Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
"FLY135" <fly_135@(hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:lLYHd.2541$rp1.625@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote in
> message news:W0XHd.211204$8G4.99103@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > With digital video it is the device that creates the native pixel 0.9.
On
> > the computer most software read and translate to square. What the
original
> > postee was asking about was obviously DV because analog video is square
> > pixel when capture with non-DV ready equipment, and DV video does wide
on
> > the computer screen due to the native pixel ratio of DV.
>
> I think your talking apples and oranges here. Just because an image is
> reported as say... 72dpi, that doesn't mean that it is actually 72 pixels
> per inch on the screen.
>
Not once did I bring the dpi of a photo into the discussion. Since a DV
frame has no dpi then bringing dpi into the mix is a moot point.
> The OP was talking about the fact that pixel aspect ratios vary between
> computer oriented images and tv oriented images. This is correct. Square
> pixels on computer displays occur when both the monitor is 4:3 (vs. say
wide
> screens that are now available) and the display resolution is set to a 4:3
> aspect (like 800x600). However you can monkey with the sizing controls
and
> make this visually incorrect. You can also make it visually incorrect by
> selecting a non 4:3 resolution if you are assuming that the pixels are
> square no matter what.
>
Though it is possible to use programs such as Photoshop CS to alter the
pixel shape of an image, it still holds true that no matter what the screen
resolution a capture of that computer screen to a bitmapped image will in
fact have square pixels regardless of the resolutions of the computer screen
proper. Take any screen capture program like Solid Capture and set your
monitor to any resolution you wish. Set the program to capture the entire
screen in matching resolutions. Now, get any image editing program and look
at the properties - it says square pixels.
By using your earlier logic of dpi - "Just because an image is reported as
72dpi doesnt mean it is actually 72 pixels per inch on the screen" - gee
whiz! that was a true lightning bolt of knowledge by the way! Anyway, using
that logic then just because an image editing program report square pixels
does not mean the image actually has square pixels. Why not take that logic
a little further? Just because all editing programs say DV is 0.9 pixel
doesn't mean it is right. The only monkeying around here is your pretzel
logic in attemtping to convince everyone a monitors' resolution changes the
pixel ratio of the resultant captured image of that very screen resolution
no matter what resolution is chosen!
> > If the assumption holds true that using ratios other than 4:3 changes
the
> > pixel ratio it surely would show in this images' properties.
>
> This only means that the software does not take into account the screen
> resolution and apparently thinks that the computers pixels are by default
> square.
>
> > My assumption
> > is that the pixel stays square regardless of the screen resolution
because
> > the screen itself has no pixels to be squared or rectangled in the
first
> > place, it is only the resultant image made from or in those resolutions
on
> > the computer which are generated in square pixel.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to observe it, did it
> really fall?
>
Look, you aren't some zen master, and yes the tree falls whether anyone is
there to see it or not. If it didn't fall why is it on the ground to be seen
in the first place? The true question is not about a falling tree and
whether someone was there to observe it. Where have you been? The question
is "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it really make a
sound?"
> > Just for grins I would try
> > some screen caps in all sorts of odd-ball resolutions to see if the
pixel
> > every changes.
>
> It simple math... If your screen display is measurably 4:3 and your
> resolution is not 4:3, then an image that is square pixel will not display
> correctly unless your software knows your display is 4:3 and uses the
> current resolution to rescale the display window to correct for the non
4:3
> resolution.
>
> > What the original
> > postee was asking about was obviously DV because analog video is square
> > pixel when capture with non-DV ready equipment, and DV video does wide
on
> > the computer screen due to the native pixel ratio of DV.
>
> Sorry I cannot parse this statement.
>
> > graphic which is a true 4:3 at 720x540 then squeeze this into the
confines
> > of the DV framework 720x480 0.9 pixel it should look absolutely fine
when
> > output on a television screen. You can test the theory for yourself by
> > creating this size image with a circular object in the center of the
> screen,
>
> Yes, the math would indicate this to be true (480/540 = 0.88888). Which
is
> the same as (480 *4)/(720 * 3) = 0.8888.
Duh, the math behind the squeeze. You have proven you can use a calculator.
Thank you for that.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram