|
 |
On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:52:43 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> If they get downscaled why there still are plenty of empty pixels at the
> borders, both vertical and horizontal?
Because that is how the software/firmware chooses to display them. Why the
software was written that way I cannot say.
> I was about to agree with you that it's all downscaled because I thought
> perhaps it could be that normal display mode was actually trying to fit
> all pictures to 4:3 screen proportion. But this doesn't follow, because
> pictures larger than 16:9 are not following this rule.
>
> It's also worth of note that pictures far smaller than the supposed
> physical limit seem to display in correct proportion in relation to the
> larger pictures.
Make no mistake; the large pictures *are* getting downscaled. It could be
that the software only supports scaling to certain predefined dimensions.
It could be that the software looks at all the images and chooses a fixed
scaling factor based on the dimensions of the largest one. It could be
that a wizard did it. It could be any number of things, but nothing the
software does can overcome the fact that the display panel only has
1366x768 pixels.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
