3 ms·
I remember those numbers being a third that 20 years ago. Either we have evolved brand new eyes without noticing or you are just talking about the current state
by noosphr 1y ago
I remember those numbers being a third that 20 years ago. Either we have evolved brand new eyes without noticing or you are just talking about the current state of the art like it's the limit of human vision.
Put another way look at 300ppi prints and 1200ppi prints. The difference is night and day at 30 cm viewing.
- ncruces 1y agoppi pixels ≠ dpi dots You don't need 1200ppi for a nice 1200dpi print; even 300ppi may be enough.
- adrian_b 1y agoFor printing photos, you are right that a 300 ppi printer is better than an 1200 dpi printer. On the other hand, for printing text, an 1200 dpi printer has the quality of an 1200 ppi printer. Many well-designed traditional typefaces have relied on optical effects caused by details that require for being printed a resolution higher than that at which the human eye can distinguish a set of bars from an uniform background (which is the object of TFA). For instance, in some typefaces the edges of the strokes are concave or convex, not straight, which could be rendered in a computer display only by either a much higher resolution or by more sophisticated pixel preprocessing methods (in order to simulate the effect on the eye). Whenever such typefaces are displayed at a lower resolution, i.e. on computer monitors, they are very noticeably uglier than when printed on paper by traditional metal printing methods or even by a high-resolution laser printer.
- cubefox 1y agoA 1200 ppi display can use anti-aliasing, e.g. grey scale edges on text, while a 1200 dpi printer can't, I'm pretty sure. So the former has better quality.