<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 17:53, Steve Holdoway <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@greengecko.co.nz">steve@greengecko.co.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:49 +1300, Steve Hodge wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 14:51, Steve Holdoway <<a href="mailto:steve@greengecko.co.nz">steve@greengecko.co.nz</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 18:45 +1300, <a href="mailto:criggie@criggie.dyndns.org">criggie@criggie.dyndns.org</a><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > They often rotate their monitors to allow for "portrait"<br>
> mode for more<br>
> > height.<br>
> ><br>
> > Must be possible for desktop usage, but would be an utter<br>
> waste for mythtv.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Not brilliant even for the desktop, as pixels aren't square...<br>
><br>
> What do you mean?<br>
<br>
</div></div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio</a><br>
<br>
A lot are now square ( they weren't when I was working in image<br>
processing but that was in the steam powered days - we had one expensive<br>
monitor with square pixels, the rest were 4x3 ).<br></blockquote><div><br>I think you'd be hard pressed to find any new monitor which doesn't have square pixels. I thought you might be referring to the individual colour elements (as I said Windows doesn't understand how to do subpixel rendering in portrait mode). But I wouldn't have though non-square pixels would cause many problems anyway unless they were very rectangular.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br><br></div></div>