On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Olivier Ricou <maemo1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Think that 300dpi > printers have been replaced by 600dpi ones when most screen are > less than 100dpi. You don't understand how printers work. The *dot pitch*, (that is, the distance from the edge of one dot to the *same* edge of the next dot) may allow for 600dpi or even much more, but the actual dot *size* is unrelated to the pitch, and is actually much larger. The actual dots overlap, so while the *pitch* may be higher, the dots are larger as well. In other words, a "600dpi" printer's dot *size*, and therefore "true" resolution, is much lower than the numbers imply. That's why laser printer resolutions are so much lower than ink jet printers: the nature of the mechanics makes for much less overlap with laser printers, and therefore lower dot pitch. Printiers are completely different from computer monitors (which have zero overlap of pixels), for which the dot pitch and the pixel size are directly related. If you look at a photo in a magazine or newspaper through a magnifying glass, you will be amazed at how large the dots actually are. The human eye is capable of amazing resolution, but the human brain is capable of even more amazing processing, and you see what your brain thinks you *should* be seeing rather than what you are actually seeing. That's why mosaics work, and why once you've been watching an analog TV image for a few minutes you don't notice the graininess caused by the relatively large pixels (provided the signal is strong and there's no "snow" or other obvious interference). You only notice the low resolution if you're thinking about it and looking for it. To sum up: your brain is capable of more or less increasing the resolution of low-res, but relatively large, images, but can't make up for details that are simply smaller than the optics or physical resolution of your eye can handle. > I have a 1600x1200 15" screen and before I had > a 1400x1050 for the same size. I do appreciate the difference > and since my computer is quite old, I look for higher resolution. > Actually, I have the same issues with the N800's screen. I have -9.5 diopter lenses, and if I take out my contacts or remove my glasses and hold the N800 about 6cm from my eyes, I can clearly see the individual pixels. However, with my contacts in and using 1.75 diopter reading glasses, the dot pitch of the Nokia's screen is still very much at the maximum end of usability. Increasing the resolution at that screen size would be very much counterproductive. > The only limit I can see is the size of the text in mm (or inches) > which is quite different since you always can increase the size > of the font if your resolution increase. > This also has usability issues, since different apps handle "zooming" differently, and often create other usability problems when font sizes are changed or zooming is enabled. Mark _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
