[mythtv-users] Almost-square pixels (was Re: Fonts unreadable in GDM/Xorg with Ubuntu)

[Willy Boyd]

And, in my case anyway, I still think I have square pixels.  The
display has a 1:1 pixel mapping mode, whereby it centers the image if
smaller than the native res (i.e. 4:3 SDTV displays in the very center
surrounded by black on all sides).  Since it does no stretching, I
would think this means the pixels are square, flanked by two vertical
strips of 3 black pixels, no?

On 3/9/07, Willy Boyd <willyboyd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> > So, does anyone know the story behind the choice to use 1360x768 for
> > some devices (seems to be especially LCD's and Plasmas)?  It's not
> > important, but I finally had a reason to mention the issue in case
> > someone out there has some info and a willingness to teach me...
> >
>
> I think it pretty much boils down to 1366 (my display's native width)
> not being divisible by 8, and NVIDIA (my card's maker) not supporting
> it based on that for technical reasons.  And that makes 1360 the
> closest without going over.  (NOTE: I have not read the wikipedia
> article separately linked).
>
> I read a thread on avsforum once where someone was pulling their hair
> out over trying to get *exactly* 1366x768.  I'm not sure if it's
> possible with other video cards or not.  But I figured, I'm only
> losing 3 pixels on each side.  Not something I'm going to lose sleep
> over :)
>
> But you bring up a very good point about the aspect ratio and pixel
> squareness.  Interesting take I hadn't thought of yet.
>