Originally Posted by Glathannus
I could be delusional, but 12-point Times New Roman on 2048x1536 within 20 viewable diagonal inches, to me looks the same size you would find in many printed publications. It's not as tiny as the stock market section of a newspaper, and not quite as tiny as some paperback books, but maybe on par with the font size you'd find in a typical hardcover book. What's nicer about the hardcover books is they usually spread the font characters out much more - not just from one character to the next, but from one line to the next.
So it's like staring at a typical legal-size document, except the characters are squished closer together, and there's a lot more real estate.
|
Sigh. Maybe we will be able to revisit this topic when you reach the far side of 45. I am by no means old, but stuff changes. I have not experienced any retinal degeneration, but have had to come to terms with the inexorable fading of lens plasticity.
Ink and "darkness" on a phosphorescent surface are analogous, but in some ways dissimillar. Ink is just easier to read for me. A more organic, natural absence of light. A pure void, not it's pixelated equivalent.
P.S. The more I edit this, the more it sounds like goofy crap. I have never really thought about this topic before, and these initial reflections are a bit lame.