Re: Debian Jessie : regular console instead of a hi-res one!
On Thu 08 Sep 2016 at 04:36:42 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Nicolas George composed on 2016-09-08 10:07 (UTC+0200):
>
> >Felix Miata composed:
>
> >>The simplest way is to direct KMS's framebuffer to use a lower resolution
> >>than the native hi-res one by including a video= parameter on the kernel
> >>cmdline. The lower the resolution, the larger the standard (usually 16x9)
> >>framebuffer font becomes. On a 1920x1200 display I typically use
> >>video=1440x900@60; on a 1920x1080, 1280x720@60; depending on size of display
> >>and actual resolutions it supports. Using video=1920x1080 on a 2560x1440
> >>display should produce a font 177% of the physical size of the one used
> >>natively.
>
> >It may be ONE OF THE simplest ways, but it a very bad one: screen have a
> >native resolution, operating at a different one requires scaling: the
> >resulting text will be much less readable than with the better solution of
> >using a larger font.
>
> Have you ever tried it? Default framebuffer fonts are quite
> adaptable to different resolutions, as they are generally produced
> with many more pix than typical GUI fonts. All that extra size
> enhances readability, compensating rather nicely for the loss in
> apparent resolution.
You can play with framebuffers and kernel drivers all you like.
What you cannot do is alter the layout of pixels on the screen.
If you don't use a resolution that matches those pixels exactly,
nothing you do can compensate. You are deluding yourself if you
think you can.
Now, I will apologise if you're still using a monochrome CRT. None
of the paragraph above applies in that case as the screen has a
uniform coating of phosphor. If you're still using a colour CRT,
then you get the worst of both worlds: the screen is pixelated
(you can see the dots or stripes with a handlens) but there's
no way of precisely lining up the grid of pixels from the video
card with the grid of holes in the shadow mask because the
mechanism linking them is analogue (shooting electrons through
a vacuum).
Terminal fonts are then designed to be displayed as a raster of
those pixels, rather than as a series of strokes coerced into
a raster of pixels. One might have a different opinion of the
clarity of any individual font displayed at different sizes.
One of the benefits of using setfont is that you can use a
different font for each size if you wish, and you can select
them on the fly according to circumstances: the type of work,
the ambient lighting etc. I use a much smaller font in bed
than outdoors, for example.
Another compromise that can be compensated for by having an
instant choice of fonts is their ability to handle unusual
glyphs in Unicode. Some of the clearest fonts are lacking in
coverage for obvious reasons.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: