On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:45 -0600, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:17:02 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:27:21 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Is there any way to do a high resolution screen capture?

All of the Windows-XP built-in Print Screen stuff is crappy compared
to what I'm seeing directly (1280 x 1024).

...Jim Thompson

As others have alluded, screen capture simply captures the pixels on
your screen exactly as they are so the problem isn't with screen
capture, per se, it's what's done with it later.

The confusion comes from 'DPI'. DPI has meaning to printers, as
that's how they print, but none to the display screen. By that I mean
a 1280x1024 screen is 1280x1024 whether on a 15" screen, 20" screen,
or projected to wall size and, clearly, those are different 'DPI' for
the same pixels.

If you can't be bothered working it out, here is a page that shows you
the actual DPI for screen diagonal and resolution (valid only for
square pixels).

It isn't a matter of being "bothered working it out." The point was
it's irrelevant to Windows screen capture.

I just stuck the link in there for those who might find it useful when
looking for a new monitor or whatever-- and btw, it's the "you" for
the reader, not you personally, so, like, chill, man.

Are you saying additional information is undesirable? What the heck
kind of engineer are you? ;-)


http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

Most of my ones in current use are 100-135 DPI.

Note that Fax resolution is around 200 DPI (and that's using the
"fine" setting).

A display with 0.25mm pitch pixels is about 102 DPI.

We're still a long way from having a reasonably affordable display
(say $2K 2010 dollars) that will show a window containing 2-page
letter or A4 spread with 600 (or even 300 DPI) color. Say 10:1 for 300
DPI and 36:1 for 600 DPI. If Moore's law holds (y= 2* ln(36)/ln(2),
right? )we could see it in another decade or so.

If you want a preview of the future try a smartphone. My Tilt2 at
800x480 on a 3.6" screen is roughly 250 DPI and, at my age, I can
barely read 'the fine print'.

I can almost pick out individual atoms with my glasses off, but there
are limits to how close one's eyeball should be to some things.

Something of 18 x 12" dimensions or so with 250 DPI to 600 DPI would
be very nice (or bigger, provided the total number of pixels stays
about the same). My camera has a ~270 DPI LCD on it, but it's made
with a low temperature polysilicon process that probably doesn't scale
to larger displays. With so few pixels, using those displays for
working with serious data is like trying to do precise work through
some kind of tiny window- If I wanted to be a gynecologist or
laproscopic surgeon I would have gone for one of those professions...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com