If you can't be bothered working it out, here is a page that shows you the actual DPI for screen diagonal and resolution (valid only for square pixels).
formatting link
Most of my ones in current use are 100-135 DPI.
Note that Fax resolution is around 200 DPI (and that's using the "fine" setting).
A display with 0.25mm pitch pixels is about 102 DPI.
We're still a long way from having a reasonably affordable display (say < $2K 2010 dollars) that will show a window containing 2-page letter or A4 spread with 600 (or even 300 DPI) color. Say 10:1 for 300 DPI and 36:1 for 600 DPI. If Moore's law holds (y= 2* ln(36)/ln(2), right? )we could see it in another decade or so.
CTRL-V on the screen itself doesn't work on my machines. But no need to, I can CTRL-PrintScreen, paste into another program and then print to PDF if so desired. Comes out nice and crisp.
I don't have Adobe, and I won't. No way.
No, it's very reliable. And why is it only filtering you out?
Going through an autobahn road works at twice the posted speed is how most offenders that I met got into trouble. BIG trouble.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Actually I use MS-Paint a lot. A lot of people poo-poo that program but it sure is a nice little software. Especially for annotating stuff, even layout chuncks.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Whose newsreader is so dumbed-down that it doesn't automatically snip sigs?
I did alt-printscreen, then (ctrl-V) pasted into PaintShopPro, then printed to PDF.
Installing Acrobat v7, it can make PDF's from the clipboard.
But I may do some post-processing of pixels in PaintShopPro to get readability. The only time I need to print screen is when I want the measurements panel (at the bottom of the Probe window) to show as well as waveforms... otherwise PSpice prints it as a separate page.
Poor baby ;-)
Are you sure it's filtering ME out, or some sub-feed? You get me sometimes, right? I post via news.giganews.com, but the post shows with From: Cox.
I would imagine. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
It's the same with LTSpice although there you can copy the plot and/or schematic screen portions to the clipboard as well. But sometimes it's easier to just do print-screen. Readability is always ok, I never saw a need to massage at the pixel level.
The only thing I occasionally do is highlight stuff or annotate but for that all I need is MS-Paint.
What would I need it for?
No filtering here other than goggle mail, it must either me the newsserver or something on the way to there. It's only some posts, and typically only the first one. Beats me why.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Moore's law doesn't appear to apply to screens. Since HDTV took off, you need to take out a mortgage for anything better than 1920x1080. If you want something that's affordable, the only outstanding question is how large (physically) you want your 1920x1080 monitor to be.
I suspect that my desk will still be creaking under the weight of my
I just painfully realized this. At BestBuy the guys didn't have _any_ large LCD monitor for computers. A sales clerk said "Oh, you have to buy a 27" or 30" TV and connect that to the computer, it's the same thing". The the ones he showed me had only 768 lines ...
But I bet it's not much more than 21". T'is what I have, a very good one at that, with a Trinitron tube. But the eyes don't become better with age so I am in the market for a larger display. 1920x1080 would probably be ok in 27", in 30" maybe not. Although, one could probably move it all the way back to the wall and gain some free space in front of it.
If I can't find any decent monitor before New Year's I guess I'll keep this CRT. Maybe put a huge magnifier glass in front and then increase the resolution setting :-)
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Not worth arguing over. "Printing" seems to be universal thru many PDF tools, BUT I can do all kinds of annotation tricks and HIERARCHICAL PDF's ;-)
Poor news server ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reminds me of a few Italian movies. "No, no, come on, let's have that argument! Now!" ... and then cups, saucers, vases and other stuff flew across the room :-)
[...]
It's actually a good one. Nice thing is that is carries university groups as well. Even one from my alma mater which was not available on any other news server I tried, or on my ISP before they ditched Usenet.
But it only seems to filter your posts and Keith has the same happening. Oh-oh, maybe you are on some list ... :-)
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
But, indeed, the "progressives" are out to get me.
But, I noted something today, with considerable amusement. Fox News via Sirius Satellite Radio is heavily laced with advertising aimed at over-the-road truckers. Nice to have those guys on my side :-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I just stuck the link in there for those who might find it useful when looking for a new monitor or whatever-- and btw, it's the "you" for the reader, not you personally, so, like, chill, man.
Are you saying additional information is undesirable? What the heck kind of engineer are you? ;-)
I can almost pick out individual atoms with my glasses off, but there are limits to how close one's eyeball should be to some things.
