Flemming Richter Mikkelsen
quatrox at gmail.com
Fri Jun 6 17:01:00 CEST 2008
On 6/6/08, NeilBrown <neilb at suse.de> wrote:
> On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just
> > change the
> > output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga
> > screen
> > when we won't use it. also it does look "blocky". it isn't about glamo or
> > not -
> > it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen...
> > really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really
> > honest. stop thinking "my specs are bigger than your specs". scan u REALLY
> > see
> > all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all
> > a
> > blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have
> > very
> > good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my "bet".
> > i'm
> > asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers.
> Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but
> I'll try....
> My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi.
> The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/
> height of my pixels.
> So at first I thought "wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that*
> small" - and I have better than average eye sight.
> Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite
> well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit.
> I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP.
> So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner.
No. Now you need to zoom 2x. Then compare the original with this.
They should occupy the same amount of space on your screen, but
the "QVGA" should only have half the pixels.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
More information about the community