Michael wrote: > On Saturday, 6 July 2024 17:11:23 BST Dale wrote: >> Michael wrote: >>> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote: >>>> Mark Knecht wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> <SNIP> >>>>> >>>>>> I tried it with those options and without. Neither changed anything. >>>>>> I >>>>>> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all. I was hoping maybe the >>>>>> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things. I may try that again. No >>>>>> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing. That's what I use to set up my TV and >>>>>> such anyway. Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too. >>>>> <SNIP> >>>>> >>>>>> :-) :-) >>>>> ??? >>>>> >>>>> xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution >>>>> >>>>> ??? >>>> I booted my new rig up again. Dang that thing. It was HUGE again. I >>>> started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available >>>> settings. I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal >>>> suggested. I restarted DM each time. I was about ready to toss it in >>>> the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here. Lots of >>>> CRT monitors in there. LOL Anyway, I had to install that package to >>>> run that command. It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a >>>> copy and paste. I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare. >>>> On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number. I thought I had the >>>> output saved but it seems to be gone. My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots >>>> per inch. I did a duck search, finally found how to set that. I then >>>> restarted DM and YEPPIE!!! It was a normal size again. >>>> >>>> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too. Maybe 6 or 7 >>>> years??? Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI? Is >>>> that normal? Why was it using such a high number by default? I want to >>>> say one was like 200 or something. It was quite large. The reason I'm >>>> asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right >>>> size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer >>>> monitor prefers to use. >>>> >>>> Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again. :/ >>>> >>>> Dale >>>> >>>> :-) :-) >>> I'm struggling to follow your post because you do not provide specific >>> information on the commands you input, the output you get in your terminal >>> and the observed changes in the monitor. >>> >>> You also don't provide info on the changes you made in your xorg.conf, or >>> xrandr and the corresponding changes observed each time in your >>> Xorg.0.log. >>> >>> Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is >>> referred to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a >>> printed image of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck. >>> >>> In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the >>> rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s). Tweaking the latter allows >>> you to scale the display and make images look larger than the native >>> monitor resolution. >>> >>> You can set the DPI in your xorg.conf, or you can set it with xranrd, or >>> you can set it on the CLI when you launch X, but usually this is not >>> necessary and could mess up the scaling of your fonts, window decorations >>> and symbols too (the font DPI is set differently by setting Xft.dpi: in >>> ~/.Xresources, of the window manager's/DE font settings). >>> >>> A good starting point is to get the manual of your monitor and look at its >>> published native resolution, e.g. 1920x1080 and the physical monitor size >>> over which this resolution is displayed. Let's assume this 1920x1080 >>> native resolution belongs to a 23" monitor. A 23" diagonal would >>> correspond to a 20" wide screen real estate. Consequently the horizontal >>> PPI would be: >>> >>> PPI = 1920 pixels / 20" = 96 >>> >>> The same resolution on a 24" wide monitor would give a PPI of: >>> >>> PPI = 1920 pixels / 24" = 80 >>> >>> Obviously a physically wider 24" monitor with the same native screen >>> resolution as a smaller 20" monitor will not look as sharp when viewed >>> from >>> the *same* distance. >>> >>> Similarly, changing the selected resolution on the same 23" monitor from >>> say 1920 pixels wide to a lower resolution of 1280 pixels gives a PPI of >>> 64. >>> >>> I leave the calculation of the vertical PPI to the reader. >>> >>> Usually I start with no xorg.conf and leave the card to detect what the >>> monitor prefers, then use the Scale setting in the desktop settings to >>> increase/decrease (zoom in/zoom out) the displayed scale. This has the >>> effect of altering the PPI to higher or lower values to improve >>> readability of content. The above should help you arrive at some >>> practical resolution, but I would