– in 4 materials (clay versions included)
– 12 scenes
– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups
– 6000 x 4500 px
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?
off,Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?
Yes. Use the Image Size command and turn "Resample Image" OFF.
"Resample" means "change the number of pixels." If resampling is turned
the pixel dimensions will be identical–a 1200×1600 pixel image will stillbe
1200×1600 pixels. The resolution will change, and the size of the picturewhen
it is printed out will change.
—
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
"Tacit" wrote in message
off,Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?
Yes. Use the Image Size command and turn "Resample Image" OFF.
"Resample" means "change the number of pixels." If resampling is turned
the pixel dimensions will be identical–a 1200×1600 pixel image will stillbe
1200×1600 pixels. The resolution will change, and the size of the picturewhen
it is printed out will change.
—
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
If i want the pixel dimensions and the document size to be remained but only the dpi change to 300dpi, can i do it this way:
1) turn of the resample and change the dpi to 300, then
2) turn on the resample and set the document size back to its original. Does that cause any lose in pix quality?
If i want the pixel dimensions and the document size to be remained but only
the dpi change to 300dpi, can i do it this way:
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. […]
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?F1 => "image size"
The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. Another method which works well is to use ‘stair interpolation’. Basically this uses bicubic resizing in Photoshop in 10% increments until the size is reached. Either way, expect some degradation of the image. How much depends on how good the original is.
W&W
—————————-
"Red Ant" wrote in messageAnyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
Image>Image size, then uncheck "resample image" and change resolution to 300, click "OK." But I wouldn’t consider that an "upgrade" since the picture will still be 1200×1600.
Don
"Red Ant" wrote in message
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
I am not clear on what you are asking. However, resampling an image ALWAYS degrades its quality. Always. You can not invent image detail that does not exist in the original; it is impossible to resample an image to increase its resolution and have the result be as good as if you had simply made the image at the proper size and resolution to begin with.
"Not for Publication" wrote in messageis
The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution
by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. […]
Booo.
d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi markersetting
doesn’t require interpolation!
d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi markersetting doesn’t require interpolation!
DO you ever read the garbage you post?
(Tacit) wrote:[…]
You’ve repeated your mantra quite often since I read this group, and in principle you are right, _but_ it is also true that information stored in an image beyond the resolution of the eye of the beholder is wasted. Upsampling is allright IMO, if the target image is looked at from a reasonably greater distance than the original.
Bugger off jerk.
Unless of course your vocabulary improves past one syllable. Then you ought to get a life too.
d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi markersetting doesn’t require interpolation!
DO you ever read the garbage you post?
And why is that garbage? It’s utterly true…
The ONLY thing that matters in measuring the resolution of a digital image is the pixel dimensions; PPI (inaccurately referred to in this thread as DPI) is merely an abstract based on the pixel dimensions applied to a particular output size, and does not have any direct correlation to the resolution of a given image. A 1500px X 1500px image contains the exact same number of pixels (and therefore the same resolution) whether it’s being printed at 300ppi or 72ppi.
Negatives are routinely "resampled" to considerably larger size when a fine print is made. There is definitely a loss of total information in this process but at the same time there is a gain in useful information, since image detail is revealed to the naked eye which was invisible beforehand.
On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" found these unused words floating about:X
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
1600px, 300dpi?F1 => "image size"
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per inch could improve the clarity of the picture…..
Brian wrote:
d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi markersetting doesn’t require interpolation!
DO you ever read the garbage you post?
And why is that garbage? It’s utterly true…
The ONLY thing that matters in measuring the resolution of a digital image is the pixel dimensions; PPI (inaccurately referred to in this thread as DPI) is merely an abstract based on the pixel dimensions applied to a particular output size, and does not have any direct correlation to the resolution of a given image. A 1500px X 1500px image contains the exact same number of pixels (and therefore the same resolution) whether it’s being printed at 300ppi or 72ppi.
It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they need to do is think about it logically.
Stuart
To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to be interpolated up to that size.
I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per inch could improve the clarity of the picture…..
The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves around their ideas. […]
In article <40b4c546$>, "Red Ant" wrote:And for some such applications (for example – producing a large poster from a relatively low resolution image), it might then be appropriate to interpolate to higher
I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
In turn, I appreciate your candor.
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per inch could improve the clarity of the picture…..
