| 1 |
JimD wrote: |
| 2 |
> OK, I switched to 1280x960 and noticed something weird. Here is the |
| 3 |
> xdpyinfo for both resolutions. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1280x1024: |
| 6 |
> screen #0: |
| 7 |
> print screen: no |
| 8 |
> dimensions: 1280x1024 pixels (339x271 millimeters) |
| 9 |
> resolution: 96x96 dots per inch |
| 10 |
> depths (7): 24, 1, 4, 8, 15, 16, 32 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1280x960: |
| 13 |
> screen #0: |
| 14 |
> print screen: no |
| 15 |
> dimensions: 1280x960 pixels (339x271 millimeters) |
| 16 |
> resolution: 96x90 dots per inch |
| 17 |
> depths (7): 24, 1, 4, 8, 15, 16, 32 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Why is the dpi hosed when it is at 1280x960? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The dpi is calculated from the size that the monitor reports |
| 22 |
(339mmx271mm) and the number of dots across and down. It appears that at |
| 23 |
1280x1024 the monitor is reporting square pixels, and at 1280x960 it |
| 24 |
reports "tall" pixels. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If the "339x271 millimeters" is correct, that means that the display is |
| 27 |
a little taller than the standard 4:3 ratio (which would give 339x254) - |
| 28 |
perhaps 1280x1024 *is* the correct resolution for this monitor. I'd |
| 29 |
measure the physical dimensions of the monitor and if the ratio is 5:4 |
| 30 |
instead of 4:3, use the 1280x1024 resolution. I did some research and it |
| 31 |
appears that this is the case for at least some LCD 1280x1024 monitors |
| 32 |
(for example the ViewSonic 17" has a viewable area of 13.3" (horizontal) |
| 33 |
X 10.6" (vertical); 17.0" diagonal which works out to 4:5 - the |
| 34 |
ViewSonic 19" monitors also have a 5:4 ratio.) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
So it's probably best to run at the native resolution. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Manuel A. McLure KE6TAW <manuel@××××××.org> <http://www.mclure.org> |
| 40 |
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law, |
| 41 |
no man may kill a cat. -- H.P. Lovecraft |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives