Suggestion: Porting Disaster

The "arcade" picture of Pac-Man isn't the arcade version. I don't know which port it came from. Can it be replaced from the actual arcade version (e.g., a screencap taken from MAME)?

Please CamelCase your page links in the future.

Is it that important that it's the arcade version? As opposed to the fact that the lower panel ought to show it's a port from the upper one (Or in the caption?)? Current:

But the Atari 2600 version wasn't a port of... whatever version that is. I'm gonna have to agree that we should put an actual arcade shot in there.

Well for one it means the current picture is actually lying when it says its the arcade version. If it's not, at least remove the label pretending it is.

You're right about one thing: The arcade version was originally a tabletop rather than (okay, in addition to) an upright cabinet, so the screen was oriented vertically, not horizontally. Which doesn't make for as good a side-by-side with the infamous 2600 version.

edited 9th Dec '12 10:30:00 AM by Stratadrake

Well, here's◊ the arcade version, for comparison.

@Stratadrake

Pac-Man always used a vertical monitor in the arcades, whether if it's an upright cabinet or a tabletop cabinet.

@Shadow Hog

That's definitely the arcade version.

I'm good to swap the first part out for the proper arcade version.

Same. I can't find a better image of the Atari version, but all at once, we don't really need to...

How's this?

Not crazy about non-integer resizing. It has whitespace on the sides, but here's my stab:

edited 10th Dec '12 6:59:12 PM by ShadowHog

Even though it's not quite as horrible, this example of Street Fighter II

Edit: Super Nintendo vs ZX Spectrum

edited 10th Dec '12 7:48:07 PM by justanid

Non-integer resizing? *blink*

edited 10th Dec '12 8:09:32 PM by Willbyr

He means not resizing in whole-number multiples, like exactly double or exactly half (divide by 2), so the pixels stay perfectly sharp. Everything is arguably "pixel art", though, just depends what resolution you're talking about :) I think it looks fine: having the frames be the same width makes a bigger difference than not resampling the image when it's scaled.

edited 10th Dec '12 8:21:51 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Right, and I think the inherent blurriness detracts from the image more than some dead space on the sides does.

11 looks fine. I don't think it actually looks blurry.

It may not be as razor-sharp as 12, but I like the panels being the same size over the crispness of the pic.

I prefer Shadow Hog's version, due to the arcade version being pixel accurate.

Pixel accurate? Are we really being that picky?

It's preferable, but overall appearance is probably more important. On the other hand, the sizing them the same horizontally makes one of them much larger in area, which doesn't sit too well with me. On the third hand, I don't like how the text "Arcade version" looks less pixel-perfect than the image.

I'm thinking about the possibility of having a composition of three images. On the left is the arcade original. Upper-right gets whatever version the current image has, with a tag of "arcade perfect" while the lower-right gets the 2600 image with a tag of "...not".

Interesting...if you can get it to work, that would be cool.

Mockup

It's rather big, though.

That could work, if the actual image looks crisp enough.