created by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, a composite video standard which sampled analog video at 14.32 MHz. Of course, a higher sampling rate is, all things equal, generally better. The reason for BT.601 being lower (13.5 MHz) was a compromise - equal parts technical and political. Analog television was created in the 1930s as a black-and-white composite standard and in 1953 color was added by a very clever hack which kept all broadcasts backward compatible with existing B&W TVs. Politicians mandated this because they feared nerfing all the B&W TVs owned by voters. But that hack came with some significant technical compromises which complicated and degraded analog video for over 50 years. The composite and component sampling rates (14.32 MHz and 13.5 MHz) are both based on being 4x a specific existing color carrier sampling rate from analog television. And those two frequencies directly dictated all the odd-seeming horizontal pixel resolutions we find in pre-HD digital video (352, 704, 360, 720 and 768) and even the original PC display resolutions (CGA, VGA, XGA, etc). To be clear, analog television signals were never pixels. Each horizontal scanline was only ever an oscillating electrical voltage from the moment photons struck an analog tube in a TV camera to the home viewer's cathode ray tube (CRT). Early digital video resolutions were simply based on how many samples an analog-to-digital converter would need to fully recreate the original electrical voltage. For example, 720 is tied to 13.5 Mhz because sampling the active picture area of an analog video scanline at 13.5 MHz generates 1440 samples (double per-Nyquist). Similarly, 768 is tied to 14.32 MHz generating 1536 samples. VGA's horizontal resolution of 640 is simply from adjusting analog video's rectangular aspect ratio to be square (720 * 0.909 = 640). It's kind of fascinating all these modern digital resolutions can be traced back to decisions made in the 1930s based on which affordable analog components were available, which competing commercial interests prevailed (RCA vs Philco) and the political sensitivities present at the time.
  - 9mo ago
- noufalibrahim 9mo ago
  Yeah. I recently stumbled across this in an interesting way. Went down a rabbit hole. I was recreating an old game for my education[1]. Scummvm supports Eye of the Beholder and I used it to take screenshots to compare against my own work. I was doing the intro scenes and noticed that the title screens are 320x200. My monitor is 1920x1200 and so the ratios are the same. It displays properly when I full screen my game and all it good. However, on scummvm, it looked vertically elongated. I did some digging and found this about old monitors and how they displayed. Scummvm has a setting called "aspect ratio correction" which stretches the pixels vertically produces pillarboxing to give you the "original nostalgic feel". Notes: 1. https://eye-of-the-gopher.github.io/ https://eye-of-the-gopher.github.io/
- adrian_b 9mo ago
  While analog video did not have the concept of pixels, it specified the line frequency, the number of visible lines (576 in Europe, composed of 574 full lines and 2 half lines, so some people count them as 575 lines, but the 2 half lines are located in 2 different lines of the image, not on the same line, thus there are 576 distinct lines on the height of the image), the duration of the visible part of a line and the image aspect as being 3:4. From these 4 values one can compute the video sampling frequency that corresponds to square pixels. For the European TV standard, an image with square pixels would have been of 576 x 768 pixels, obtained at a video sampling frequency close to 15 MHz. However, in order to allow more TV channels in the available bands, the maximum video frequency was reduced to a lower frequency than required for square pixels (which would have been close to 7.5 MHz in Europe) and then to an even lower maximum video frequency after the transition to PAL/SECAM, i.e. to lower than 5.5 MHz, typically about 5 MHz. (Before the transition to color, Eastern Europe had used sharper black&white signals, with a lower than 6.5 MHz maximum video frequency, typically around 6 MHz. The 5.5/6.5 MHz limits are caused by the location of the audio signal. France had used an even higher-definition B&W system, but that had completely different parameters than the subsequent SECAM, being an 819-line system, while the East-European system differed only in the higher video bandwidth.) So sampling to a frequency high enough for square pixels would have been pointless as the TV signal had been already reduced to a lower resolution by the earlier analog processing. Thus the 13.5 MHz sampling frequency chosen for digital TV, corresponding to pixels wider than their height, was still high enough to preserve the information contained in the sampled signal.
  - pezezin 9mo ago
    No, the reason why 13.5 MHz was chosen is because it was desirable to have the same sampling rate for both PAL and NTSC, and 13.5 happens to be an integer multiple of both line frequecuencies. You can read the full history in this article: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_304-rec601_wood.pdf https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_304-rec601_wood.pdf
    - adrian_b 9mo ago
