[ltp] skinny fonts

[noc ops]

Appreciate your insight. Comments in-line:

Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:27, noc ops wrote:
> 
>>Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> 
> 
>>>An LCD is not a CRT, and doesn't resize like a CRT.  Give it up and
>>>accept you have a 124dpi LCD.  You are wasting time and money struggling
>>>against reality.
>>
>>-------------
>>1400x1050 was too tiny for me. Increasing font size created jaggedness
>>which was not worth it. Then again maybe its me.
> 
> 
> In my first reply to you, I asked why you wanted to force your display to 
> 96dpi.  You didn't answer.  I asked the question because it seemed you might 
> have a misconception about what is going on to make your display 
> unsatisfactory, and if that's the case, nothing you try will work, as your 
> basis is incorrect in the first place.
-----------------
I was under the impression that DPI of 96 would give an ideal font
appearance along w/ BYTE_CODE_INTERPRETER for what I was trying to
achieve. Then again you raise an interesting point about monitor size
vs DPI settings. At one point I tried to increase the DPI setting to 125
via gnome preference but now that I remember my DisplaySize was set to
370 277 (96 dpi).

Since windows uses a default setting of 96 dpi I was trying to match the
same in linux (ubuntu 5.10) envrionment since linux defaults to 75 or 81
dpi. The goal was to create a window like font appearance.


> 
> If you answered the questions you're asked, we'd know what your thinking is, 
> and also know what concepts you are using, and what words you are using, and 
> then we could spot errors, and put them in terms that make sense to you.
------------
I did respond to your question w/ a question. see thread dated 3/6/2006.
But that's not the point. Obviously due to lack of DPI & display size
workings I was setting my thinkpad t43 w/ 1400x1050 w/ 14.1" DPI to 96
to match that of windows.

> 
> Your statement above "1400x1050 was too tiny for me. Increasing font size" 
> suggests to me that you don't understand how font sizes and display 
> resolution fit together in X-windows, and if you don't change your 
> understanding, you won't get the results you want.
------------
If I did we won't be having this discussion and you won't given have
given us this good explanation :-)

I guess I didn't do a good explaining my issue. In a nutshell, I was
trying to resolve faint, skinny fonts output which was straining my eyes
in order to create a window like font appearance using thinkpad t43, ati
x300 (1400x1050) w/ 14.1" screen.

> 
> Sending the computer back suggests you think the hardware is the problem.  I 
> will suggest it's your understanding, and trying to solve the problem by 
> changing your hardware will, at best, harness you to a particular hardware 
> spec.
> 
> When I pick 10pt type, I'm picking type of a certain physical SIZE.  Whether 
> it's printed in a press, printed in a laser printer, or displayed on a screen 
> - it will all actually be the same size, as measured by a ruler held up 
> against the characters.  If it's larger or smaller, then it's 12pt type or 
> 8pt type, as appropriate, and it shouldn't be called 10pt type if it's not 
> that size.
> 
> Points (pt) are NOT pixels.  Period.  Ever.  We turn on pixels to compose a 
> character, and how large we make the character decides it's size.  There is 
> no direct relationship between pixels and points.  One does not measure the 
> other.
> 
> But here's the problem - your computer has no idea what size it's monitor is.  
> Windows uses 96dpi as a general ballpark figure, but it doesn't know - it's 
> pretending.  If you pick large fonts in Windows, it guesses 120dpi, but it's 
> still a guess, with no basis in physical reality.
------------
Still windows (out of the box) fonts appearance is much better than that
of linux. That's the only thing that I like about windows :-)

I guess ms should thank apple for that.

> 
> In order for a computer to make 10pt type be the actual size 10pt type is, the 
> computer must know how big the physical display (piece of paper, or monitor 
> screen) is.
> 
> In X-windows, "DisplaySize" tells the computer that.
> 
> There are 1024x768 displays that meausre 10.4", 12.1", 14.1", 15".  If the 
> characters are the same number of PIXELS	 then they'll be proportionally 
> larger or smaller to your eye.  However, if the computer knows the size of 
> the display, it will use more or fewer PIXELS to render the POINT size, and 
> the characters on the displays will be the same size on the different 
> displays.  They will be rougher for the larger display, as fewer, larger 
> PIXELS are used to render them, but they will be the same height measured 
> with a ruler in the room.  Think about coarser and finer graph paper - if the 
> total count of cells is the same, the coarser grid will be a bigger sheet of 
> paper, with fewer cells to the inch.
-----------------
You got me really curious. I will try your logic (see below) and test it
on another machine which is 1024x768 w/ 15" and test the results.

diagonal mm = diagonal inches * 25.4
horizontal mm = 4* diagonal mm / 5
vertical mm = 3 * diagonal mm /5

381mm = 15 * 25.4
305mm = 4* 381mm /5
229mm = 3* 381mm /5

DisplaySize = 305  229


Let me know if I missed anything.


Appreciate your thoughts.



regards,
/virendra

> 
> My T21 has a 14.1" (1024x768) display, and the DisplaySize entry tells 
> Xwindows that.  My T42 has a 14.1" (1400x1050) display, and since the 
> physical display is the same SIZE (14.1" diagonal) it gets the same entries 
> for DisplaySize.
> 
> But the T42 has lots more PIXELS (in the same physical size) and uses more of 
> them to make the same physical SIZE character on the same SIZE screen.  Same 
> number of lines, same number of columns - size is the same, as the display is 
> the same SIZE.  But it uses a lot more PIXELS to render the same size 
> character, and the display on the T42 is gorgeous.
> 
> I never owned one, but I believe I read long ago that MacIntosh computers 
> forced a physical correlation between pixels and dpi as a way to make what 
> you saw on the display match what came from the printer.  That's artificial, 
> and certainly isn't a part of X windows.  There is NO direct connection 
> between RESOLUTION on screen (dpi) and SIZE in X windows.
> 
> You have to tell it with DisplaySize or it won't know, and no matter how much 
> it says "NN dpi" it actually doesn't know - it's parroting back the result of 
> a division and tacking "dpi" on it without knowing what it means - using 
> figures you told it (or didn't change from default values) without knowing if 
> those figures are correct - it doesn't know how big your monitor is.
> 
> If you set the DisplaySize, then POINTS (actual font SIZE) will be what 
> they're supposed to be, and 10pt type will actually be 10points high type (a 
> "Point" is a physical measurement in the real world, just like inches).  If 
> your eyes are more comfortable reading 12pt type, then fine, choosing "12pt" 
> will actually be 12 POINTS on the display - regardless of how many or few 
> PIXELS the display uses to make a character that size.
> 
> An LCD is made up of physical trios of transistors, and that's the size of 
> it's dots, and it can't be different.  It's a physical dot size (pixel 
> resolution) and nothing can change it.  14.1" @ 1400x768 is 124dpi, because 
> it reallly, actually is, and it will never be different.  By telling my X 
> windows what physical size my display is out in the real world, it knows how 
> to scale PIXELS so that sizes (points) come out right.
> 
> If you don't set the physical display size in the first place, nothing else 
> will ever be quite right, and the interactions are difficult to predict.  Set 
> the DisplaySize, then pick the font size you like.
> 
> It's not your hardware.  1400x1050 means more definition, and better looking 
> fonts, than 1024x768
> 
> Cheers,
> Bret