81–90 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m currently running a 4K 32” monitor. What exact monitor do you recommend I buy for my Windows desktop?
Then why are you saying you want a high pixel screen, if you already have it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do yourself a favour and go out and purchase a high pixel screen. I don't understand why people who spend a good part of their days in front of a computer (or employ others to do it), but refuse to get quality hardware. Is it worth destroying your eyes, posture, and joints to save this money? Not to speak of just the personal pleasure of using good hardware. Restaurants spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars…
> Is it worth destroying your eyes, posture, and joints to save this money? Not high enough pixel density causes which one of these again? > Why doesn't IT people take inspiration from them and get a bit better equipment. Are we talking about the same field where people are having a competition about who can build the most overpriced and obnoxious sounding keyboards imaginable?
Some IT people and computing enthusiasts are total consumers, I don't disagree. But it's also the only profession / serious hobby where it's common for people who are doing it all day insist on having the cheapest equipment, or half broken hardware. Not in the case with the commenter above, who I misunderstood in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why are you saying you want a high pixel screen, if you already have it?
4K @ 32” is not particularly high density. It’s waaaay lower density than a phone or MacBook.
Philips have a very good one at 27 inches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4K @ 32” is not particularly high density. It’s waaaay lower density than a phone or MacBook.
Then buy a high pixel density screen if you want to have one. They're really good for working with text and other computing related stuff, and they're not expensive. Philips have a very good one at 27 inches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first (and last) 1920x1080 monitor was 50lb CRT I picked up on the side of the road, in 2003. I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low, in over 10 years. I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions.
A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing? > I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Did you own a smartphone at all in the past 10 years? Just double checking. > I think it's an amazing feat of marketing,…
No, literally, on the roadside, out for trash. Disposing of CRT has always been expensive since they can't fit in the trash and taking them to the dump has a fee for the all the lead. At the transition to LCD, they were all over the place, along with projection TVs. There was also a lot of churn when "slimmer" versions came out, that mostly halved the depth required. Again, it was literally 50lbs, and about 2ft in depth. It took up my whole desk. It was worthless to most anyone.
> Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What?
Over 10 years ago I had an iPhone 6 plus, with 1080p resolution. All my phones after have been higher. Their pixel densities (DPI) are actually pretty great, but since they're small, their pixel counts are on the lower side. There's nothing different about smartphone displays. The display manufacturers use the same process for all of them, with the same densities.
Subpixel rendering works completely fine on Linux. I'm using it right now, using "full" hinting and "RGB" subpixel rendering. It even works completely fine with "non-integer" scaling in KDE, even in firefox when "widget.wayland.fractional-scale.enabled" is enabled.
That's something that OSX doesn't even have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing? > I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Did you own a smartphone at all in the past 10 years? Just double checking. > I think it's an amazing feat of marketing,…
CRT resolution was moreso limited by GPUs than the monitor itself. They don't have fixed pixels like LCD/OLED.
No, it was limited by the bandwidth of the beam driving system, which the manufactures, obviously, tried to maximize. This limit is what set the shadow mask and RGB sub pixels/strip widths. The electron beam couldn't make different color, different colored phosphor patches were used.
But, since bandwidth is mostly resolution * refresh, you could trade between the two: more refresh, less resolution. More resolution, less refresh. Early on, you had to download a "driver" for the monitor, which had a list of the supported resolutions and refresh rates. There was eventually a protocol made to query the supported resolutions, straight from the monitor. But, you could also just make your own list (still can) and do funky resolutions and refresh rates, as long as the drive circuit could accommodate.
This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p.
I haven't used displays with under ~215ppi in over 10 years. I find these subpixel opinion discussions still ongoing very... quaint. :)
So you haven't used a 32 inch 4K monitor which is ~135 ppi? What do you get at that size, a 5K or 6K monitor? Not many of those available and they have specific requirements like higher display port or thunderbolt bandwidth. There's also an entire world of users still on 720p and 1080p displays. They deserve better font rendering even if it doesn't affect us personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first (and last) 1920x1080 monitor was 50lb CRT I picked up on the side of the road, in 2003. I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low, in over 10 years. I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions.
A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing? > I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Did you own a smartphone at all in the past 10 years? Just double checking. > I think it's an amazing feat of marketing,…
What’s wrong with the v35 freetype picture? He writes like it is immediately obvious, but it seems fine.
See the jump from 17pt to 18pt? That's wrong. (Also, the small sizes are just completely obliterated IMO.) Font outlines are scalable; they should have the same relative weight no matter what pt/px size you render them at, and they should have the same proportions. Non-scalable rendering is incorrect (although techniques like hinting and gridfitting do intentionally sacrifice scalability for better legibility, but I…