What is the ideal Dosbox configuration for having the best scaled (the ideal would be that every original pixel is scaled to a 5x6 rectangle) image in a 1600x1200 resolution?

Is it possible that after 14 years of development, DOSbox is still limited to "normal3x"?

Why not ask it at the source?

http://www.vogons.org/viewforum.php?f=53&sid=10336adadc625dc6ad71b8bffe8ffba5

Set the renderer to openglnb and the resolution to your desktop resolution (you can just enter "desktop" instead of a specific resolution). From what I recall that always scales the image to the largest possible resolution without any filtering and while keeping the original aspect ratio. The scaler setting is ignored in that mode (it's set to "none" in my case and I still have a fullscreen image).

+1

In my experience this works. It gives great results as long as the target dimensions are integer multiples of the source.

What I would do, if you have a 1200p monitor, is the following --

fullresolution=1600x1200

output=openglnb

machine=svga_s3

aspect=true

scaler=none


That will give you pixel-perfect scaling of all 320x240, 640x480, and 800x600 games.

1600x1200 is NOT integer for 640x480 resolution

The aspect setting actually only affects games running in a 320x200 resolution (and possibly other non-4:3 resolutions) and ironically its purpose is to intentionally distort pixels to make the game appear in the same aspect ratio it would have appeared back in the day on a 4:3 CRT screen. It's specifically about the issue described well in the Doom Wiki here.

8:5 pixel ratio on 4:3 aspect ratio is such a common case that DOSBox really does need a scaler for it. What we need is a scaler that multiplies pixels x6 vertically and x5 horizontally - that would give pixel-perfect scaling and look great on 1200p and 1440p screens.

For 4k screens you can probably do without pixel-perfect scaling as long as you use nearest-neighbour sampling and stretch vertically 20% more than horizontally. (I think at 4k you probably won't be able to tell the difference between pixel-perfect and nearest-neighbour - at that point the extent of the difference is that occasionally a row of "pixels" will be 8% taller than the next row)

I wonder if aspect=true does exactly this... Need to test that when I get the chance.

It does exactly that.

And this means that you can get pixel-perfect, correct-aspect-ratio of a 320x200 game on a 1200p monitor. For 640x400 you'll need a bigger resolution though.

We just need 2400p monitors then!

What I really wish for is new technology that would allow variable size pixels again. Is there anything on the horizon?

Dunno, but that would be ideal. I certainly miss that aspect of CRTs.

Well, I have always found all these discussions about "pixel perfect" scalers to be just useless bullshit :-P

And after purchasing my new, 144Hz Full-HD monitor, I can confirm they are just bullshit: disable all the scalers or get just a minimum amount of interpolation, then the only thing that really matters to "feel" the right sensations while playing old (DOS, arcade) games is a high refresh rate and a solid color representation. At least this is what works for me.

It's not bullshit. Of course the overall experience will be good enough, but some details will be wrong. Most noticeable in areas with lots of small detail. E.g. faces. If the face consisted of 1 pixel eye, the 2 pixels of skin then 2x1 horizontal mouth, all non square pixels in a 640x400 resolution, then it's impossible to display it properly without either squashing the face or messing up its proportions. Also noticeable with games with lots of horizontal single-pixel lines.

Of course it's still possible to enjoy the game with a slightly squashed face, but it's not "bullshit" to discuss that it'sdifferent.