      That is only one condition among the conditions that had to be satisfied by the sampling rate, and there are an infinity of multiples which satisfy this condition, so this condition is insufficient to determine the choice of the sampling frequency. Another condition that had to be satisfied by the sampling frequency was to be high enough in comparison with the maximum bandwidth of the video signal, but not much higher than necessary. Among the common multiples of the line frequencies, 13.5 MHz was chosen because it also satisfied the second condition, which is the condition that I have discussed, i.e. that it was possible to choose 13.5 MHz only because the analog video bandwidth had been standardized to values smaller than needed for square pixels, otherwise for the sampling frequency a common multiple of the line frequencies that is greater than 15 MHz would have been required (which is 20.25 MHz).
ranger_danger 9mo ago
I'm confused... what does DVD, SD or any arbitrary frame size have to do with the shape of pixels themselves? Is that not only relevant to the display itself and not the file format/container/codec? My understanding is that televisions would mostly have square/rectangular pixels, while computer monitors often had circular pixels. Or are you perhaps referring to pixel aspect ratios instead?
- binaryturtle 9mo ago
  A square pixel has a 1:1 aspect ratio (width is the same as the height). Any other rectangular pixel with widths different than their heights would be considered "non-square". F.ex. in case of a "4:3 720x480" frame… a quick test: 720/4=180 and 480/3=160… 180 vs. 160… different results… which means the pixels for this frame are not square, just rectangular. Alternatively 720/480 vs. 4/3 works too, of course.
  - ranger_danger 9mo ago
    Again I think you're talking about pixel aspect ratios instead, and not physically non-square pixels, which would be display-dependent. OP only said "square pixels" but then only talked about aspect ratios, hence my confusion.
    - formerly_proven 9mo ago
      Dots on a crt are not pixels. Their shape depends on the shadow mask.
    - dahart 9mo ago
      OP quoted “non-square pixels” from the article, which is talking about pixel aspect ratios, i.e., width vs height. The implicit alternative to square in this context is rectangular, we’re not talking about circular or other non-rectangular shapes. Whenever the display aspect ratio is different than the storage or format aspect ratio, that means the pixels have to be non-square. For example, if a DVD image is stored at 720x480 and displayed at 4:3, the pixel aspect ratio would have to be 8:9 to make it work out: (720x8)/(480x9)==4/3. I believe with NTSC, DVDs drop a few pixels off the sides and use 704x480 and a pixel aspect ratio of 10:11.
binaryturtle 9mo ago
Just look at Japanese television… most channels get broadcast at 1440x1080i for 16:9 content instead the full 1920x1080i (to save bandwidth for other things, I assume), so it's still very common with HD too.
- ndiddy 9mo ago
  It may also be due to legacy reasons. Japan was a pioneer in adopting HD TV years before the rest of the world, but early HD cameras and video formats like HDCAM and HDV only recorded 1080i at 1440x1080. If their whole video processing chain is set up for 1440x1080, they’d likely have to replace a lot of equipment to switch over to full 1920x1080i.
badc0ffee 9mo ago
Displaying content from a DVD on a panel with square pixels (LCD, plasma, etc.) required stretching or omitting some pixels. For widescreen content you'd need to stretch that 720x480 to 848x480, and for 4:3 content you'd need to stretch it to 720x540, or shrink it to 640x480, depending on the resolution of the panel. CRTs of course had no fixed horizontal resolution. Edit: I just realized I forgot about PAL DVDs which were 720x576. But the same principle applies.
- rahimnathwani 9mo ago
  When I played an anamorphic PAL DVD on a 4:3 CRT, the picture would look vertically stretched until I pressed the 'aspect ratio' button on the TV. This would correct the display, but how did it do it? Was it by drawing the same number of scanlines, but reducing the vertical distance between each line?
  - badc0ffee 9mo ago
    I've never used a 4:3 CRT that could deal with different aspect ratios like that. Was the CRT natively HD, or SD? Was it zooming in on the middle of the frame, or letterboxing?
    - rahimnathwani 9mo ago
      I don't remember the model. It was a Sony CRT that I bought for about 600GBP in maybe 1997? Back then, there was no concept of SD or HD. PAL has 625 scanlines (~576 visible). No fixed horizontal resolution.
GrantMoyer 9mo ago
Even with modern digital codecs and streaming, there's usually chroma subsampling[1], so the color channels may have non-square "pixels" even if overall pixels are nominally square. I most often see 4:2:0 subsampling, which still has square pixels, but at half resolution in each dimension. However 4:2:2 is also fairly common, and it has half resolution in only one dimension, so the pixels are 2:1. You'd have trouble getting a video decoding library to mess this up though. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
dehrmann 9mo ago
DVD also supports 352x480. These pixels are very non square. Why would you want this? VHS. NTSC has 480-ish visible scanlines, but VHS only has bandwidth for 350 pixels.
jsrcout 9mo ago
As a budding young computer geek and mildly OCD person I always hated the non-square pixels. As far as I recall, square pixels just didn't exist at the time. Maybe at Xerox PARC or somewhere. They never quite looked right, and making pixel graphics was a bit of a hassle since your perfect design on graph paper didn't look the same on screen, etc, etc, etc. I mean it wasn't life-threatening, just a tiny source of never-ending annoyances. My Macintosh 512e (one of the early "toaster Macs") had square pixels and it was so great to finally have them.
hdgvhicv 9mo ago
One of my colleagues as very keen to ensure that 576i material when upscaled/downscaled went via 702 wide with crop/pad to 720 before scale
snvzz 9mo ago
Definitely skipped the 2nd gen consoles, particularly the Atari 2600.