As you will learn, the software cannot invent detail. However, remind your client of the concept of viewing distance. If the image is large, then persons looking at it from a distance will, at least, see it as if it were just a smaller print closer up. (for the most part). If they move closer, they should simply not expect to see more detail.
"J. A. Mc." wrote in messagethese
On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" found
1200pxunused words floating about:
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to
X1600px,
1600px, 300dpi?F1 => "image size"
I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X
72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dotper
inch could improve the clarity of the picture…..
The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves around their ideas. The day you can define a pixel as an element of linear measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots or lines. To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to be interpolated up to that size. Are all Pommies idiots or only the ones posting to graphic news groups?
Wilder on the waves.
—————————–
Not for Publication wrote:linear
The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves around their ideas. The day you can define a pixel as an element of
dotsmeasurement, will be the day I start printing them.
Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in
image toor lines. To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the
be interpolated up to that size. Are all Pommies idiots or only the ones posting to graphic news groups?
Wilder on the waves.
—————————–
Your point is only relevant to the final print output size.
Stuart
So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those dimensions describe.
What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200×1600 at 72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions as a precursor to becoming a photograph.
If the OP had said a 22"x16" image at 72 dpi instead of quoting the pixel count and specifying a dpi, those feeble minds unable to grasp the concept that a photograph is a measurable object might open their minds to reality and start to comprehend that a photograph cannot exist until it is produced. A digital file is only a means of producing the photograph, it is not the photograph itself.
Simply put: You should not have clients before you know what you are doing.
To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those dimensions describe.
What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200×1600 at 72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions as a precursor to becoming a photograph.
So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those dimensions describe.
You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
The DPI stored in the image is just useless for sizing.
You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
A digital image does have a resolution. This resolution, measured in pixels
per
inch, is stored as part of the file, usually in the file’s header. The resolution makes no difference until the image is printed; nevertheless, it is still a property of the file, and Photoshop will show it as such.
A raster-based image is described by four properties: its pixel resolution, which is the number of pixels it contains; its physical size on output; its resolution in pixels per inch; and the number of bits per pixel. The first three are all related.
Each pixel is a square of color. Each pixel is assigned a physical size; this size is not relevant to display of an image on screen, but is relevant to outpit. A 300 pixel per inch image is made of squares called "pixels," each one of which is 1/300th of an inch wide. A 72 pixel per inch image is made of squares called "pixels," each one of which is 1/72 of an inch wide.
Let us suppose you have a file 1,000 pixels wide.
If your file is 100 pixels per inch, then your file will print 10 inches wide. If your file is 200 pixels per inch, then your file will print 5 inches wide. If your file is 1,000 pixels per inch, then it will print 1 inch wide.
In all three cases, your file is exactly the same on a computer screen; the only thing different is how big the pixels are in print.
Think about a tile mosaic for a second–because that is exactly what your picture is. It’s a tile mosaic. Every tile is a pixel.
You’re an artist, and you make a tile mosaic that is 100 tiles wide and 100 tiles deep. If each tile you used is one foot wide, your mosaic is 100 feet wide and 100 feet tall. If each tile you used is one inch wide, your mosaic is 100 inches wide and 100 inches tall. If each tile is 1/2" wide, your mosaic is 50 inches wide and 50 inches tall.
The "resolution" of a picture is very simple: It is nothing but how big each pixel is!
So what is "resampling"?This isn’t resampling. This is changing the desired print resolution.
Let’s say you have a tile mosaic and you made it out of tiles one inch wide. Your mosaic is 100 inches wide and 100 inches tall.
Let’s say you re-create your mosaic with tiles 1/2" wide.
You have two choices:
You can re-create your tile mosaic with the same number of tiles. Now your mosaic is smaller, because the tiles are smaller. Your new mosaic is 50 inches wide and 50 inches tall.
Or, you can re-create your mosaic at the same physical size–100 by 100 inches. Now you have to use more tiles–four times as many tiles, in fact. Your new mosaic is 200 tiles wide and 200 tiles high. This is "resampling." Changing the number of tiles–that is, changing the number of pixels.
If you resample, your image will print at the same size. But because you have to create new pixels out of thin air, the quality of the picture goes in the toilet. There is no way to invent new pixels out of nothing; the computer must "guess" what color to make those pixels, and you will never see detail that was not in the original picture to start with.
