| thetonestarr said: eh, no it's not. It's just a single pixel wider than it should be. Best way to test is to rescale it to a clear multiple of 4:3 (like 800x600). It'll come out to either 801x600 or 800x599. =| But yeah, it is JUST SLIGHTLY off. Mainly, though, because you CAN'T get a perfect 4:3 at the size they chose, and it WOULD take subtracting the number of pixels you mentioned to get it accurate at a whole-number. |
Nah, it's 2/3 of a pixels wider, not a whole pixel ((391/3)*4 = 521.33333...) :P
But anyway, they could just perfectly well use a single less pixel on each side and take another one out on the top and it would be virtually the same image, no detail would be lost, and that's kinda weird. Why would they make a picture so close to the exact proportions and still not quite at them?
Ha, maybe the actual image was something like 1564x1173, which is perfectly 4:3 but, if scaled down to a third of the heigh gives you 521.333...x391, which is rounded up to 522x391, and was downsized for easier view, economy of bandwidth and fitting better with the other images (lol). If that's so, I don't think it was 3DS resolution since that's way too high and unconventional.
