But I gotta say the whole rectangular vs square pixels thing confuses the hell out of me. Any links or whatever to some reference? >>>> 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 . . . ________________ Matthew Guemple Art Director/03 mo.og at verizon.net 646.734.6601 www.gridd.com http://www.creativehotlist.com/ index.asp?linkTarget=fullProfile.asp&indID=19599