Re: wherefore CGM?

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.
>>I wouldn't recommend using 1600x1200 on a monitor much smaller than that,
>>at least not for daily work; only for quick overviews. After all, just cuz
>>one's video card supports two million pixel resolution doesn't obligate one
>>to operate at that setting, though I can understand the urge to "get one's
>>money's worth"... :)
>
>But a steadily-increasing number of  people do run at a higher
>resolution than 72dpi.  Most monitors and video cards support

Well that's a person's choice, and they deserves whats they gets!
If I want more pixels permanently, I get a bigger monitor.

>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.)

72dpi works out perfectly for me, since at 12" away I can't see the individual
pixels, yet if I scrunch close to the screen, I can actually see where pixels
end. Best of both worlds! With a higher dpi, I wouldn't be able to do that.
(Can you tell I like to create and measure artwork with pixel precision?)

>Planning for, and designing strictly for 72dpi made sense several
>years ago.  Now it's as senseless as designing only for VGA screens.

I am very keen on WYSIWYG, and expect 1" on screen to equal 1" on paper.
Anything else really throws me, just like a crooked picture on a wall
or a clock that's more than a minute off. Yes, I'm anal, and proud of it!

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter

Received on Friday, 6 December 1996 17:27:34 UTC