SPONSORED LINKS
On Thursday, 16th January 1997, Steve Parker wrote: > > > 800x600 is a weird aspect ratio for PC's and isn't easy to scale > > > cleanly. > > > > 640 by 480, 800 by 600, and 1024 by 768 are all 4:3 ratios; what's > > weird about them? > > It is easier to cleanly multiply a pixel by 2 in each direction > [320x200 to 640x400] than it is to multiply by odd numbers. What > the heck do you do with the "fractional" pixels when multiplying by > 2.5 times in each direction [320x200 ->800x600] or 1.25 times > [640x480->800x600]? Do you enlarge some pixels more than others? I didn't claim that the 4:3 ratios scale cleanly; I simply asked about their alleged weirdness. But a possible answer to your question is to scale a 320 by 200 display to the center 640 by 400 portion of the screen in question, leaving the remainders black: e.g., let the top 40 and bottom 40 pixels remain black on a 640 by 480 screen, and let the top 100, bottom 100, left 80, and right 80 pixels remain black on a 800 by 600 screen. On a 1024 by 768 screen, the 320 by 200 could be scaled to 960 by 600, leaving the top 84, bottom 84, left 32, and right 32 pixels black. > Make no laws whatever concerning speech... As long as people are offended by frank speech (e.g. English "four-letter words"), there will be laws made concerning speech. :*( -- Christian Carey (ccarey@CapAccess.ORG)