On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Levi Bard wrote:
>> IIRC TVs use pixels a bit taller than square. 320x240 fills a 4:3 screen
>> on a computer, but it looks like 352x240 is required on a TV [1]. So TV
>> pixels are 320/352 = 10/11 the width of a square pixel, or 11/10 the
>> height of a square pixel, take your pick. So your 1280x800 screen should
>> look 11/10 - 1 = 10% too narrow, or 1 - 10/11 ~= 9% too tall on a TV. Is
>> that about right?
>>
>> [1] http://www.videohelp.com/vcd#tech2
>
> Video encoding and playback are totally different than standard
> display. You encode an ntsc vcd at 352x240, but the 4:3 aspect ratio
> is embedded in the mpeg stream so that it actually plays back at
> 352x264. (You'll notice this if you play a vcd using
> mplayer/xine/vlc.) DVDs are the same way. You encode at 720x480
> (NTSC), and the aspect ratio is embedded in the mpeg stream, so that
> it plays back at 720x540(4:3), 854x480(16:9), or what have you.
It probably depends how smart the projector is. If it's excessively
literal, it may display the image pixel-for-pixel, aspect ratio be damned.
Since he has to crop the image to make it fit 16:9_TV, and it started
fitting 16:9_computer, I'd say _something_ is being excessively literal.
-- -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:00:58 EDT