If you do not resample, the image will print at a different size.
But that’s all there is to it. To figure out how big a digital image will print, you take the total number of pixels, and you divide that number by the size of each pixel, and that will tell you how big the print will be. If your image is 1,000 pixels wide, and each pixel is one inch wide, your image is at one pixel per inch and will be 1,000 inches wide when you print it.
In article , "Not for Publication"
wrote:
So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
Duh.
To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those dimensions describe.
Let’s make this simple. A printer that does, say, 360ppi will make a small print of a 1200x1600ppi image. To make a larger print and keep the same detail, a digital image containing a larger number of pixels is neccessary. Agreed?
The argument is that a person wanting detail in a print will need more pixels in the very first generation of the image. If he does not have those pixels, then interpolation is neccessary.
Underneath all this is the fact that more pixels (created in a manner other than interpolation) in that first generation image is better than interpolation after the fact.
Are we okay now?
dimensionsTo print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those
tooccupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up
those300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than
atdimensions describe.
Those dimensions you’re supplying don’t describe *anything*, that’s the part you fail to see – there is NO SUCH THING as a 1200 x 1600 72ppi image. There is ONLY a 1200 x 1600 image; the pixels per inch measurement ONLY comes into play when you actually print the image, and is variable depending on the dimensions at which the image is printed.What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200×1600
as72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions
a precursor to becoming a photograph.
Nope, it’s absolutely correct. A digital image has only its pixel dimensions to measure its resolution; again, pixels per inch is an abstract derived from dividing the pixel dimensions by the output size. This number is in no way inherent to the image at all.
A 1200 x 1600 image printed at 72ppi, and the same image printed at 300ppi, have EXACTLY THE SAME RESOLUTION, specifically 1200 X 1600. As I posted previously, printing this image at 72ppi will result in a print size of 16.667" x 22.223"; printing the same image at 300ppi will result in a print size of 4" x 5.334".
To look at it another way, printing an image at 16.667" x 22.223" at 300ppi would require an image resolution of 5000px X 6666.9px, which is CLEARLY A DIFFERENT IMAGE RESOLUTION than 1200 x 1600. It’s simple math.
You didn’t understand a single word of which I and the others wrote, but yet you continue to post as if you somehow have this knowledge that tens of thousands of qualified professionals somehow lack. Disturbing, that…
You are quite wrong Brian…
To describe an image in both pixels and dpi is to define a pre-dimensioned print size of a photograph or other physical printed page. To define an image in pixels alone is to describe only a digital file.
[…] We are talking
here in a PHOTOshop group so for the purpose of comprehension, it can be freely assumed discussions are about photographs, altering or editing them and printing photographs.
No one on this earth has ever been able to hold and view a digital imagein
the way a photograph is held and viewed. Why? Because a digital image of##
x ## pixels has no size of dimension, only of presence.
This is after all a group devoted to software used for photographic manipulation.
doing.Simply put: You should not have clients before you know what you are
Now *there’s* the smartest thing I’ve read in this thread yet! 8^)
in article , Xalinai at
wrote on 5/27/04 7:27 AM:
The DPI stored in the image is just useless for sizing.
Would it makes things more clear if you did not use the term "dpi" imprecisely. My understanding is that dpi refers to a capability of the printer, depending largely on the architecture of its print head. If the terms spi, ppi and dpi were used according to their strict definition, rather than loosely as they mst often are, there would be fewer misunderstandings.
You are quite wrong Brian…
To describe an image in both pixels and dpi is to define a pre-dimensioned print size of a photograph or other physical printed page. To define an image in pixels alone is to describe only a digital file. We are talking here in a PHOTOshop group so for the purpose of comprehension, it can be freely assumed discussions are about photographs, altering or editing them and printing photographs.
Adobe has for as long as I can recall, specified 2 measurements in their image file descriptions. I suggest that as Adobe invented Postscript which is now the standard page description language of the printing industry, their use of describing an image in both pixels and dots per inch is also a valid method of measuring a "ready for print" image and providing in that description, a means of readily assessing the quality of the printed page.
