resolution preferences??

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) raster at
Fri Jun 6 17:34:10 CEST 2008

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:16:15 +1000 (EST) "NeilBrown" <neilb at> babbled:

> 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.
> If I hold this image at the same distance from my eye that I usually
> use a notebook (say 55cm) the text looks like it would be too small
> to comfortably read, though the reduction of resolution has made it
> blurry and I cannot be sure.
> If I hold it at the distance that I would typically read a book, which
> is closer to 35cm, the text is still a bit small, but I think I would
> be quite happy reading it - except that the low resolution has made
> it quite blurry. If it were still 640x480, but the same size I think I
> could read it quite happily.
> So my conclusion is that for reading textual content, the higher resolution
> probably is worth it for me.  I doubt it would be of much value for
> photo for videos.  I just tried watching a video at 320x240 at 147dpi,
> and it was quite acceptable for the physical size.
> The question then becomes - how often will I be reading pages of text
> on my Freerunner.  I really don't know.
> However maps are very similar to textual content - sharp contrast and
> the potential for lots of information in a small space.
> I tried a similar experiment comparing a google-maps image
> 320x240*147dpi and simulated 640x480 at 285dpi, and the 320x240 felt
> very constrained - not enough information on the display.
> The 640x480 felt more comfortable and - I think - would have been
> readable if I had the real resolution.

cool. someone actually has done a did some experiments on themselves! well done!
this is just the kind of stuff i was hoping for. this is one of the best
responses. it's subjective, but using objective measurements as best possible
with the equipment you have. good!

so yes - the blurry scaled down in gimp @ qvga would be a qvga screen on a
freerunner. vga would be sharper. then again - until u have a 285dpi screen
it's hard to really compare! :) but this is the best you can do! nice! :)
opinion noted for the future! :)

> Maybe you could ask again we have all had our Freerunners for
> a couple of months.
> What was the story with 320x240x25fps video again?  Is it possible
> with the available memory bandwidth?

argh! :)

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at>

More information about the community mailing list