Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

Austin wrote:
> That's the point, it isn't an argument!  It's like asking
> why the number 9 is larger than the number 4.  It's just
> the way it is.  It's just a fact of simple physics that a
> pixel does not contain near the same amount of information
> as a dye cloud.

I suspected I should have chosen a word other than "argument".  The number
9 is larger than the number 4 because it is a convention that 9 is 5 integer
values larger than 4.  Other than that, the digit 9 or the word "nine" are
simply labels to represent an idea.  Saying "it is because it is" does not
constitute any sort of meaningful explanation.

Claiming that a pixel has anything to do with physics is an odd thing to
do.  A pixel is a number or a set of numbers that represent a mixture and
intensity of light.  It's not limited by physics.  A dye cloud has a certain
dimension and a certain behviour with light.  A pixel is not limited in
the same way.  A pixel could represent an area the size of an atom, or the
size of a galaxy; *any* dimension and it may be an 8 bit number or you could
pick any number of bits.  How small would you like to make the area represented
by the pixel and how many bits of RGB would you like to use until you exceed
the data contained in a chemical representation of an image?  I'm astonished
that you could believe the "fact" you have stated above.

But please Austin, let's drop this since it isn't helping anyone with anything
to do with filmscanning as far as I can make out?


Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.