Re: Debian Jessie : regular console instead of a hi-res one!
On Thu 08 Sep 2016 at 12:53:49 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> David Wright composed on 2016-09-08 09:08 (UTC-0500):
>
> >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.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> >If you don't use a resolution that matches those pixels exactly,
> >nothing you do can compensate.
>
> False. The difference from one resolution to the next is easily lost
> if the screen resolution is beyond the resolving power of the eyes.
>
> >You are deluding yourself if you think you can.
>
> Been doing it for years. One factor is called natural optical
> deterioration. There's a limit to resolving power that typically
> gets worse with age. It's a primary reason why complaints are ever
> made about tiny fonts accompanying increased pixel density.
The main reason people complain about tiny fonts is because they're
often difficult to change, or changing them leads to undesirable
effects, like web pages that don't re-wrap lines to take account
of the change.
But with an armoury of font sizes, six in my case from tiny to vast,
there's no difficulty changing at all, as long as one is prepared
to visit the bash prompt (or use a shell-escape).
It's easy to be misled by just considering the means to resolve two
dots of lines from each other as the only function of display
resolution. The crispness of a font depends on the angles of edges
to which the eye is very sensitive, even when it can't resolve the
actual dots themselves that make up that edge.
> Another factor has to do with screen size and distance, not
> necessarily caused by deterioration, but because of eyes never that
> good to begin with, and corrective lenses that do a better job at
> particular focal lengths. Too close and pixels can become apparent
> and bothersome. More distance can work better.
If the pixels are as large as to be bothersome, then make them
smaller, ie use a higher resolution on the screen! Why would you
ever use a lower resolution in that case?
> IOW:
>
> 1-Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. By this I don't mean tried
> only on Debian installations either. The default framebuffer font of
> Debian and its derivatives is very commonly different from
> non-Debian distros, represented by the spindly ugly thing used by
> Ubuntu. Without Plymouth, one can typically see the initial font
> during post is much bolder, changing somewhere along the way to the
> desktop or login prompt to a much lighter stroked variety. If all
> you've ever seen is the lightweight, try a (Debian) Knoppix CD or
> DVD and you'll see what Fedora and openSUSE users see by default
> (TerminusBold?) on their framebuffers, a font that's nicely bold and
> forgiving of non-optimal screen resolution.
Well, I'm up for that. Tell me what I have to do: it's quite involved.
I can blacklist my i915 module; should I replace it in /etc/modules
with, say, the i810fb module. Or should I just add
video=intelfb:mode=640x480@60,accel,hwcursor,vram=8
to grub's boot line?
When I want to change resolution, which keys should I press to do that?
And last, but not least, I need a surefire method of determining what
resolution I have succeeded in running. With native resolution, that's
very simple. I put some text on the screen such that the bottom line
and rightmost character are both used, determine the pixels used in
the character grid, multiply each with $LINES and $COLUMNS, and then
add the unused pixels at the bottom and right edges. All done with
a handlens.
> 2-Don't expect just because you decide it's not for you that it
> can't be for anyone else.
I've made no such decision. I'm just trying to understand your
statements in terms of the physics. If you take a font with an
x-height of 8 pixels and decrease the resolution to make it 50%
taller and wider, why would making the font with 8 bigger pixels be
clearer than making it with 12 pixels of the original size? You've now
got over twice as many pixels to manipulate.
> 3-Lowered resolution for the framebuffers does not necessarily
> dictate resolution for Xorg. For the past couple of years or so, if
> using the Intel Xorg driver, Xorg will default to the cmdline video=
> directive, in contrast to nouveau and radeon sticking to native by
> default, but this can be overcome via xrandr or xorg.con* or the DE.
> I normally configure them differently, native for Xorg, reduced for
> framebuffer.
Irrelevant. We're talking about linux consoles here.
> 4-I'm not suggesting font reconfiguration can't be appropriate, only
> that there may be an easier way that is quite suitable, particularly
> for a machine that is shared among people with diverse visual
> acuity.
I need to try your method to have an opinion about that. I've
explained how easy it is with my method to have each VC at a different
font size simultaneously and independently. So I need to know
your keystrokes for comparison.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: