Re: dumb question

John McWilliams added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...

The point is John, dots and pixels are 100% interchangeable
as valid descriptions of resolution. Neither have any
measurable bulk, only quantity which is the same quantity
regardless of which word you use.

Your conclusion is flat out wrong; dpi and ppi are not just
the same.

If you have some specification or conversion mathematics set
in concrete that I am not aware of that will prove otherwise,
I'd really like to hear it.

The simple fact is that like air, dots and pixels of any
amount can be jammed into a measurement container. At the end
of discussions, there will be just as many dots as there are
pixels in a given resolution. They are an interchangeable
measurement.

To you I guess they are. But not to many others.

A basic understanding of dots and pixels helps in
understanding the printing process, and how to best send an
image to a printer, and how to set the printer properly as
well.

Dots and pixels are not the same, although at one point years
ago they were close to one another.

Dots and pixels aren't the same if one considers only physical
"dots" sprayed by the print heads of a modern photo printer which
can produce the illusion of many thousands of DPI, but in
reality, what is happening is that each pixel in the image being
transformed from RGB space to CMYK space by the printer driver
must take into consideration the particular technology used by a
given printer make and model to produce something visible.

And, I don't think I've seen anyone talk about the difference
between the transmitted light of a PC monitor and the reflected
light of a print and folks have only touched on how the quality
of the camera/lens, it's image processing software, the post-
processing software used, and the way the image is seen on-screen
nor the way that paper and ink type cause absorbtion to vary
widely perhaps either enhancing or ruining whatever inherent
image quality there may be.

But again, what does any of this matter since once someone
selects and buys a camera - of any make and model, P & S, EVF, or
DSLR, and then chooses and buys a printer, the rest of this is
both academic and moot. The combo of camera, user, and printer is
pretty much fixed for any given photograph and exactly how the
transformation from digital image to print becomes irrelevant. It
still seems to me that the only thing that matters in the end is
how the print looks, and the person with the most votes is the
creator, and I can't recall hearing from them.

These sort of "dumb question" posts appear every so often when
newbies buy a brand new max mega pixels camera and somebody's
printer then want to know "how big can I print?" when some simple
tests would provide a more than reasonable answer, far better
than wading their way though long-winded arguments from the
"experts", which is to explain why I am a pragmatist and not a
theorist. I leave the latter to them who write magazine reviews.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DPI
    ... The pixel originates in your camera. ... There are roughly eight million Pixels on the sensor in your camera. ... resolution discernable by the human eye. ... Printer resolution is how many dots of ink the ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: dumb question
    ... only quantity which is the same quantity regardless of which word you use. ... The simple fact is that like air, dots and pixels of any amount can be jammed into a measurement container. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: dumb question
    ... The simple fact is that like air, dots and pixels of any amount can be jammed into a measurement container. ... My image sure as hell wasn't 900 megapixels, at 300 PPI it was about 7.2 megapixels ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: DSLR Fault?
    ... coloured dots (like pixels?), zoomed in they appear as a cross '+'. ... have them mapped out in the camera. ... - Use a RAW converter who guestimates such bad pixels by them ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: A beginner question
    ... object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime ... I don't even know how to work out the exposure etc ... presumably also the point source can easily spill over into adjacent pixels. ... There is only one noise source that is pixel dependent, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)