Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 02:06:04PM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht: >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:09 PM Frank Steinmetzger <war...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale: >> <SNIP> >>> Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite subtle, >> you >>> might not even notice 90 Hz. But changing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an >>> increase in fonts by 14 %. >> So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand the underlying >> technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed size, >> like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the conversion >> from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the screen. > Yeah. So, big convoluted topic. ^^ > > First, there is the physical pixel raster of the screen, which determines > the PPI value. But what may confuse people without knowing (I was very > confused in my early computing days when I was using Windows): font sizes > and their units. People usually think in pixels, but font sizes are given in > point, especially on modern Linux desktops. Historically, Points come from > lead typesetting, where 1 pt = 1/72 inch. And monitors of early publishing > machines (and I think at the time in general) all had 72 ppi, so if you have > a font size of 12 pt == 1/6 in == 4,233 mm on your screen, it will be > exactly the same size on the printed paper. No scaling necessary. > > I forgot some of the minutiae over time; AFAIR Windows 9x+ assumed a standard > density of 96 ppi and font sizes were set up in pixels in the control panel. > The monitor market was very homogeneous, there was not much diversity, so no > need for scaling factors. The default in Windows 2000 and XP was Tahoma at 8 > pixel. And it was the same on Pocket PCs (PDAs with 3″ touch screens of > 240×320). So if you took a screenshot on all of those screens, the font was > identical to the pixel. > > No comes the clash between the logical and the physical world. Today we have > - high-density screens like tablets and laptops: 4K at 14″ equals 315 ppi > - the standard cheap office screen of 1900×1200 at 24″ equals 94 ppi > - my 8 years old Thinkpad with FullHD at 12.5″ and 176 ppi > > A text of size 12 pixel will always be 12 pixels high, so it will appear > smaller to the eye when the pixels are small, and bigger when the pixels are > big. > > OTOH, a text at 12 pt should be displayed physically (in millimeters or > inches on the screen) at the same size no matter how fine a screen resolves > an image. So the computer needs to know how many pixels it needs to reach > that size. That’s where the ppi come in: > > font size in pt > Number of pixels = --------------- * Screens density in pixel/in > 1/96 pt/in > > The first factor gives you the font’s physical dimension in inch, the second > factor converts that into pixel height. The units all cancel each other out > with pixels remaining. > > That’s why you can enter the screen’s ppi into the settings (or use it > automatically, if possible). So the font size you set will be the same to > your eye no matter what monitor you plug in. The scaling factor business > hides that: 100 % means 96 ppi, 200 % means 192 ppi. > > This produces two “Unfortunately”s: > > Unfortunately 1: people don’t know what the scaling means and how it works > physically. > > Unfortunately 2: UI developers stick to this scaling factor idea. Everything > outside certain values (meaning integer multiples of 96) looks ugly. But > none of my screens have a ppi of n * 96. They are all inbetween (117, 176, > 216) and when I set the correct scaling, the Plasma UI becomes ugly as hell > because the previously nice-looking pixel-perfect lines become blurred or > their thickness varies depending on where on the screen they are drawn. >
You and Jack shared some interesting info. >>> I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one >> where everything was HUGE. %-) >> >> Dale does this at times and I get confused also. He will (the way I read the >> messages) sometimes be talking about different machines or different >> monitors. His 'main rig", his "new rig", etc. > We could stick to hostnames. *ducksandruns* > > -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything > from, with or about me on any social network. It’s a pity that at the > end of the money there’s so much month left. That's true. Main rig is Fireball, new rig is Gentoo-1 for the moment. Then I have NAS 1 and NAS 2. Those aren't exactly named that but it's what I use when posting about them. I couldn't come up with a new name for the new rig that would be a increase in speed. My first rig, long retired, was named smoker. Fireball was faster. Thought about lightening for new rig but kinda long. I do see some interesting names people use for their rigs on here tho. Some are quite neat. I just couldn't think of anything at the time for the new rig and wanted to finish the install. Gentoo-1 it is, for now. Going to cook a box of mac n cheese for supper. I haven't had that in a while. ;-) I wonder, what would it taste like with some basil in it. ROFL Dale :-) :-)
