28-02-2025, 09:50 PM
The subject of pixels.
How big was the original? I have no idea. I haven't checked, but it wasn't that big.
I did a little research on the magnification.
The reading stone had a magnification of about 2:1, so it doubles the font. The disadvantage is that it has to rest on the surface and you can't write at the same time.
See comparison at Wiki.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rivet glasses in the 15th century had the same magnification. Advantage, the range of vision (good and sharp vision) 30-50 cm distance.
They also allowed writing, but only had a magnification of 2:1, the same as the reading stone.
Calculated according to the table and the glasses of the time.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
How big was the original? I have no idea. I haven't checked, but it wasn't that big.
I did a little research on the magnification.
The reading stone had a magnification of about 2:1, so it doubles the font. The disadvantage is that it has to rest on the surface and you can't write at the same time.
See comparison at Wiki.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rivet glasses in the 15th century had the same magnification. Advantage, the range of vision (good and sharp vision) 30-50 cm distance.
They also allowed writing, but only had a magnification of 2:1, the same as the reading stone.
Calculated according to the table and the glasses of the time.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)