|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet.
>> Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
>
> Because you view a computer monitor from further distance than a book,
> an arbitrarily increasing the ppi is a waste of money and electricity.
I can see the pixels on my monitor. But yeah, maybe 600dpi would be
overkill. Perhaps just 150 or something?
>> (Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come
>> out too small.
>
> You can change the ppi setting somewhere in windows, but IME some badly
> behaved programs don't like it.
Hell, there are programs that ignore you if you change the default
window colours. Or programs that don't like it if Windows is installed
on D: rather than C:. ;-)
>> Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what
>> we receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
>>
>> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
>
> No I only get SD too, everything I've seen is widescreen.
Mmm, OK. I shall investigate further...
> Oh wait, you're not still receiving analogue signal are you? That might
> be different.
I don't *think* we are... I thought we were using Freeview.
(Then again, my grandparents use FreeSat. Their TV physically has a 4:3
aspect [it's an old CRT], and the picture seems to fit natively, so...)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |