[filmscanners] Re: Arthur's personal attack...was - RE: dpi -formerlyPS sharpening

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Art Stated:
 >
 >>But I'm not the only one who noticed and caught your intent, Austin.

Austin Stated:
 >
 > No, you didn't "notice and caught [my] intent" as my intent was not
what YOU
 > delusionally believe it was, whether you like it or not.
 >
 > Now, you somehow believe that this comment:
 >
Ken stated:

 > "Oh.  Silly me.  Well, I'm not taking sides here.  At all.   I just
 > hoped to learn something."

Austin stated:
 >
 > means Ken "noticed and caught [my] intent", and it was what YOU
believed it
 > was?  "Silly YOU", Arthur. He was merely trying to be NICE with his
response
 > to you.  Again, proving my point that you're simply delusional.
 >

Actually Austin, I wasn't referring to Ken's posting, I was referring to
Laurie's. (quoted below)

Laurie Stated:

> Austin,
>
> Like it or not, DPI tends to be the common usage in the everyday world even
> if technically it is the wrong terminology and should in the case of
> scanning be PPI.  I think that you may be being a little picky here; but
> more importantly, holding the wrong party accountible for the industries
> terminological confusion.  Let's not start another argument over language
> usage when we all kniow what is being referred to.  The other debate at
> least had some substantive communicative problems associated with it; this
> one does not.  All my scanning software used the DPI designation rather than
> the PPI designation accept one which used LPI, allowing one to set the PPI
> and the multiplier to get a LP
>

Your posting was in its typically smarta*s tone, where you try to prove
you're right and get into your compulsion with minutiae.  And you
specifically do this with Anthony, to try to get a rise out of him so
he may respond in kind, which can then develop into yet
another never-ending dispute you inspire over trite differences in
language usage or deviations from your understanding of convention.

Let's look at your posting again:

Anthony stated:

 > I usually leave images on my site set to the DPI of the scans,
 >> so they are
 >> always at 2700 or 4000 dpi.
 >
 >

Austin Stated:

 > Anthony,
 >
 > What on earth are you talking about?  Where do you set the DPI of the
scan?
 > Scanners scan in SAMPLES PER INCH, and create files that are PIXELS PER
 > INCH.  You are saving a file that is PIXELS PER INCH.  Only printers use
 > DOTS PER INCH, and that value is printer dependant, and is NOT directly
 > related to any of the information saved in the file.
 >
 > In the PS "Image/Image Size" window, you simply have the option of
setting
 > the number of inches and/or the number of PIXELS/inch, or PIXELS per cm.
 > The top gives the image width and height in PIXELS.  I see NO option for
 > "DPI" here.
 >
 > When you save an image at 2700 you are saving it at 2700 PIXELS per
inch, as
 > far as I can find, there is no option for saving your image in "DOTS"
using
 > PS.
 >
 > Austin
 >

It was certainly obvious to me that the reason Anthony was referring to
dpi was because the discussion was about protecting web pages images
from being printed, and he was suggesting that by creating a web image
file with a high embedded dpi (such as 2700 or 4000 dpi), it wouldn't
alter the image when viewed within a web browser (since web browsers
ignore this information even if it is embedded in the file description),
but, that should a person download the image to PRINT it (get it--
print... printer... dpi) within some commonly used simpler programs,
this dpi information would cause the image to be printed using the
file's embedded dpi, which would result in a typically sized web image
to be printed as a very small representation (basically a thumb nail, if
that).

Not being an engineer, and all, I guess I just missed this VERY
IMPORTANT point that scanners are not able to actually sample in dpi.
Your VERY IMPORTANT posting (again, quoted above), provided absolutely
NO additional useful information, but may have in fact confused a few
people (hence, the need for the additional explanation your provided).
Of course, maybe I just don't understand enough about this
obviously VERY complex concept, and your IMPORTANT posting went right
OVER MY HEAD!

Then again, that spacecraft that cost $180 something million that just
tore itself apart on leaving Earth's orbit was probably designed by
engineers.  HMMM....

And, since I don't wish to make this exchange into something similar to
what I was trying to head off to begin with, by calling a spade a spade,
any further responses regarding this matter will be met with silence on
my part.

Art


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body