From: kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: IFF database of .advocacy folks
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:51:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep6.035115.25203
Organization: The Bite Me Homeboy Foundation

In article <1992Sep6.031318.8241@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>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.

Well... I read to the end of your reply... you still missed the point...

>>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.

Yes... I know that... must be all of these books with titles like "IBM PC
video hardware" that are sitting right next to me.  Wonderful.

>>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.

Wonderful, Danny Boy... now tell me... if you draw a 100 pixel by 100 pixel
rectangle on the screen, is it square?  Square pixels vs. not-square pixels.

>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.

I seem to remember describing this distortion up above.  It's what results
in many people finding low res images on VGA/MCGA monitors (let's not go back
and masturbate over the semantics of PC video card naming) blockier looking
than the same bitmap on an Amiga monitor at the same resolution.  An Amiga
hooked up to a reasonable multisync monitor will give back the same block (in
the sense that the edges are sharp and straight) like pixels.

>>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?

Of course.  Yes, that's clearly what I think.  The Dan Stephenson Condescending
Rhetorical Question (TM) strikes again.


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

You probably knew what mode he was talking about, and what video adapter 
family he was referring to before you started your Mr. Rogers lesson with
Paintbrush.

>>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.

Good comeback... must warn you not to take the outburst too seriously... a
few days of the flu from Hell seems to have produced a backlog in the advanced
bile generator...  :-)

>>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?

I thought we were talking pixel shapes and aspect ratios... not size.  I
suspect the original poster was, whether he has his video graphics adapters
mixed up or not.

>>You are a boob.
>
>No I'm not.  Boobs are those things on women's chest.

Ah... thanks for clarifying.

>>>>   -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.

Oh the Humanity.

>>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!

You too... don't fall into any cyanide coated combine blades or anything.

>>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
-- 
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
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:23871 comp.sys.amiga.misc:13813