> I think *you're* missing the point. Yes, you can change the aspect
> ratio of any image... but then you're distorting the image and it
> won't look right anymore. So for a 48 x 128 viewport, it's best to
> crop images to 96 x 154 before the final scaledown (given the NTSC
> aspect ratio of 1.6:1, vs SVGA's 1.333:1).
> Clay
*sigh*
The demo was showing the colour sprite system capabilities. I am presenting sample images to show how the >>colour<< and interleaved interlacing works. Telling me that the images aren't the right aspect ratio, or that images should be cropped, *is* ENTIRELY missing the point. What I said earlier was that images can be any aspect ratio I want them to be... and they can - and are. I just happened to use the full width/height of the sprite for the example(s), and thus they were stretched.
See ---> I don't *CARE* what aspect ratio these sample images are. I'm only interested in showing that the COLOURS and interleaving / interlacing are working nicely. You say the images are stretched? I agree. They're the wrong aspect ratio? Absolutely. But we already knew that.
Stretching/squashing/manipulating an image to any desired aspect ratio is a piece of cake - a trivial preprocessing of the image. Displaying coloured sprites on a '2600 is *not* a piece of cake. I was hoping people would look at the underlying technology and understand what it represented.
Cheers
A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
