← Back to context Comment by Dylan16807 5 days ago They're rectangles on my monitor. 9 comments Dylan16807 Reply cma 5 days ago If black and white or some other cases, but there are typically subpixels that can make things like sparse enough text stroke transitions get 3X horizontal resolution. Dylan16807 5 days ago The subpixels are rectangles on most screens. grandempire 5 days ago They tend to have rounded or cut corners and are not uniform. grandempire 5 days ago Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel? Dylan16807 5 days ago I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel.They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good. grandempire 5 days ago > And the mismatch of the square modelSo your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it.> doesn't mean the point model is good.What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems.You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it. 3 replies →
cma 5 days ago If black and white or some other cases, but there are typically subpixels that can make things like sparse enough text stroke transitions get 3X horizontal resolution. Dylan16807 5 days ago The subpixels are rectangles on most screens. grandempire 5 days ago They tend to have rounded or cut corners and are not uniform.
Dylan16807 5 days ago The subpixels are rectangles on most screens. grandempire 5 days ago They tend to have rounded or cut corners and are not uniform.
grandempire 5 days ago Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel? Dylan16807 5 days ago I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel.They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good. grandempire 5 days ago > And the mismatch of the square modelSo your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it.> doesn't mean the point model is good.What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems.You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it. 3 replies →
Dylan16807 5 days ago I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel.They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good. grandempire 5 days ago > And the mismatch of the square modelSo your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it.> doesn't mean the point model is good.What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems.You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it. 3 replies →
grandempire 5 days ago > And the mismatch of the square modelSo your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it.> doesn't mean the point model is good.What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems.You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it. 3 replies →
If black and white or some other cases, but there are typically subpixels that can make things like sparse enough text stroke transitions get 3X horizontal resolution.
The subpixels are rectangles on most screens.
They tend to have rounded or cut corners and are not uniform.
Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel?
I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel.
They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good.
> And the mismatch of the square model
So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it.
> doesn't mean the point model is good.
What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems.
You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it.
3 replies →