 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unfortunately, I don't know of any system which actually does this. So
> turning up the resolution just makes everything smaller and harder to
> see...
Ermm Windows does (you can tell it your monitor DPI in display settings
somewhere), I used this setting for ages on my laptop, but then I got a new
CAD program and it didn't like the higher DPI settings so I had to go back
to the defaults.
>> IIRC
>> your eye can resolve down to about 1/60 of a degree, so you can do the
>> maths...
>
> Apparently 1/60 degree is 1 minute of arc, the sine of which is about
> 0.0002909. So at 40cm distance, that's... 116.4 um, which is obviously
> nonesense.
How come? 116um sounds the right order of magnitude for a pixel pitch to me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Unfortunately, I don't know of any system which actually does this. So
>> turning up the resolution just makes everything smaller and harder to
>> see...
>
> Ermm Windows does (you can tell it your monitor DPI in display settings
> somewhere)
Really? That's interesting...
> I used this setting for ages on my laptop, but then I got a
> new CAD program and it didn't like the higher DPI settings so I had to
> go back to the defaults.
Hahaha... The irony! The one program you'd expect to make use of such
information.
>>> IIRC
>>> your eye can resolve down to about 1/60 of a degree, so you can do
>>> the maths...
>>
>> Apparently 1/60 degree is 1 minute of arc, the sine of which is about
>> 0.0002909. So at 40cm distance, that's... 116.4 um, which is obviously
>> nonesense.
>
> How come? 116um sounds the right order of magnitude for a pixel pitch to
> me.
Isn't 116um less than the wavelength of visible light?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hahaha... The irony! The one program you'd expect to make use of such
> information.
Yeh, some dialog boxes had "OK" buttons outside of the visible area of the
window :-) I guess they don't expect you to be using it on a 15" monitor
running at 1920x1200 resolution - more likely a 22" jobby with the standard
dpi settings.
> Isn't 116um less than the wavelength of visible light?
I think you're confusing um and nm :-) My ruler here has 500 um divisions
clearly marked, I estimate the width of the line used for the markings is
about 100 um, it's clearly visible with the naked eye...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Isn't 116um less than the wavelength of visible light?
>
> I think you're confusing um and nm :-) My ruler here has 500 um
> divisions clearly marked, I estimate the width of the line used for the
> markings is about 100 um, it's clearly visible with the naked eye...
So is a 1nm object, if you have a sufficiently powerful microscope. :-P
So 100um might be visible from 40cm away then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
> So 100um might be visible from 40cm away then?
Depending on your sight, I suppose :-)
100µm is also the order of magnitude for the thickness of a hair, and I
can easily see one from 40cm away.
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> To be completely precise, let's look at *pixels* per inch, since this is
> unambiguous.
Almost unambiguous. Is a pixel one color or three? Screens and cameras, for
example, usually use different definitions for these. Typography software
sometimes takes advantage of the fact that a "pixel" is three picture elements.
> black text on a white background, printers win by a mile. (Even
Generally, 300DPI is considered "proof quality" in printing. It's what you
look at to check for spelling mistakes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> To be completely precise, let's look at *pixels* per inch, since this
>> is unambiguous.
>
> Almost unambiguous. Is a pixel one color or three?
I deliberately chose "pixel" rather than "dot" because I didn't want to
count seperate RGB subpixels. :-P
>> black text on a white background, printers win by a mile. (Even
>
> Generally, 300DPI is considered "proof quality" in printing. It's what
> you look at to check for spelling mistakes.
Can't say I really notice a huge difference for plain text printed at
different resolutions - then again, maybe it depends how crispy your
paper is...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Can't say I really notice a huge difference for plain text printed at
> different resolutions - then again, maybe it depends how crispy your
> paper is...
Find a piece of text printed at 300DPI on a nice bond paper, then one
printed at 1200, and you can easily see the difference.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So is a 1nm object, if you have a sufficiently powerful microscope. :-P
Har har - a "naked eye" doesn't usually have a microscope attached to it :-)
> So 100um might be visible from 40cm away then?
For me it is.
BTW I just checked and I'm sitting about 60 cm away from my monitor, which
equates to 145 dpi if I assume 1/60 degree resolution of my eye. My monitor
is 95 dpi, so I guess it could be a bit higher resolution, or I need to sit
further back :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2009 3:28 AM, scott wrote:
> BTW I just checked and I'm sitting about 60 cm away from my monitor,
> which equates to 145 dpi if I assume 1/60 degree resolution of my eye.
> My monitor is 95 dpi, so I guess it could be a bit higher resolution, or
> I need to sit further back :-)
I'm just happy I can't see any sub-pixels in _my_ monitor. :)
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
