On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 09:14 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 09:08 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: >> >>> At 9:01 PM -0500 4/1/03, Jim Asherman wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:15 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 720x480 I believe. >>>>> >>>>> Square pixels >>>>> 720 x 480 NTSC >>>>> 720 x 576 PAL >>>>> >>>>> Rectangular pixels >>>>> 640 x 480 >>>>> 768 x 576 >>>>> >>>>> TV Safe -5% overall >>>>> Title Safe -10% overall >>>>> >>>>> FYI, -- Erica >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheez and crackers Erica I sure don't wanna get in this with you but >>>> that doesn't sound right. I mean right off NTSC is rectangular not >>>> square right? >>>> and Computers are square which is why the 640 goes to 720 when you >>>> rectangularize it. Right? That's why they tell you to work taller >>>> than 480 and then >>>> squish it top to bottom right? >>>> This has been an issue many times especially when I had the Toaster >>>> which is rectangular native, and I know i have a twisted >>>> perspective. (LOL) >>> >>> Rectangular pixels are wider, not taller. >>> >>> -- Erica >>> >> >> Yes I know. >> jim > > Okay. > > Blonde moment here: What exactly are you asking? > > -- Erica, feeling platinum > And you are platinum. I was not asking anything. I worked this BS out long ago to my own satisfaction but the subject came up and I engaged it because I see a lot of what looks wrong to me being thrown about. Big mistake Jimmy moment. Jim