On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Gary Herron <[email protected]>wrote:
> All those points are valid, but really have nothing to do with square > versus non-square pixels. Rather they are just a consequence of mapping > continuous objects into discrete pixels. ANY mapping into pixels suffers > many such aliasing effects and could benefit from various anti-aliasing > techniques. If pixels are non-square, then the resolution in one direction > is lower than the other and the aliasing effect will be more prominent in > that direction. But that's a consequence of low resolution (along either > one or both axes) not pixel shape. > Any mapping into pixels necessitates aliasing, yes. However, when rendering 2D graphics we typically try to place object edges at pixel boundaries, so that no aliasing is apparent in the rendered image. When you manipulate the projection to compensate for pixel shape, you shift the edges of objects by sub-pixel distances, which will result in greater aliasing, or necessitate anti-aliasing. A subtle point: Saying the resolution is "stretched" in one direction over > another is really just showing our bias toward square pixels. The hardware > and OpenGL has no such bias. > The hardware *does* have such a bias, at least on flatscreen displays (LCDs, etc.). CRTs don't suffer from this problem, because they can adjust pixel size/shape as needed, but LCDs have one exact native resolution, and and other resolutions must be handled by stretching the image. -- Tristam MacDonald http://swiftcoder.wordpress.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