start with the native resolution of the >>> monitor and work down from there if you find it difficult to read its >>> display. >>> >>> NOTE: Using Qt scaling can mess up window decorations, widgets, etc. I've >>> found it doesn't work well with some KDE applications and their menus/ >>> submenus, or pop up windows. You need to set PLASMA_USE_QT_SCALING=1 to >>> make it follow Qt scaling and there's GTK3 too which may need tuning. >>> This is the reason I calculate PPI before I venture into buying a new >>> monitor, unless I can see it in person to make sure I can still read its >>> content. ;-) >> The reason I picked Mark's post is that I used the command he gave to >> find out the DPI info was different from my main rig. When I first >> booted up and started DM, I got that HUGE screen again. It worked last >> time. I hadn't changed anything. I sometimes wonder still if it reads >> xorg.conf each time. Anyway, when it didn't work, I started reading up >> a bit. I tried several things including checking options you posted but >> nothing worked. It stayed HUGE. Then I ran the command Mark gave and >> noticed the difference in DPI between my main rig and the new rig. I >> then found out how to set that in xorg.conf and set it the same as my >> main rig. As soon as I restarted DM, the screen came up the correct >> size. The HUGE part was gone. When I rebooted, it was still the normal >> size. It also worked each time I restarted DM. The only change is >> setting DPI. Like this: >> >> >> Section "Monitor" >> Identifier "Monitor0" >> VendorName "Unknown" >> ModelName "Samsung LS32B30" >> Option "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00" >> Option "DPMS" >> Option "DPI" "80 x 80" >> >> >> I just booted the new rig again and it has a normal display. None of >> that huge stuff. I think I've rebooted like three times now and it >> worked every time. I think that is the most reboots with a config that >> works since I built this rig. Usually, it works once, maybe twice, then >> fails. Later on, it might work again. This machine is like rolling >> dice. You never know what you going to get. Three consecutive reboots >> with it working gives me hope on this one. I won't be surprised if when >> I hook up a second monitor or the TV that it breaks again tho. ;-) >> >> My only question now, is that a good setting or is there a better way to >> make sure this thing works, each time I reboot? >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > Is this your monitor? > > https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs > > If the screen is 27.5" wide and 15.47 high, then at a native 1,920 x 1,080 > pixel resolution the DPI would be approx. 70x70. However, if you're happy > with the way it looks @80x80, then that's a good setting. After all, you're > the one looking at it! :-)
Actually, mine is a LS32B304NWN. I'm not sure what the difference is between 300 and 304. There may just be a minor version change but display is the same. Sorta like a bug fix. Could be one is a slightly newer model or something. I dunno. It's hi res and a good deal. :-D Compared to the HUGE display, yea, it looks good. The reason I was asking if that is correct is this, maybe it should be set to, just guessing, 128 x 128 but some other setting makes the picture the right size, not HUGE. If 70 x 70 or 80 x 80 is a setting that the monitor is designed for and ideal, then that is fine. I don't see a DPI setting on the link you posted. Can it be called something else? Monitors, even the old CRTs, have resolutions and settings they work best at. Those are the ones I'd like to use. If for no other reason, it just makes it easier on the monitor to handle. I read once where a person had a monitor that had a great picture at 60Hz refresh. Even tho it would work at 75Hz, the picture wasn't as good. It seems that something didn't like that 75Hz setting. That person used the 60Hz setting. Some things are picky that way. Higher isn't always better. I may try that 70 setting. Odds are, just like the difference between 60 and 75Hz refresh rate, I likely won't be able to tell the difference. Time will tell tho. By the way, I booted the rig up when I went to heat up supper and was downloading new messages. It booted to a normal screen. I think it is at least being consistent now. Before, it was hit or miss, mostly miss. Given how good things are at just working, I'm surprised that the correct setting wasn't used automatically. I'd think it should be. Maybe that is a bug???? Now to go eat supper. I hope the monitor comes in soon. I ordered a monitor stand too. I think the stand will be here before the monitor. I'm kinda hoping the monitor was shipped but tracking info just wasn't uploaded yet. That would make the monitor arrive sooner. Kinda doubtful tho. Most are pretty quick to update those. Dale :-) :-)