by drmpeg 9mo ago

> Videos with non-square pixels are pretty rare... Before HD, almost all video was non-square pixels. DVD is 720x480. SD channels on cable TV systems are 528x480.

m132 9mo ago

>Before HD, almost all video was non-square pixels Correct. This came from the ITU-R BT.601 standard, one of the first digital video standards authors of which chose to define digital video as a sampled analog signal. Analog video never had a concept of pixels and operated on lines instead. The rate at which you could sample it could be arbitrary, and affected only the horizontal resolution. The rate chosen by BT.601 was 13.5 MHz, which resulted in a 10/11 pixel aspect ratio for 4:3 NTSC video and 59/54 for 4:3 PAL. >SD channels on cable TV systems are 528x480 I'm not actually sure about America, but here in Europe most digital cable and satellite SDTV is delivered as 720x576i 4:2:0 MPEG-2 Part 2. There are some outliers that use 544x576i, however.

drmpeg 9mo ago
Here's some captures from my Comcast system here in Silicon Valley. https://www.w6rz.net/528x480.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480sp.ts https://www.w6rz.net/528x480sp.ts
- m132 9mo ago
  Cool! Doing my part and sending you some samples of UPC cable from the Czech Republic :) 720x576i 16:9: https://0x0.st/P-QU.ts https://0x0.st/P-QU.ts 720x576i 4:3: https://0x0.st/P-Q0.ts https://0x0.st/P-Q0.ts That one weird 544x576i channel I found: https://0x0.st/P-QG.ts https://0x0.st/P-QG.ts I also have a few decrypted samples from the Hot Bird 13E, public DVB-T and T2 transmitters and Vectra DVB-C from Poland, but for that I'd have to dig through my backups.
ErroneousBosh 9mo ago
My DVCAM equipment definitely outputs 720x576i, although whether that's supposed to render to 768x576, or 1024x576 for 16:9 stuff. It still looks surprisingly good, considering.
mrandish 9mo ago
Good post. For anyone wondering "why do we have these particular resolutions, sampling and frame rates, which seem quite random", allow me to expand and add some color to your post (pun intended). Similar to how modern railroad track widths can be traced back to the wheel widths of roman chariots, modern digital video standards still reverberate with echoes from 1930s black-and-white television standards. BT.601 is from 1982 and was the first widely adopted analog component video standard (sampling analog video into 3 color components (YUV) at 13.5 MHz). Prior to BT.601, the main standard for video was SMPTE 244M created by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, a composite video standard which sampled analog video at 14.32 MHz. Of course, a higher sampling rate is, all things equal, generally better. The reason for BT.601 being lower (13.5 MHz) was a compromise - equal parts technical and political. Analog television was created in the 1930s as a black-and-white composite standard and in 1953 color was added by a very clever hack which kept all broadcasts backward compatible with existing B&W TVs. Politicians mandated this because they feared nerfing all the B&W TVs owned by voters. But that hack came with some significant technical compromises which complicated and degraded analog video for over 50 years. The composite and component sampling rates (14.32 MHz and 13.5 MHz) are both based on being 4x a specific existing color carrier sampling rate from analog television. And those two frequencies directly dictated all the odd-seeming horizontal pixel resolutions we find in pre-HD digital video (352, 704, 360, 720 and 768) and even the original PC display resolutions (CGA, VGA, XGA, etc). To be clear, analog television signals were never pixels. Each horizontal scanline was only ever an oscillating electrical voltage from the moment photons struck an analog tube in a TV camera to the home viewer's cathode ray tube (CRT). Early digital video resolutions were simply based on how many samples an analog-to-digital converter would need to fully recreate the original electrical voltage. For example, 720 is tied to 13.5 Mhz because sampling the active picture area of an analog video scanline at 13.5 MHz generates 1440 samples (double per-Nyquist). Similarly, 768 is tied to 14.32 MHz generating 1536 samples. VGA's horizontal resolution of 640 is simply from adjusting analog video's rectangular aspect ratio to be square (720 * 0.909 = 640). It's kind of fascinating all these modern digital resolutions can be traced back to decisions made in the 1930s based on which affordable analog components were available, which competing commercial interests prevailed (RCA vs Philco) and the political sensitivities present at the time.
