Fedora 20 & Apple thunderbolt monitor - it just works!!!

[g]

On 03/28/14 10:25, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> When you mis-set the DPI, you lose the ability for applications to
>>> show "actual size" objects.  Such as graphics designers, or desktop
>>> publishers, who want to design something with real-world
>>> measurements (i.e. centimeters, not pixels), and have the program
>>> show it at life size on their monitor.  Which it can do, when DPI is
>>> set right, as the physical size of the monitor screen is known, the
>>> pixels across and down it, and what DPI it uses.
>
> g:
>> i do not know what correlations of 'dots per' are in centimeters,
>> but i do know that with what they are in inches.
>
> Fair enough, I should have stuck with one measurement system, and
 > just mentioned inches as a real-world measurement.

this is true. but considering that this land that i live in has
finally come to its senses and admitted that the britt's did have
one thing right, ie, a metric system, divisible by 10. at least
our medical and pharmaceutical industry had insight to maintain in
a base 10 world.

>> in inches, dpi does not lend towards getting "actual size", only
>> close, as in horse shoes, hand grenade, and nuclear bombs.
>
> I refute that.  If you know that your device has a specific DPI, and
 > the actual size of the screen (the active part of it), you can get a
 > very good rendition of something drawn at 1:1 scale on the device.
 >  Screen, printer, whatever.

with better understanding of what i mean by close, how do any of the
dpi's relate properly, or evenly, to a fraction of an inch which, for
practical reasons, say 1/32 or 1/64 of an inch. think about it. then
try to relate to a decimal value.

current dpi figures just do not work.

[
some interesting links of correlations:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_dimension_%28disambiguation%29
]


> e.g. If I want to print something on paper 1 inch square on a 600
 > DPI printer, the rendering engine makes it 600 dots across in both
> directions.  And I can do the exact same thing on screen, the
 > numbers involved are different, of course, but the math is the same.
 > Knowing the screen size and DPI, it can create the right number of
 > dots.

correct.

i consed with a fact that when i first read your post, i was thinking
more so to a crt type monitor and not the evermore present digital
screen. which is closer, tho still plagued by 3 colour dots, which
themselves lead to a _slight_ form of irregularity in rendering,
depending on colours being presented.

> It's not just a case of being able to show graphics at a specific
 > real world size that's important, either.

no. but it sure would be nice. ;-)

> And as I mentioned the first time around, since different things
 > manage rendering in different ways, you want them all scaling from
 > the same starting point.

also, very true.

yet, it is a debate that could go on forever and why i will end with
this and await your reply.


-- 

peace out.

in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

tc.hago.

g
.