aspect ratio

"Peter" found these unused words:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing problem with CS3?

TIA

Why should the aspect ratio of a monitor in 16:9 have anything to do with printing?

The monitor displays pixels however they come fromthe file mapped 1:1. The printer takes the same pixels and transfers them tom paper as ‘dots’.

If your image is 600h x 900w, then that’s what would be displayed and that’s what would be fed to the printer.

Essentially ‘widescreen’ monitors do nothing bu lose top and bottom pixels in their display … all so that DVDs would look ‘normal’ on a $2000 laptop!

Now when the monitors get up to 1600 x 900, then we’ll have back the page real estate we’ve lost with this nonsense (and a bit left over for menus and ‘desktop’) !

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

"Peter" found these unused words:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing problem with CS3?

TIA

Why should the aspect ratio of a monitor in 16:9 have anything to do with printing?

The monitor displays pixels however they come fromthe file mapped 1:1. The printer takes the same pixels and transfers them tom paper as ‘dots’.
If your image is 600h x 900w, then that’s what would be displayed and that’s
what would be fed to the printer.

Essentially ‘widescreen’ monitors do nothing bu lose top and bottom pixels in their display … all so that DVDs would look ‘normal’ on a $2000 laptop!

Now when the monitors get up to 1600 x 900, then we’ll have back the page real estate we’ve lost with this nonsense (and a bit left over for menus and
‘desktop’) !

Thanks for the quick response. You have hit the issue on the head. In order to have "normal" ratio I have to set my video at 1289 x 768. At 1280 x 1024 and above a normally round shapes will appear horizontally elongated, but my fonts seem to adjust. Unfortunately I do not know how to set the video card for aspect ratios other than the pre sets.

—
Peter

"Peter" found these unused words:

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

"Peter" found these unused words:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing problem with CS3?

TIA

Why should the aspect ratio of a monitor in 16:9 have anything to do with printing?

The monitor displays pixels however they come fromthe file mapped 1:1. The printer takes the same pixels and transfers them tom paper as ‘dots’.
If your image is 600h x 900w, then that’s what would be displayed and that’s
what would be fed to the printer.

Essentially ‘widescreen’ monitors do nothing bu lose top and bottom pixels in their display … all so that DVDs would look ‘normal’ on a $2000 laptop!

Now when the monitors get up to 1600 x 900, then we’ll have back the page real estate we’ve lost with this nonsense (and a bit left over for menus and
‘desktop’) !

Thanks for the quick response. You have hit the issue on the head. In order to have "normal" ratio I have to set my video at 1289 x 768. At 1280 x 1024 and above a normally round shapes will appear horizontally elongated, but my fonts seem to adjust. Unfortunately I do not know how to set the video card for aspect ratios other than the pre sets.

-=ANY=- LCD screen should -=only=- be operated at its ‘native’ resolution …. PERIOD!

Your ‘manual’ should tell you the pixels displayed by the panel. That, and only that, is your ‘resolution’.

"Peter" wrote:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing problem with CS3?

Ratio Aspect should have nothing to do with wide/narrow screen .. cuz you should deal with the IMAGE not the LCD.

TIA

"Peter" wrote in message

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message

"Peter" found these unused words:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing
problem with CS3?

TIA

Why should the aspect ratio of a monitor in 16:9 have anything to do with printing?

The monitor displays pixels however they come fromthe file mapped 1:1. The
printer takes the same pixels and transfers them tom paper as ‘dots’.
If your image is 600h x 900w, then that’s what would be displayed and that’s
what would be fed to the printer.

Essentially ‘widescreen’ monitors do nothing bu lose top and bottom pixels
in their display … all so that DVDs would look ‘normal’ on a $2000 laptop!

Now when the monitors get up to 1600 x 900, then we’ll have back the page real estate we’ve lost with this nonsense (and a bit left over for menus and
‘desktop’) !

Thanks for the quick response. You have hit the issue on the head. In order to have "normal" ratio I have to set my video at 1289 x 768. At 1280 x 1024 and above a normally round shapes will appear horizontally elongated, but my fonts seem to adjust. Unfortunately I do not know how to set the video card for aspect ratios other than the pre sets.

—
Peter

Hi.

Your response seems a little strange.

Why would you want to run your screen at a resolution which distorts the shape of the images?

If they are undistorted at 1289 x 768, then that is the screen resolution at which you should be working, UNLESS your Laptop instructions tell you otherwise.

The size at which you see the image on screen has no bearing on what size a printer will print that image.

That size is determined by the number of pixels on each side of the image divided by the resolution, ( in pixels per inch), which you have selected. UNLESS you have made a setting in the Printer dialogues which will over-ride that.

Roy G

"Joel" wrote in message

"Peter" wrote:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing
problem with CS3?

Ratio Aspect should have nothing to do with wide/narrow screen .. cuz you should deal with the IMAGE not the LCD.

I solved my issue, which turned out to be a self induced panic. I was concerned that if I create say a square image of 760 x 760 it would look square at the aspect ratio in which it was created, but distorted if I change aspect ratio. I finally ran some tests. I was confusing Windows boxes with the fixed aspect ratio in PS. Thanks to all for your responses.

