I'm under the impression that I once saw something that would allow you to adjust the vertical-to-horizontal ratio of the display. It involved looking at something that was *supposed* to be a square and then making some kind of adjustment. Does this ring any bells for anyone? Right now we have a 5% dimensional discrepancy in the rendering of a square on one oldish monitor.....
HiHo; Here is a product that will allow one to adjust the aspect ratio.
In the old days, AutoCAD had "Calibrate" functions for the display and certain printers and plotters. I think this went away about the time the old DOS-based "Bozo Screen" went away ... along about R12 or R13. Modern versions of Windows are supposed to handle the aspect ratio automatically, and, of course, Autodesk has long since opted to let Windows "do the driving." ___
So I'm not senile, just way behind the times ; )
It happens to me on my home monitor. I have ovals in stead of circles, so it always takes a few minutes for my brain to adjust between my at-work screen and home. Both are fairly new and good quality, BTW.
I just live with it, as long as everything prints fine, I don't really mind.
Dr Fleau
"Michael Bulatovich" a écrit dans le message de news:eaaidm$p8f$ snipped-for-privacy@nntp.aioe.org...
Have I missed a part of this thread?
Aspect ratio is set by the Horizontal and Vertical screen controls on most monitors by buttons or knobs . . .
Ivan the Lurker
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
Can anyone explain why 1280x1024 is the standard with many monitors? That's a 5:4 ratio. Most screens are 4:3. So at that res, if you adjusted the monitor settings to "fill" the screen, you'd be doing some serious stretching of geometry. I don't understand this at all. I would use
1280x960 which is 4:3 as is 1600x1200, 800x600, etc.Beware my BS that follows since its just a guess
increments of 256 work well in binary/hexadecimal. For 960 you have to drop to a multiple of 64 which is not bad, but significantly not as good since 256 is 2 to the 8th power and 8 bits are in a byte so one byte by one byte is a good 256 by 256 and 20 of those gives you 1280x1024. 64 is
2 to the 6th power and 2 bits wasted.Besides 4:3 is a remnant from Roman architecture and the current trend is to widen that ratio as screens get larger s> Can anyone explain why 1280x1024 is the standard with many monitors? That's
FYI, we used hardware menu settings to fix that problem with aspect ratio. (Don't know how it became messed up.)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.