unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/10/90)
In article <14065@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >Actually, "squareness" (1:1 aspect ratio) is not particularly important >for most purposes, the main exception being displaying a raster image >made for that resolution on some other system. Well I think that pixel squareness was a great advantage for the Mac in the beginning... With square pixels circles come out as circles, etc with no modifications to the regular equation for a square. And everything just looked "cute" so to speak (ick I hate that word). Someone said the orig. Mac resolution was 5xx by 384 (or thereabouts)... I believe I have the #s close... But isn't the monitor itself literally square? Also with 300 dpi (per inch vertically or horizontally), WYSIWYG is a lot better looking with square pixels.. (And more realistically "what you get") -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/11/90)
In article <7659@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes:
[more about square pixels...deleted]
The issue of aspect ratio is just a scaling problem. Thus you find some
DOS laptops which don't adjust for a 1-1 aspect ratio and circles turn
into ellipses. Others, however, do and circles-> circles even on a
rectangular monitor.
My ex-HP Unix computer had an decidedly rectangular (flat) screen. My circles
were always circles!
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[my opinions]