72ppi dates back to the original Macintosh. At the time it allowed for WYSIWYG display of text in documents and was about as good as consumer grade monitors could be expected to do. Apple held on to that standard for quite a while, but now 96dpi is the sweet spot as most people would rather have larger monitors than higher resolution.
Paul On 16/08/2010, at 1:32 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > On 2010-08-15 18:04, Rob Studdert wrote: > >>> "someone" told me once that the human eye can't see any more detail on a >>> screen than 72 ppi anyway and since it loads faster, >>> one need not make images larger... >> >> No idea where that stems from, my current screens display ~99PPI (1600 >> pixels across 16 inches) and they look much sharper than a similar >> sized screen that can only display 1200 pixels across 16" (or 75PPI) > > I've had monitors up to 150 ppi and I could still see the individual pixels > at normal viewing distance, so I don't think that 72 ppi thing is true. It > was the default on some systems back in the day, as was 96 ppi, on other > systems, also back in the day. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
