Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!aer
From: aer@alice.UucP (D. Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Talkin' bout 399---400 dots
Message-ID: <4886@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 16:06:19 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.4886
Posted: Mon Jan 27 16:06:19 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jan-86 06:28:08 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 26


In article <551@well.UUCP>, ..well!farren (Mike Farren) wrote this:

>   (The discussion was about plotting 2-high pixels in the 640X200 mode)
>   No, you don't have 640 X 200 virtual pixels.  You have 640 X 399 screen
> locations which can hold a pixel, which pixel is two lines high. For example:
>
> Screen lines --> X.........   Note the pixels are composed of two dots (what
>                  X..X......   are normally called pixels), and that adjacent
>                  ...X..X...   pixels can overlap by one line.  This means 
>                  ......X...   that the ONLY structures on the screen which
>                               will lose resolution are those which are 

I think I'm beginning to get the gist here. But you really can't exactly
call that v400 resolution, can you? Vertical dots just aren't as *fine*
as they would be if they weren't piled on top of each other. Which brings
me to my second point: 400 vertical dots is what we're working with here,
right? Not 399. Though most every interface to the bit map uses positions
numbered 0 through 399, it doesn't mean there are 399 positions. Position
0 counts too- hence we have 400 positions. (Or am I still missing something?)


-- 
##########################################################################
#D. Rosenberg "Disclaimer: I'd never want to hurt anyone with My Opinions"
#(..{ihnp4,research,allegra}!alice!aer)