> Subject: Re: Dual screen > > Allegedly, on or about 17 February 2018, stan sent: > > Using monitors with different resolutions and dot pitches > > at the same time must play havoc with font selection. > > Modern monitors (LCDs, etc), only work at one resolution, their native > ones. If you don't drive the pixels with a 1:1 ratio of graphics > generation to actual display resolution, you get a smudge. Monitors > should, automatically, get the right resolution, because they tell the > computer what theirs is. Though some lie, or have broken data, or if > you connect through some KVMs, that data isn't passed through. > > You can have two vastly different monitors, the only noticeable > difference should be the size of the fonts (and graphics) on one > monitor versus the other, *IF* you're using font sizing based on the > number of pixels (which tends to be the case). But if you use point > sizing, then 12 point text on one device should look the same as 12 > point text on the other, points are an *absolute* size (in the same way > as a 2 cm box should appear as 2 cm box, no matter what the display). > > Display cloning/mirroring, is a problem, because you're trying to > generate the same data on two different medium. Independent dual > screen, should be fine (that's what I was describing above). > > You can play with scaling, to magnify one display, and the graphics > rendering should neatly handle the magnification (render it bigger, > using more dots). But if you lie to the renderer about the display > resolution, to get that effect, you're likely to get poor resolution > results (render it bigger, stretching the dots). Linux is sadly > lacking in letting you easily pick font and graphics sizing. > > Font rendering can be odd, thanks to smoothing or sharpening. For > text, I prefer the idea of a font engine that generates text properly > for the actual screen resolution. You notice in terminals the > different between fonts which only ever use whole pixels, versus the > ones that put in half contrast pixels trying to smooth the edges, > particularly on small text. For terminals, try picking a font that's > specifically intended for terminals. By default, I use Window Titles: Cantarell Bold 11 Interface: Cantarell Regular 11 Documents: Sans Regular 11 Minispace: Monospace Regular 11 Hinting: Slight (I did not see any difference and switching to full) Antialiasing: Grayscale Scaling factor: 1 > Font rendering is a bastard to control. X, or Wayland, may have its > own rules for general screen rendering of text. Your web browser may > have its own independent scheme. The same probably applies for mail > clients using the same engines as browsers (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc). > > And how are you connecting them? DVI or HDMI ought to be sharp and > clear, with a 1:1 matching of generated graphics to display pixels. > VGA has analogue signal which will often smear, as the pixel clock in > the graphics card is not the same as pixel clocking in the monitor. > I tried several things but without real success. The motherboard has 2 ports, one VGA and one DVI. The "old" monitor (1600x1200) is connected to the VGA and the fonts are sharpe. The new monitor (LED/TV, 1920x1080) is HDMI and it is connected to the DVI port by a cable (DVI -> HDMI). Indeed, I do not have much choice (no VGA on the new monitor, no HDMI on the old monitor) _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
