On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Andrew Collier wrote:
> remember Sam's pixels are actually rectangular instead of square, so there > can _never_ be an exact 1:1 mapping without distorting the shape of the > picture. but doesn't the sam rom make the 'assumption' that the pixels are square, eg, when drawing circles? can't remember but I thought it did. And any/all work I ever did on the Sam was based on the 'logical' ratio of 4:3 not the 'apparent' ratio of 4-and-a-bit:3 Plus my Tv controls were set so that the apparent ratio WAS 4:3 ... does this mean I was always distorting the shape of the picture, or does it mean everyone /else's/ Tvs were distorting the shape of the picture? (bit of a philosophical one there, rather than a genuine question, i suspect) I don't see anything wrong with screengrabs that show 'square' pixels... especially if it means they take up less space (no antialiasing... 16 colors ...) and look better (no antialiasing ... 16 colors ...) however: > The basic problem is that my TV > card munges adjacent horizontal lines together, so the images will always > be blurred. which explains stuff. pity. > BTW. As for the DOS demo picture, what do want to see? It's a picture of > three small squares and some dot stars. What exactly did you expect in the > screenshot, when that's all that hapenned in that part of the demo? I apologise - I honestly couldn't see the dot stars. Now I've looked again, I see some blurring dot things. Got the PICTs and yeh, bit clearer. Next time I'll use my eyes (promise) dave
