3 ms·

Most monitors are definitely still not high enough resolution to render serif fonts more clearly than sans serif ones. (By resolution, I mean the original meani

Most monitors are definitely still not high enough resolution to render serif fonts more clearly than sans serif ones. (By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count.) Mobile screens are obviously higher resolution so it's less clear cut, but sans serif are still a bit clearer in my view. I think the problem here is that the text is much smaller in physical size, so now the resolution of the human eye has come into play.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
> By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count. Interesting - I wasn't aware "resolution" was ever used this way. PPI (pixels per inch) and "pixel density" are common terms for this now.
- pavlov 6y ago
  In printing, resolution traditionally meant DPI.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Resolution goes back even farther than that, to the number of line pairs that could be "resolved" (distinguished from one other) in an image. It was a way to compare the ability of imaging systems to capture and accurately display fine detail. With digital sensors and screens you can pretty much just calculate it directly since you can't resolve detail below the pixel level. But, note that moire can eliminate fine detail well above pixel level if not controlled. Before that, there were standard targets with fine lines in tight tapering patterns. Folks would take a picture of the target with a particular lens and film, and then count the smallest line pairs they could make out before the taper disappeared into an undifferentiated blur. By varying lenses and films, they could compare resolution. Example: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/ https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-v...
dhosek 6y ago
When I first became interested in type, monitors typically had a resolution in the neighborhood of 72–96ppi. My MBP, according to Apple's support site, has a resolution of 226ppi. Back in the 80s I had speculated that 300ppi was a minimum for good typography, but maybe it's my aging eyesight, but I find that what I've got on my laptop is more than sufficient to use most typefaces (and the fact that there's no pixel spread likely helps with the slight lack of resolution), although more subtle designs, like Optima really want a resolution of at least 1200ppi.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  Certainly, when I "most monitors", I was muttering under my breath, "basically all of them except Apples".

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

> By resolution, I mean the original meaning of pixel density per unit area, not the modern usage of total pixel count. Interesting - I wasn't aware "resolution" was ever used this way. PPI (pixels per inch) and "pixel density" are common terms for this now.

pavlov 6y ago
In printing, resolution traditionally meant DPI.
snowwrestler 6y ago
Resolution goes back even farther than that, to the number of line pairs that could be "resolved" (distinguished from one other) in an image. It was a way to compare the ability of imaging systems to capture and accurately display fine detail. With digital sensors and screens you can pretty much just calculate it directly since you can't resolve detail below the pixel level. But, note that moire can eliminate fine detail well above pixel level if not controlled. Before that, there were standard targets with fine lines in tight tapering patterns. Folks would take a picture of the target with a particular lens and film, and then count the smallest line pairs they could make out before the taper disappeared into an undifferentiated blur. By varying lenses and films, they could compare resolution. Example: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/ https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-v...

dhosek 6y ago

When I first became interested in type, monitors typically had a resolution in the neighborhood of 72–96ppi. My MBP, according to Apple's support site, has a resolution of 226ppi. Back in the 80s I had speculated that 300ppi was a minimum for good typography, but maybe it's my aging eyesight, but I find that what I've got on my laptop is more than sufficient to use most typefaces (and the fact that there's no pixel spread likely helps with the slight lack of resolution), although more subtle designs, like Optima really want a resolution of at least 1200ppi.

quietbritishjim 6y ago
Certainly, when I "most monitors", I was muttering under my breath, "basically all of them except Apples".