@jim Square as opposed to rectangular. I'm not familiar with EGA but your description of it sounds like TV pixels. They are taller than they are wide. The image above shows different Pixel aspect ratios as offered by Photoshop CS. If you create a perfect circle in an image based on one of the TV ones (D1 or DV), it will look distorted on a computer monitor - unless the software compensates for it in your display. Photoshop will do that. If you create an image using square pixels - the norm for computer monitors - it will look distorted on a TV unless you convert it. What you have described is like working in a document created using TV pixels but displayed on a computer monitor without any compensation. I have no idea how common EGA is but it's never come up as a concern in any of my professional studies in video production so my suspicion is that it's not that prevalent. That's not said to diminish your point at all. Please bear in mind that the stuff I'm talking about is only relevant if you're working back and forth between computer monitors and TV screens. Or maybe I should qualify that by adding "non-EGA computer monitors" Also, I'm referring to the aspect ratio of the pixels themselves. Not the number of them that are displayed in any given direction on a computer monitor. If you are using square pixels, your square pixel based image (such as Poser outputs) will display properly regardless of whether your monitor is 1024 x 768 (4:3 aspect) or 2048 x768 (an 8:3 aspect I made up just for example purposes). All the latter gives you is more screen real estate to work on.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/