—
Peter

"Peter" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message

"Peter" wrote:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing
problem with CS3?

Ratio Aspect should have nothing to do with wide/narrow screen .. cuz you should deal with the IMAGE not the LCD.

I solved my issue, which turned out to be a self induced panic. I was concerned that if I create say a square image of 760 x 760 it would look square at the aspect ratio in which it was created, but distorted if I change aspect ratio. I finally ran some tests. I was confusing Windows boxes with the fixed aspect ratio in PS. Thanks to all for your responses.

I am glad you have the problem solved! *but* still ain’t the right way to do. Cuz

– When you work on graphic or photo retouching you should work on the Ratio Aspect of the IMAGE *not* displaying. IOW, 760×760 is pixel and it should be 1×1 ratio aspect, and you should pay more attention to the 2×3, 2×4 etc. Ratio Aspect than Pixel. IOW

2×3 = 2×3, 4×6, 8×12, 16×24 and so on have the exact same Ratio Aspect 2×4 = 2×4, 4×8, 8×16, 16×32 and so on have the exact same Ratio Aspect

– You DO NOT go by screen resolution, or Image Ratio Aspect should not be effected by any resolution of any screen. Example

– If you drop a penny inside a Square Box the penny will remain circle. If you drop inside retangle, triangle etc. the penny will still remain CIRCLE no matter the shape of or size of the box.

Hi Peter,

you still don’t seem to get it. As others have pointed out in here – it is imperative that you leave your monitor set to its native resolution settings. If you are using a 15.4" widescreen laptop, for example, then leave it at 1280 x 800, which is what it would have been set at from the factory.

This is not a game; why would you be changing the ratio? To make it clear what I am talking about, let’s pretend you have a square monitor with a native resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels, for ease of explanation. So you turn the computer on and it is set correctly to 1000 x 1000. What shape your image is, is totally irrelevant. If your image is a 6×4 photo and let’s say you have resized it down to 1200 x 800 pixels, the image obviously won’t fit on your screen when viewed at 100%. It will fit nicely inside the height of your monitor, but it will be 200 pixels wider than your monitor, so it will simply disappear off the edge of the screen. You can still scroll left and right to see the hidden parts of the image. The image has not changed shape.

You then zoom out to 50% and your image will only take up 600 x 400 pixels, so the whole image will be visible on the screen. The point I am making here is that your image does not mysteriously become a square because the screen is a square. The image has a certain number of pixels and those pixels don’t magically change.

Now if you start messing around with your resolution you run into trouble. Say you change it to 1024 x 768 pixels, as you recognise this as a standard setting. Your monitor is now displaying more pixels across its width than its height, but the sides of your square monitor are the same. This means your pixels are no longer square and your image will appear distorted. Your photo will compressed in its horizontal direction.

I hope that helps to some extent.

Best regards,
Brian.

"Peter" wrote in message

"Joel" wrote in message

"Peter" wrote:

I am working on a new laptop with no printer available, I am asking this question because I cannot run a test.
I just realized I may have a problem printing my images because my laptop is
a widescreen. The aspect ratio is adjusted so that images look normal on the
laptop’s built in monitor. Does anyone know if aspect ration is a printing
problem with CS3?

Ratio Aspect should have nothing to do with wide/narrow screen .. cuz you should deal with the IMAGE not the LCD.

I solved my issue, which turned out to be a self induced panic. I was concerned that if I create say a square image of 760 x 760 it would look square at the aspect ratio in which it was created, but distorted if I change aspect ratio. I finally ran some tests. I was confusing Windows boxes with the fixed aspect ratio in PS. Thanks to all for your responses.

—
Peter

"Brian" wrote in message

Hi Peter,

you still don’t seem to get it. As others have pointed out in here – it is imperative that you leave your monitor set to its native resolution settings. If you are using a 15.4" widescreen laptop, for example, then leave it at 1280 x 800, which is what it would have been set at from the factory.

This is not a game; why would you be changing the ratio? To make it clear what I am talking about, let’s pretend you have a square monitor with a native resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels, for ease of explanation. So you turn the computer on and it is set correctly to 1000 x 1000. What shape your image is, is totally irrelevant. If your image is a 6×4 photo and let’s say you have resized it down to 1200 x 800 pixels, the image obviously won’t fit on your screen when viewed at 100%. It will fit nicely inside the height of your monitor, but it will be 200 pixels wider than your monitor, so it will simply disappear off the edge of the screen. You can still scroll left and right to see the hidden parts of the image. The image has not changed shape.

You then zoom out to 50% and your image will only take up 600 x 400 pixels, so the whole image will be visible on the screen. The point I am making here is that your image does not mysteriously become a square because the screen is a square. The image has a certain number of pixels and those pixels don’t magically change.

