From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: IFF database of .advocacy folks
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:13:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.014148.16323@reed.edu> kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:
>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.

I see. Perhaps you should enlighten me.

>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

You DO realize, don't you,that 320X200 *isn't* VGA resolution, right?
320X200 is the common CGA resolution.  A VGA-capable monitor/card *can*
display 320X200,of course, and can display up to 256 simultaneous at that
resolution.  This is commonly called 'MCGA'.  Note that VGA resolution
is 640X480 with 16 colors simulataneously display.

>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.

But then again, we weren't talking about 320X200 resolution, we were talking
about VGA resolution.  Once again: VGA is 640X480, and CGA is 320X200.

If the low quality monitors used on most Amiga distorts this to a circle,
then so be it.  What you're basically talking about is the fuzziness also
often found in TV sets.

>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.

Once again, friend, the discussion has zero to do with PC games running
in 8 bit CGA resolutions.  It was about VGA resoltion. I even gave an example
of the tiny size of pixels in a MS WINDOWS Paintbrush application.  Do you
think I was exampling MS Windows in CGA resolution?

>>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.

Well! In that case: I'm rubber, and you're glue.  What ever you say
bounces off of me and STICKS ON YOU. Nyahh.

>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.

Huh?

>You are a boob.

No I'm not.  Boobs are those things on women's chest.

>>>   -Frank Dana, known (718)-(212)-(516) over as Amiuser/Doc Ami!
>
>Who incidentally had something of a point.

Verily, much, MUCH more so than yourself, friend.

>>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.

Goodness, we're hard up today, aren't we?
Have a nice day!

>Jerry Kuch (t-gerldk@microsoft.com) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
--
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy