Screen Aspect Ratio

I'm under the impression that I once saw something that would allow you to
adjust the vertical-to-horizontal ratio of the display. It involved looking
at something that was *supposed* to be a square and then making some kind of
adjustment. Does this ring any bells for anyone? Right now we have a 5%
dimensional discrepancy in the rendering of a square on one oldish
monitor.....

 

HiHo;
Here is a product that will allow one to adjust the aspect ratio.
http://www.displaymate.com/

 

In the old days, AutoCAD had "Calibrate" functions for the display and
certain printers and plotters. I think this went away about the time the old
DOS-based "Bozo Screen" went away ... along about R12 or R13. Modern
versions of Windows are supposed to handle the aspect ratio automatically,
and, of course, Autodesk has long since opted to let Windows "do the
driving."
___

 

So I'm not senile, just way behind the times ; )

 

It happens to me on my home monitor. I have ovals in stead of circles, so it
always takes a few minutes for my brain to adjust between my at-work screen
and home. Both are fairly new and good quality, BTW.

I just live with it, as long as everything prints fine, I don't really mind.

Dr Fleau

 

Do you have a flat screen with settings at 16-9?? That will stretch a circle
and everything else. I go from a 28" at work (16-9) to a 21" at home (1280
res.)

 

It has me double checking stuff that is drawn right but looks wrong.
Not very productive.

 

Have I missed a part of this thread?

Aspect ratio is set by the Horizontal and Vertical screen controls on
most monitors by buttons or knobs . . .


Ivan the Lurker

 

LCD screens have a fixed aspect ratio that when adjusted results in
blurred images.

 

Can anyone explain why 1280x1024 is the standard with many monitors? That's
a 5:4 ratio. Most screens are 4:3. So at that res, if you adjusted the
monitor settings to "fill" the screen, you'd be doing some serious
stretching of geometry. I don't understand this at all. I would use
1280x960 which is 4:3 as is 1600x1200, 800x600, etc.

 

Beware my BS that follows since its just a guess

increments of 256 work well in binary/hexadecimal. For 960 you have to
drop to a multiple of 64 which is not bad, but significantly not as good
since 256 is 2 to the 8th power and 8 bits are in a byte so one byte by
one byte is a good 256 by 256 and 20 of those gives you 1280x1024. 64 is
2 to the 6th power and 2 bits wasted.

Besides 4:3 is a remnant from Roman architecture and the current trend
is to widen that ratio as screens get larger since human eyes usually
have better side to side than up and down. That is why 16:9 is so
popular on new equipment

 

FYI, we used hardware menu settings to fix that problem with aspect ratio.
(Don't know how it became messed up.)