- 9mo ago
noufalibrahim 9mo ago
Yeah. I recently stumbled across this in an interesting way. Went down a rabbit hole. I was recreating an old game for my education[1]. Scummvm supports Eye of the Beholder and I used it to take screenshots to compare against my own work. I was doing the intro scenes and noticed that the title screens are 320x200. My monitor is 1920x1200 and so the ratios are the same. It displays properly when I full screen my game and all it good. However, on scummvm, it looked vertically elongated. I did some digging and found this about old monitors and how they displayed. Scummvm has a setting called "aspect ratio correction" which stretches the pixels vertically produces pillarboxing to give you the "original nostalgic feel". Notes: 1. https://eye-of-the-gopher.github.io/ https://eye-of-the-gopher.github.io/
adrian_b 9mo ago
While analog video did not have the concept of pixels, it specified the line frequency, the number of visible lines (576 in Europe, composed of 574 full lines and 2 half lines, so some people count them as 575 lines, but the 2 half lines are located in 2 different lines of the image, not on the same line, thus there are 576 distinct lines on the height of the image), the duration of the visible part of a line and the image aspect as being 3:4. From these 4 values one can compute the video sampling frequency that corresponds to square pixels. For the European TV standard, an image with square pixels would have been of 576 x 768 pixels, obtained at a video sampling frequency close to 15 MHz. However, in order to allow more TV channels in the available bands, the maximum video frequency was reduced to a lower frequency than required for square pixels (which would have been close to 7.5 MHz in Europe) and then to an even lower maximum video frequency after the transition to PAL/SECAM, i.e. to lower than 5.5 MHz, typically about 5 MHz. (Before the transition to color, Eastern Europe had used sharper black&white signals, with a lower than 6.5 MHz maximum video frequency, typically around 6 MHz. The 5.5/6.5 MHz limits are caused by the location of the audio signal. France had used an even higher-definition B&W system, but that had completely different parameters than the subsequent SECAM, being an 819-line system, while the East-European system differed only in the higher video bandwidth.) So sampling to a frequency high enough for square pixels would have been pointless as the TV signal had been already reduced to a lower resolution by the earlier analog processing. Thus the 13.5 MHz sampling frequency chosen for digital TV, corresponding to pixels wider than their height, was still high enough to preserve the information contained in the sampled signal.
- pezezin 9mo ago
  No, the reason why 13.5 MHz was chosen is because it was desirable to have the same sampling rate for both PAL and NTSC, and 13.5 happens to be an integer multiple of both line frequecuencies. You can read the full history in this article: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_304-rec601_wood.pdf https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_304-rec601_wood.pdf
  - adrian_b 9mo ago
    That is only one condition among the conditions that had to be satisfied by the sampling rate, and there are an infinity of multiples which satisfy this condition, so this condition is insufficient to determine the choice of the sampling frequency. Another condition that had to be satisfied by the sampling frequency was to be high enough in comparison with the maximum bandwidth of the video signal, but not much higher than necessary. Among the common multiples of the line frequencies, 13.5 MHz was chosen because it also satisfied the second condition, which is the condition that I have discussed, i.e. that it was possible to choose 13.5 MHz only because the analog video bandwidth had been standardized to values smaller than needed for square pixels, otherwise for the sampling frequency a common multiple of the line frequencies that is greater than 15 MHz would have been required (which is 20.25 MHz).

ranger_danger 9mo ago

I'm confused... what does DVD, SD or any arbitrary frame size have to do with the shape of pixels themselves? Is that not only relevant to the display itself and not the file format/container/codec? My understanding is that televisions would mostly have square/rectangular pixels, while computer monitors often had circular pixels. Or are you perhaps referring to pixel aspect ratios instead?

