Prev: Help With Mac Security! MacBookPro Hacked?
Next: now with a timestamp and log... but still no clue: Re: MacBook Pro automatically shuts down after a while... really don't know why...
From: Steve Hix on 19 Mar 2010 12:55
In article <piljdov042.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
> > In message <180320102204095306%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam
> > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > of course it is. either way, the pixels get interpolated.
> >
> > No, that's not at all accurate.
>
> It _seems_ accurate.
>
> That is my subjective impression is that when one uses
> ctrl-scrollwheel, you get a bigger blurrier picture as if pixels were
> getting interpolated.
>
> It also isn't obvious what _else_ could be going on.
>
> So if you really know nospam to be incorrect, you might share what you
> believe _does_ happen when you use ctrl-scrollwheel.

Bitmapped images are interpolated, so they get progressively less sharp
as you zoom in.

Text, on the other hand, does not; the browser just re-renders it as you
zoom in and out. Until you reach some lower limit set in System
Preferences -> Appearance by default around 8pt, where text smoothing is
no longer applied.
From: Richard Maine on 19 Mar 2010 13:46
Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:

> In article <piljdov042.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>,
> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That is my subjective impression is that when one uses
> > ctrl-scrollwheel, you get a bigger blurrier picture as if pixels were
> > getting interpolated.

> Bitmapped images are interpolated, so they get progressively less sharp
> as you zoom in.
>
> Text, on the other hand, does not; the browser just re-renders it as you
> zoom in and out. Until you reach some lower limit set in System
> Preferences -> Appearance by default around 8pt, where text smoothing is
> no longer applied.

Eh? Are you sure about that? I don't even see what a browser would have
to do with it, as ctrl-scrollwheel zooms the entire screen. I just tried
it and the text (in the MacSOUP window I was reading your message in)
sure looked to be getting a lot blurrier as I zoomed in. That's text
getting bigger - not smaller, so lower limits would not be relevant. If
anything was rerendering, it sure did it fast and smoothly enough that I
couldn't tell, even while watching carefully.

I wonder whether you might be talking about something slightly
different. Doug (and I) were talking about the use of ctrl-scrollwheel
(as noted in the above quotation), which zooms the whole screen. I more
than half suspect that you might be talking about soomething like
flower-plus and flower-minus, which tell an app to resize things in its
window. Those also need an app that honors them. (For example, I just
tried them in the MacSOUP window I'm typing this in, but nothing
happened). The ctrl-scrollwheel, on the other hand, zooms the entire
screen, independent of any specific app support.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Doug Anderson on 19 Mar 2010 14:06
Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> writes:

> In article <piljdov042.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>,
> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> >
> > > In message <180320102204095306%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam
> > > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > of course it is. either way, the pixels get interpolated.
> > >
> > > No, that's not at all accurate.
> >
> > It _seems_ accurate.
> >
> > That is my subjective impression is that when one uses
> > ctrl-scrollwheel, you get a bigger blurrier picture as if pixels were
> > getting interpolated.
> >
> > It also isn't obvious what _else_ could be going on.
> >
> > So if you really know nospam to be incorrect, you might share what you
> > believe _does_ happen when you use ctrl-scrollwheel.
>
> Bitmapped images are interpolated, so they get progressively less sharp
> as you zoom in.
>
> Text, on the other hand, does not; the browser just re-renders it as you
> zoom in and out.

Hmm. Did you mean "Finder" where you wrote "browser?" Because I'm
often not looking at a browser window when I use Ctrl-Scrollwheel.

Honestly, I don't know what ctrl-scrollwheel does. I have my screen
set to the default resolution, and I'm curently typing in Terminal
with 14-pt Monaco. If I use ctrl-scrollwheel to blow up my window so
that an "l" is one centimeter tall, the text is blurrier. (Maybe it
isn't blurry - maybe I just see the pixels then whereas I don't see
them at the normal size.) By contrast if I set my font size up to 48
(which also accomplishes making the "l" one centimeter tall) the font
is crisp and sharp.

So whatever ctrl-scrollwheel does, it is not as good as using the
default resolution and setting the font size appropriately.

> Until you reach some lower limit set in System
> Preferences -> Appearance by default around 8pt, where text smoothing is
> no longer applied.
From: Steve Hix on 19 Mar 2010 16:09
In article <1jflk4a.xqk3p81uv2ingN%nospam(a)see.signature>,
nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
>
> > In article <piljdov042.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>,
> > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is my subjective impression is that when one uses
> > > ctrl-scrollwheel, you get a bigger blurrier picture as if pixels were
> > > getting interpolated.
>
> > Bitmapped images are interpolated, so they get progressively less sharp
> > as you zoom in.
> >
> > Text, on the other hand, does not; the browser just re-renders it as you
> > zoom in and out. Until you reach some lower limit set in System
> > Preferences -> Appearance by default around 8pt, where text smoothing is
> > no longer applied.
>
> Eh? Are you sure about that? I don't even see what a browser would have
> to do with it, as ctrl-scrollwheel zooms the entire screen.

Brain fart...I was reading ctrl-scroll, and thinking ctrl-+.

I'll go take a nap now.
From: Nick Naym on 19 Mar 2010 19:24
In article fmoore-6BAF0E.12064019032010(a)mail.eternal-september.org, Fred
Moore at fmoore(a)gcfn.org wrote on 3/19/10 12:06 PM:

> In article <tom_stiller-83B47A.17322018032010(a)news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <fmoore-102731.15090918032010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Richard, my wife tried progressives, and they made her terminally
>>> nauseous.
>>
>> They killed her?
>
> Well, okay, Mr. Literal. Zheesh, must be an engineer! ;) Fortunately,
> my wife is still alive and kicking. Unlike my experience, progressive
> lenses gave my wife headaches and made her want to vomit. I was using
> the word 'terminal', in the current colloquial form for 'very',
> 'extremely', or 'to the nth degree', as in 'When they gave the boy a
> large bowl of his favorite ice cream, he was terminally happy.' The
> usage ariginated in the 60s IIRC, but then I do remember at least part
> of the 60s so perhaps I wasn't really there.


Fred, I'm just guessing, here...but I'm willing to bet that Tom was pulling
your leg. ;)

--
iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.2)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Help With Mac Security! MacBookPro Hacked?
Next: now with a timestamp and log... but still no clue: Re: MacBook Pro automatically shuts down after a while... really don't know why...