Now if you start messing around with your resolution you run into trouble. Say you change it to 1024 x 768 pixels, as you recognise this as a standard setting. Your monitor is now displaying more pixels across its width than its height, but the sides of your square monitor are the same. This means your pixels are no longer square and your image will appear distorted. Your photo will compressed in its horizontal direction.
I hope that helps to some extent.

I really want to thank all for their input. The native resolution of my monitor’s screen is 1680 x 1050, I changed because I wanted a larger image. Unfortunately it may have created more problems than it solved. My final choice is to leave the monitor at it’s native resolution, change the view size for word-processing and spreadsheets and learn to live with smaller type for away from home email and internet browsing.
Making my browser font larger has little effect on many web pages.

—
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message

"Brian" wrote in message

Hi Peter,

you still don’t seem to get it. As others have pointed out in here – it is imperative that you leave your monitor set to its native resolution settings. If you are using a 15.4" widescreen laptop, for example, then leave it at 1280 x 800, which is what it would have been set at from the factory.

This is not a game; why would you be changing the ratio? To make it clear what I am talking about, let’s pretend you have a square monitor with a native resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels, for ease of explanation. So you turn the computer on and it is set correctly to 1000 x 1000. What shape your image is, is totally irrelevant. If your image is a 6×4 photo and let’s say you have resized it down to 1200 x 800 pixels, the image obviously won’t fit on your screen when viewed at 100%. It will fit nicely inside the height of your monitor, but it will be 200 pixels wider than your monitor, so it will simply disappear off the edge of the screen. You can still scroll left and right to see the hidden parts of the image. The image has not changed shape.

You then zoom out to 50% and your image will only take up 600 x 400 pixels, so the whole image will be visible on the screen. The point I am making here is that your image does not mysteriously become a square because the screen is a square. The image has a certain number of pixels and those pixels don’t magically change.

Now if you start messing around with your resolution you run into trouble. Say you change it to 1024 x 768 pixels, as you recognise this as a standard setting. Your monitor is now displaying more pixels across its width than its height, but the sides of your square monitor are the same. This means your pixels are no longer square and your image will appear distorted. Your photo will compressed in its horizontal direction.
I hope that helps to some extent.

I really want to thank all for their input. The native resolution of my monitor’s screen is 1680 x 1050, I changed because I wanted a larger image. Unfortunately it may have created more problems than it solved. My final choice is to leave the monitor at it’s native resolution, change the view size for word-processing and spreadsheets and learn to live with smaller type for away from home email and internet browsing. Making my browser font larger has little effect on many web pages.

—
Peter

IE 7 has a magnify feature in browser
in outlook control +wheel to enlarge

system wide
windows>right click desktop>properties>appearance>large fonts

all customizable
fonts colors etc

You know, you can actually be quite sweet when you want to be..LOL

"KatWoman" wrote in message

"Peter" wrote in message

"Brian" wrote in message

Hi Peter,

you still don’t seem to get it. As others have pointed out in here – it is imperative that you leave your monitor set to its native resolution settings. If you are using a 15.4" widescreen laptop, for example, then leave it at 1280 x 800, which is what it would have been set at from the factory.

This is not a game; why would you be changing the ratio? To make it clear what I am talking about, let’s pretend you have a square monitor with a native resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels, for ease of explanation. So you turn the computer on and it is set correctly to 1000 x 1000. What shape your image is, is totally irrelevant. If your image is a 6×4 photo and let’s say you have resized it down to 1200 x 800 pixels, the image obviously won’t fit on your screen when viewed at 100%. It will fit nicely inside the height of your monitor, but it will be 200 pixels wider than your monitor, so it will simply disappear off the edge of the screen. You can still scroll left and right to see the hidden parts of the image. The image has not changed shape.

You then zoom out to 50% and your image will only take up 600 x 400 pixels, so the whole image will be visible on the screen. The point I am making here is that your image does not mysteriously become a square because the screen is a square. The image has a certain number of pixels and those pixels don’t magically change.

Now if you start messing around with your resolution you run into trouble. Say you change it to 1024 x 768 pixels, as you recognise this as a standard setting. Your monitor is now displaying more pixels across its width than its height, but the sides of your square monitor are the same. This means your pixels are no longer square and your image will appear distorted. Your photo will compressed in its horizontal direction.

I hope that helps to some extent.

I really want to thank all for their input. The native resolution of my monitor’s screen is 1680 x 1050, I changed because I wanted a larger image. Unfortunately it may have created more problems than it solved. My final choice is to leave the monitor at it’s native resolution, change the view size for word-processing and spreadsheets and learn to live with smaller type for away from home email and internet browsing. Making my browser font larger has little effect on many web pages.

—
Peter

IE 7 has a magnify feature in browser
in outlook control +wheel to enlarge

system wide
windows>right click desktop>properties>appearance>large fonts
all customizable
fonts colors etc

"KatWoman" wrote in message

IE 7 has a magnify feature in browser
in outlook control +wheel to enlarge

system wide
windows>right click desktop>properties>appearance>large fonts
all customizable
fonts colors etc

Thanks, I did not know about that feature in IE7.

I guess a person who loves cats must be nice. (My daughter has two.)

—
Peter