binaryturtle 9mo ago
A square pixel has a 1:1 aspect ratio (width is the same as the height). Any other rectangular pixel with widths different than their heights would be considered "non-square". F.ex. in case of a "4:3 720x480" frame… a quick test: 720/4=180 and 480/3=160… 180 vs. 160… different results… which means the pixels for this frame are not square, just rectangular. Alternatively 720/480 vs. 4/3 works too, of course.
- ranger_danger 9mo ago
  Again I think you're talking about pixel aspect ratios instead, and not physically non-square pixels, which would be display-dependent. OP only said "square pixels" but then only talked about aspect ratios, hence my confusion.
  - formerly_proven 9mo ago
    Dots on a crt are not pixels. Their shape depends on the shadow mask.
  - dahart 9mo ago
    OP quoted “non-square pixels” from the article, which is talking about pixel aspect ratios, i.e., width vs height. The implicit alternative to square in this context is rectangular, we’re not talking about circular or other non-rectangular shapes. Whenever the display aspect ratio is different than the storage or format aspect ratio, that means the pixels have to be non-square. For example, if a DVD image is stored at 720x480 and displayed at 4:3, the pixel aspect ratio would have to be 8:9 to make it work out: (720x8)/(480x9)==4/3. I believe with NTSC, DVDs drop a few pixels off the sides and use 704x480 and a pixel aspect ratio of 10:11.

binaryturtle 9mo ago

Just look at Japanese television… most channels get broadcast at 1440x1080i for 16:9 content instead the full 1920x1080i (to save bandwidth for other things, I assume), so it's still very common with HD too.

ndiddy 9mo ago
It may also be due to legacy reasons. Japan was a pioneer in adopting HD TV years before the rest of the world, but early HD cameras and video formats like HDCAM and HDV only recorded 1080i at 1440x1080. If their whole video processing chain is set up for 1440x1080, they’d likely have to replace a lot of equipment to switch over to full 1920x1080i.

badc0ffee 9mo ago

Displaying content from a DVD on a panel with square pixels (LCD, plasma, etc.) required stretching or omitting some pixels. For widescreen content you'd need to stretch that 720x480 to 848x480, and for 4:3 content you'd need to stretch it to 720x540, or shrink it to 640x480, depending on the resolution of the panel. CRTs of course had no fixed horizontal resolution. Edit: I just realized I forgot about PAL DVDs which were 720x576. But the same principle applies.

rahimnathwani 9mo ago
When I played an anamorphic PAL DVD on a 4:3 CRT, the picture would look vertically stretched until I pressed the 'aspect ratio' button on the TV. This would correct the display, but how did it do it? Was it by drawing the same number of scanlines, but reducing the vertical distance between each line?
- badc0ffee 9mo ago
  I've never used a 4:3 CRT that could deal with different aspect ratios like that. Was the CRT natively HD, or SD? Was it zooming in on the middle of the frame, or letterboxing?
  - rahimnathwani 9mo ago
    I don't remember the model. It was a Sony CRT that I bought for about 600GBP in maybe 1997? Back then, there was no concept of SD or HD. PAL has 625 scanlines (~576 visible). No fixed horizontal resolution.

GrantMoyer 9mo ago

Even with modern digital codecs and streaming, there's usually chroma subsampling[1], so the color channels may have non-square "pixels" even if overall pixels are nominally square. I most often see 4:2:0 subsampling, which still has square pixels, but at half resolution in each dimension. However 4:2:2 is also fairly common, and it has half resolution in only one dimension, so the pixels are 2:1. You'd have trouble getting a video decoding library to mess this up though. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

dehrmann 9mo ago

DVD also supports 352x480. These pixels are very non square. Why would you want this? VHS. NTSC has 480-ish visible scanlines, but VHS only has bandwidth for 350 pixels.

jsrcout 9mo ago

As a budding young computer geek and mildly OCD person I always hated the non-square pixels. As far as I recall, square pixels just didn't exist at the time. Maybe at Xerox PARC or somewhere. They never quite looked right, and making pixel graphics was a bit of a hassle since your perfect design on graph paper didn't look the same on screen, etc, etc, etc. I mean it wasn't life-threatening, just a tiny source of never-ending annoyances. My Macintosh 512e (one of the early "toaster Macs") had square pixels and it was so great to finally have them.

hdgvhicv 9mo ago

One of my colleagues as very keen to ensure that 576i material when upscaled/downscaled went via 702 wide with crop/pad to 720 before scale

snvzz 9mo ago

Definitely skipped the 2nd gen consoles, particularly the Atari 2600.