Something of 18 x 12" dimensions or so with 250 DPI to 600 DPI would be very nice (or bigger, provided the total number of pixels stays about the same). My camera has a ~270 DPI LCD on it, but it's made with a low temperature polysilicon process that probably doesn't scale to larger displays. With so few pixels, using those displays for working with serious data is like trying to do precise work through some kind of tiny window- If I wanted to be a gynecologist or laproscopic surgeon I would have gone for one of those professions...
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Yes, but, apart from projectors, since bigger screens have higher resolution, the Pixel Per Inch wiill stay about the same
But, for the reason above, it will stay around that 72 PPI.
Why, with a resolution so lower than for printers, the image quality seems to be similar, i.e. not "pixellated"? The light you see from a screen is emitted, so it tends to blend with the neighbouring pixels', while the light from a print is reflected is reflected, with an higher contrast.
On top of that there is the fact that projections are meant to be seen from
10-20 feet, monitors from 2-3 feet, smartphones from 1 foot, and their resolution scaled accordingly.
The root of your point is well taken because it's obviously of little use to have 'resolution' finer than the eye can resolve but it actually varies quite a bit and 72DPI isn't very common (not any more).
formatting link
The 'problem' is really in calling it 'DPI' as it's more correctly PPI (pixels per inch). DPI is a term for printers and printers work differently so the 'meaning' doesn't fit for pixel displays (more below).
A Samsung 2343BW is 102 'DPI' and a NEC MD205MG-1 is 163 'DPI'.
The 75 'DPI' number comes from the early says. I'm not sure exactly which was used but, for example, the old 14" 800x600 IBM monitor came in around 75 'DPI'.
If you're using an LCD try turning off clear type and then stick your eyeball up there like it was hand held paper.
A CRT will 'look better', for the same 'fine' resolution, because the electron gun-phosphor mechanism 'blurs' the dots. I.E. You'll be able to read those dern skinny character lines better because they're 'spread' wider (the electron gun can't go instantly off-on-off) and that's what clear type does for LCDs (because LCD pixels *can* be distinctly off-on-off)
The other reason is modern monitors are typically in the 90+ 'DPI' range, vs the older 75 'DPI', with the higher 'DPI' at least partially eaten up by 'clear type' to again make it 'readable'.
There are a lot of differences, due to the medium and mechanism, but the biggest is that displays typically have 24 or 32 bit depth 'per pixel' but ink 'dots' do not. Print 'fakes' depth by using multiple dots (remember half tone printing?) so it takes more 'dots per inch' to render the 'pixel' (and depends on a lot on the printer technology being used). For a printer you really need to know the LPI when comparing to display pixels.
In fact, CRT displays do something similar in that a 'pixel' is really
3 (1 each red green blue 256 bit depth) 'dots' making the one 'color pixel'.
I can't even *get* paper 3 feet away with my arms so, in addition to the above, it would clearly need more 'DPI' to look as good as a monitor's lower 'DPI'.
The original point was that displays and printers simply work differently and 'DPI' doesn't directly translate from one to the other. Displays use 'number of pixels per whole image' and printers use DPI (dots per inch). Screen capture puts in a dummy DPI but if you simply 'shrink' the picture size for print, so it fits on the page, you still have a 75 DPI picture (because you simply cannot print more DPI than the printer can print). The picture is just smaller and, since there's the same DPI but fewer inches of them, there's no place for those display pixels to go. You lose 'resolution'.
Changing 'size' by altering the image 'DPI' retains the 'pixels'.
True, but higher monitor resolutions are still well within the same order of magnitude, while printers (of the same "age") are in another.
Here there are a couple of 200 PPI, a few 150, most are around 100. And also a 269 PPI, but that's a "subnotebook" that did'nt have much success.
Now that you mention it, I remember that the monographic issue of Scientific American dedicated to computers some 30 years ago had an article showing how color depth was, using anti-aliasing techniques, equivalent to higher resolution, as far as the human perception is concerned.
Thinking better about it, the different resolution has also to deal with the dot clock, that, for a QXGA (2048 pixel) screen, is already in the 170 MHz range, a respectable speed for D/As and A/Ds. On a laser printer, even at a resolution of 4800 DPI, it should be lower than that.
PS. On the 24th I was at dinner with the professor, but did'nt have a chance to submit your piece about tax history and get his. He will be my guest for dinner in January, and, if he wants to eat... ;-)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.