• Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Its not the same result lol its the incorrect thing to do. Lowering the resolution fucks the image. You need to scale instead to maintain resolution and image quality

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      The perceived result is the same. There’s a limit to visual acuity and if the reviewer’s limit is lower than yours, it in no way invalidates the approach.

      Also, lowering the resolution doesn’t fuck the image, unless the image has greater resolution than the screen’s resolution. You’re not going to invent quality of nothing. It’s not how things work. This thought process of “bigger number means better quality” is just straight up false. It’s why cameras with 100 megapixels can easily take pictures with worse quality than cameras with lower megapixels and optical zoom.

      Anti Commercial-AI license

      • Colloidal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        You really can’t see the irony of an article praising the “brilliant display” of the unit while simultaneously erasing what makes the display good in the first place? How is that a valid review?

            • onlinepersona@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              What strawman? This entire discussion started because of resolution. You’re implying “higher resolution makes the display good” and seeing “irony” in the fact that the reviewer says it’s a brilliant display. I’m asking you’re sure about that, but it seems like you know it’s not true and thus changing the goalposts 🤷

              I guess your name really is fitting.

              Anti Commercial-AI license

              • OpenStars@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                Plus everyone responding to you ignoring the arguably more important part:

                Out of the box, the laptop opted for the highest resolution possible, which made everything way too small for my aging eyes.

                Macs, out of the box, “just work”. Granted that this is due to rigid monopolistic content of the hardware+software integration, but however it is achieved, it does work.

                Meanwhile, people who enjoy using Arch btw Linux have to go in and tweak settings even be able to BEGIN using the machine.

                And if you do manage, people call you a troll for doing it “wrong”.

                All right then, I guess I’ll continue to prefer Macs then, especially if my work is paying.

                One day it would be nice if Linux would start to choose to work a bit better, like Macs.

      • Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Im not sure where you get your info from but its wrong. If you set your resolution to something lower and you’re displaying on a higher resolution screen the image quality is going to suffer. Dont do things the wrong way, doing things the wrong way isint “unique” or “just the way I like doing things” its wrong and if its not immediately causing problems itll cause problems down the road.