On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:29:05PM -0500, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 1/5/2016 9:51 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: > > I don't agree. Even if you can't easily resolve the individual > > pixels, the higher density improves the definition and may allow you > > to e. g. use a smaller font or smaller icons and be able to read them > > as easily. > > A 10 point typeface on a 15" display panel at 1080p will be a given > size. The same 10 point typeface on a 15" display panel at UHD will be > 1/4 the size, appearing as the equivalent of a 2.5 point typeface at > 1080p. All the "improved definition" marketing hype in the world won't > make legible a 2.5 point-looking face at reasonable viewing distances.
Eh? I thought point meant point and that this only happened when you make the mistake of specifying your font size in pixels, e.g. pixelsize instead of size in fontconfig language. Though that seems a common mistake. e.g. I was looking at st (simple terminal from the suckless project) and its default font is specified in pixel size giving poor results for me even on an old monitor at 1680x1024. -- Mike Small [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
