Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!elvira!ridder From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: (Non) Square Pixels? Message-ID: <710@shodha.dec.com> Date: 13 Feb 90 18:05:03 GMT References: <4687@lmrc.uucp> <3119@cello.UUCP> <4736@lmrc.uucp> Sender: news@shodha.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center Lines: 54 In article <4736@lmrc.uucp> hassinger@lmrc.uucp writes: >I contended that on the Amiga the standard should be the standard used >for television. I beleive this is 4 to 3. That way, my animation >would look right when displayed on television - a very popular use of >the Amiga - and you have to live with the way all those TV sets are >set up, you don't have the option of changing all of them. Yes, I agree, the "standard" should be the same as is used in TV systems. I'm just not sure how to convert the 4:3 ratio to pixel ratio. Others seem to have done it though.... >Another place you see this effect is in a desktop publishing system >like ProPage. It seems to display the page using something like 75 >pixels per inch of the page you are working on, in both directions. This is totally bogus! It's no wonder the Amiga DTP programs are having a tough time catching on. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned by the DTP types here before. (Gee, maybe they didn't notice?) >Again, the standard on the Mac seems to be to have square pixels that >are really intended to display and print with the same pixels in the >horizontal and vertical directions. Yes, the Mac does have square pixels. This was one of the few Mac features I wished for when the Amiga first came out. >My question was if anyone else has noticed this, how they work around >it, if anyone cares about it, and what work arounds there are for >cases like my spinning video animation. Yep, I noticed it the first time I tried to open a window. I just did what it appeared most did, I didn't try to make "square" things. The second time was when I drew double vertical lines (at 640 x 200), they were a little fatter then the horizontal lines. Arghh! I'm not trying to do animation, and glad for it. I noticed the EA folks have some "ratio" definitions in the IFF includes. As I remember, the 320 x 200 resolution is 10:11, and consequently, 640 x 200 would be 20:11. I haven't tried to compute the proper ratio to see if this is correct or not. It's interesting to me that this discussion hasn't come up before (that I remember at least). >Bob Hassinger >508-435-9061 >...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger or hassinger@lmrc.UUCP -hans ======================================================================== Hans-Gabriel Ridder Digital Equipment Corporation ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com Customer Support Center ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder Colorado Springs, CO