From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: IFF database of .advocacy folks
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:41:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep6.014148.16323
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Sep6.011519.5471@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article <+p1ympb@rpi.edu> danaf@bray1b.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.) writes:
>>Well, not to knock the PC's now-superior resolution and color count (Amiga
>>24-bit and EGS boards ignored...), but IMHO **ALL** pictures look blocky on
>>a VGA display. It's those damn square pixels. I like our ratio (whatever it
>>is ... I keep forgetting... 7:5???) better.
>
>Well, you must have much better eyesight than me.  I know 
>they're square, but those individual pixels really are too small to
>tell 'ewww, look, they're SQUARE'.  If you get a chance to
>use Windows, launch the Paintbrush program. Chose the 'brush' of 
>one-pixel size.  Make a SINGLE black dot.  It's really tiny.
>Now...choose that (bright) yellow as the color you want to draw with.
>Now make a SINGLE yellow dot.  Surprise! You can't see it!   

Uhhhhh, Dan, I've been monitoring your posts with interest for some months 
now, and the only conclusion I've come to is that you're a pretentious,
know-nothing wanker.

Run something that uses 320 x 200 mode.  On a VGA monitor, you will see
individual pixels, and you will see that the aspect ratio is pretty close
to unity.  On the Amiga, a 320x200 mode pixel is NOT square, and the lower
quality monitors generally used on Amigas will render a round pixel, with
a bit of pseudo-anti-aliasing chroma distortion between it and its neighbours.
It takes away some of the blockiness of the display as sort of an offhanded
side effect.

Your moronic, condescending prattle up above demonstrates nothing other
than that you've missed the point.  The 1024x768 display that the SVGA
card is spewing onto the NEC Multisync 4DS in front of me doesn't betray
easily detectable single pixels.  But when I run a low-res game I damn
sure can see them, and, coming back to the original poster's point, they are
straight-edge and close to square.

>And you tell me that VGA resolution is 'too blocky'?  You must be 
>joking.  Perhaps you comment on how any particular graphics are drawn,
>but VGA resolution is inherently TOO small to claim pixels are 'square'.

See above for the error of your ways you sticky dollop of blood-gorged
tuberculotic goat sputum.

For clarifying "square pixels":  if you write code to draw a box that's 
100 pixels on a side, does it look square on the display?

Really... I'm convinced that the original poster meant that if you held a
magnifying glass up to the monitor that you'd see that the pixels are in fact
in the shape of little Freemason slogans... clear evidence of the Freemason/VGA
conspiracy.

You are a boob.

>>   -Frank Dana, known (718)-(212)-(516) over as Amiuser/Doc Ami!

Who incidentally had something of a point.

>-- 
>Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
>" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
>        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech

Who is a slobbering twit, more given to long, condescending, incomprehending
abble than actual use of higher brain function.

-- 
Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy