QUOTE([email protected] @ Apr 17 2009, 04:23 AM) i have a samsung 32 inch using PAL 480p tv ratio set @ 16:9, Ive even tried it on the 40 inch we have in the house...
130 x 225 is simply too wide..
120 x 225 is perfect for PAL... almost perfect regarding the dvd case ratio..
NTSC yes for 130 x 225. reason being the image stretches further on the screen than PAL and 120 width size would look as some have said.. too thin.
Hence the need for smaller backgrounds for NTSC over PAL...
When you think about it logically with the differences between PAL and NTSC it makes perfect sense..
Did you try using this http://bluetain.com/dropspace/resize3.php?size=130x225 and measuring the box to see if its square. We are measuring this not "eying" it. Can any other pal user try that image and confirm?
130 x 225 is simply too wide..
120 x 225 is perfect for PAL... almost perfect regarding the dvd case ratio..
NTSC yes for 130 x 225. reason being the image stretches further on the screen than PAL and 120 width size would look as some have said.. too thin.
Hence the need for smaller backgrounds for NTSC over PAL...
When you think about it logically with the differences between PAL and NTSC it makes perfect sense..
Did you try using this http://bluetain.com/dropspace/resize3.php?size=130x225 and measuring the box to see if its square. We are measuring this not "eying" it. Can any other pal user try that image and confirm?
