On Feb 22, 2020, at 20:56 , Richard Charles wrote:
>
> I am just curious, have you actually seen a 3X backing store or is this just
> a surmise?
Well, I can never remember what I’ve actually seen, so I just threw it in
there. :) It’s used on iOS, but maybe not Mac.
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 7:34 PM, Quincey Morris via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
> The way things are now, starting from the selected Displays pane point size,
> whatever that happens to be, the backing store is 2x or 3x — an integral
> scale *up* — and the result is scaled — typically *down* by a
On Feb 22, 2020, at 15:31 , Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev
wrote:
>
> I was always under the impression that the backing store is 2x the size of
> the display.
> That should be then 2x( 2880 x 1800 ), i.e., 5760 x 3600 , shouldn't it?
>
> So, either the frameRect should be 2880x1800 or 5760
> For Retina displays, the backing store's size is always 2x the size in points
> that Cocoa reports. The backing store is then scaled to the display's
> physical resolution.
>
> Also, even if though the default point-size-to-display-physical-pixels used
> to be 2x, remember that other
>
> Does it make sense that starting at 1.7 gives you a 0.3 headroom for ‘zoom’
> without having to upsample?
You mean the accessibility zoom?
No, it does not make sense to me.
First of all, I can zoom in much more, so why waste 0.3 headroom although most
people don't even know about it?
On Feb 22, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Rick Aurbach via Cocoa-dev
wrote:
>
> I think you are confusing pixels and points.
>
> A pixel is an addressable light-emitting area on the screen. Your screen
> contains 2880 X 1800 pixels.
>
> But a typographical point is a unit of distance. There are [72]
Transposition type indeed! Thanks for catching it. (If you check my
calculations, I was clearly using 72 pt/in)
Cheers,
Rick Aurbach
8233 Tulane Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63132
eMail: rla...@icloud.com
Phone: 314/721-7987
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it
>
> But a typographical point is a unit of distance. There are 27 points per
> inch. (I.e., a typographical point is 0.0139 inches or 0.353 mm).
Transposition typo? There are 72 points/inch. The given inch and mm values are
correct if rounded to 3 digits.
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 14:24:40 +0100
> From: Gabriel Zachmann mailto:z...@cs.uni-bremen.de>>
> To: "cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com <mailto:cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com>"
> mailto:cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com>>
> Subject: Confusion about screen r
I believe this became the default with the new MacBook Pros that came out in
2016.
Saagar Jha
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 09:13, Steve Mills via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2020, at 10:04, Richard Charles via Cocoa-dev
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is bizarre. When did this start, Catalina? It
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 12:30, Ken Thomases via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 9:02 AM, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, the default on recent Macs is scaled to slightly under 2x.
>>>
>>
>> It is about ~ 1.7 .
>>
>> this means that every view has to be
On Feb 22, 2020, at 9:02 AM, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev
wrote:
>
>>
>> No, the default on recent Macs is scaled to slightly under 2x.
>>
>
> It is about ~ 1.7 .
>
> this means that every view has to be scaled by this odd factor, before
> writing its contents into the frame buffer.
> I
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 10:04, Richard Charles via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
> This is bizarre. When did this start, Catalina? It has been my experience
> that the default scale factor is 1.0 for normal displays and 2.0 for Retina
> displays.
It’s been that way for quite a while. 10.12 or 10.13
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, the default on recent Macs is scaled to slightly under 2x.
>>
>
> It is about ~ 1.7 .
>
> this means that every view has to be scaled by this odd factor, before
> writing its contents into the frame
>
> No, the default on recent Macs is scaled to slightly under 2x.
>
It is about ~ 1.7 .
this means that every view has to be scaled by this odd factor, before writing
its contents into the frame buffer.
I am curious as to why that doesn't cause any aliasing artefacts, or
anti-aliasing
No, the default on recent Macs is scaled to slightly under 2x.
Saagar Jha
> On Feb 22, 2020, at 05:55, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What have you set in System Preferences > Displays > Resolution. On a Retina
>> MacBook most
>
> I have set it to "Default for display" -
>
> What have you set in System Preferences > Displays > Resolution. On a Retina
> MacBook most
I have set it to "Default for display" - shouldn't that set the resolution to
the native one?
Best regards, Gabriel
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list
When my screensaver gets invoked by the screensaver engine, it calls
- (id) initWithFrame: (NSRect) frameRect isPreview: (BOOL) preview
Funny thing is, when I print the frameRect to the log, I get 1680 x 1050.
But my laptop screen really has 2880 x 1800! (That's what I get from "About
this
18 matches
Mail list logo
