Re: wherefore CGM?

Ian Graham (ianweb@smaug.java.utoronto.ca)
Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:23:23 -0500 (EST)


From: ianweb@smaug.java.utoronto.ca (Ian Graham)
Message-Id: <199612070023.TAA05130@smaug.java.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:23:23 -0500 (EST)


Scalable images are also needed for printing --
regardless of poxy video display issues (really --
72 or 100 dpi is still pretty poxy). However,
A recent Scientific American article (an isssue from
this past summer) described a new LCD display with
> 200 dpi resolution, in full color, and readable in 
daylight (I believe it was a passive panel that 
used reflective light) The researchers projected 600 
dpi before long. A display with the resolution of 
printed paper -- now that's an exciting prospect!

Ian


> At 8:20a +0000 12/06/96, Robert P Cunningham wrote:
> >>Let's see... (1600/72) * (5/4) = 27.7" diagonal.
> >>This assumes 72dpi and a 4:3 aspect ratio.
> >
> >But a steadily-increasing number of  people do run at a higher
> >resolution than 72dpi.  Most monitors and video cards support
> 
> >better, and once anyone starts to use at least 100dpi they don't
> >want go back to 72dpi.  (1024x768 is the worst resolution I'll
> >voluntarily use on a 17" screen.)
>