On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:04 PM, Jim Asherman wrote: > On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:40 PM, Steven Rogers wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: >> >>> Rectangular pixels are wider, not taller. >> >> Rectangular pixels on the TV are taller than they are wide - you can >> see that on some Sony TVs. That's why an image that's ready for the >> TV looks wider on the computer - the TV "squishes" it up. > > Uh I thought.. that the image looks wider on the computer because of > displaying the rectangular pixel perspective in a square pixel > environment. Right - so long as you remember that there really isn't necessarily a "rectangular pixel" - it just means that the TV doesn't have the same number of dots per inch horizontally as it does vertically, while the computer monitor has 72 DPI both ways. > Obviously the TV does not "squish" it's own native signal. It simply > displays the rectangular pixels correctly . It is the computer that > makes it look funny and has to convert the picture to square pixels in > order to display it properly, Well, its a matter of perspective whether the TV squished or the computer is stretched. The information in the picture is the same - the dots are just closer together horizontally on the TV. I tend to think of the TV as a "squished" picture because years of working the computer environment makes it seem like only a loony lunkhead would make a display standard that has different horiz and vert resolutions . . . I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time . . . SR