Wherever people get the idea that pixels are all that count is quite irrelevant to what the printing industry and photographic industry use in their descriptions or for that matter, need in order to print a page. What is relevant is that some people (you included) have such an unshakable belief that the world is flat as to continue on with an argument which has no merit.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:56:36 -0400, Larry Preuss
wrote:
in article , Xalinai at
wrote on 5/27/04 7:27 AM:
The DPI stored in the image is just useless for sizing.
Would it makes things more clear if you did not use the term "dpi" imprecisely. My understanding is that dpi refers to a capability of the printer, depending largely on the architecture of its print head. If the terms spi, ppi and dpi were used according to their strict definition, rather than loosely as they mst often are, there would be fewer misunderstandings.
The relevant property for a digital image is the amount of information in the image. This is specified by two dimensions of pixel count and one dimension of bit depth. As long as you stay in the digital universe there is no further property that can add information about the amount of detail available in the image.
Print resolution or sizes that compare the image to objects outside the digital universe are only valid in this real world. During the image’s stay in digital space they are like the information on a can of paint that says it will last for five square meters – they make assumptions how someone will use it and specify a sample outcome of its application. But saying "I have a 1000x2000pixel/72dpi image" is like saying "I have a 800 millilitres 5 square meter can of paint!"
Michael
Aparently those who would offer themselves as keepers of the (flawed) "pixels rule" school, failed to read or comprehend the original post and instead set off on a tangent to expound their idea of how flat the world really is until someone else highlighted the point that the OP wanted to print the picture… And isn’t that what I’ve been discussing all along?
Not "dpi." Dots per inch is a measure of how many dots of ink a printer is able to place in a measured space, is limited by the design of the print head and your decision of standard, fine print, or whatever the notation is for your printer, and has no relationship to the measurements of what is presented to it to print.
Larry
The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves around their ideas.This would be a self-description?
The day you can define a pixel as an element of linearGot plenty of ink/toner and paper?
measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots or lines. To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to be interpolated up to that size.
Are all Pommies idiots or only the onesSelf application … again? <G>
posting to graphic news groups?
Wilder on the waves.
—————————–
"Stuart" wrote in message
Brian wrote:
d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi markersetting doesn’t require interpolation!
DO you ever read the garbage you post?
And why is that garbage? It’s utterly true…
The ONLY thing that matters in measuring the resolution of a digital image is the pixel dimensions; PPI (inaccurately referred to in this thread as DPI) is merely an abstract based on the pixel dimensions applied to a particular output size, and does not have any direct correlation to the resolution of a given image. A 1500px X 1500px image contains the exact same number of pixels (and therefore the same resolution) whether it’s being printed at 300ppi or 72ppi.
It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they need to do is think about it logically.
Stuart
The funniest part is you STILL think you’re right….
"J. A. Mc." wrote in messageThere’s the rub … IF you’re simply (as stated) altering the dpi and retaining the pixels as before, then the printed image will be smaller.
On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" found these unused words floating about:X
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
1600px, 300dpi?F1 => "image size"
I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per inch could improve the clarity of the picture…..
Larry Preuss wrote:I have been following it, with some interest.
Not "dpi." Dots per inch is a measure of how many dots of ink a printer is able to place in a measured space, is limited by the design of the print head and your decision of standard, fine print, or whatever the notation is for your printer, and has no relationship to the measurements of what is presented to it to print.
Larry
If you had vaguely followed this thread then you would not have written your post.
Stuart
Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help you…
in article c97nuc$r11$
wrote on 5/28/04 12:01 PM:
Larry Preuss wrote:I have been following it, with some interest.
Not "dpi." Dots per inch is a measure of how many dots of ink a printer is able to place in a measured space, is limited by the design of the print head and your decision of standard, fine print, or whatever the notation is for your printer, and has no relationship to the measurements of what is presented to it to print.
Larry
If you had vaguely followed this thread then you would not have written your post.
Stuart
Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
"Red Ant" wrote in messageAnyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200pxX
1600px, 300dpi?
I think you want to keep the picture the same size,
whatever that is, and make in higher resolution.
It any case decide how big you want the picture,
enter that number in the crop tool along with dpi
that you desire and select the area that is best.
Be sure to have bicubic interpolation set in the
preferences.
From: (jjs)
I hope someone got something valuable somewhere in this circle of confusion.
An industry where you give someone an image of 6000x4000pixels that has a stored dpi of 72 to be printed 20 inches wide and get the image rejected because "the resoluton is too low, we need it in 300dpi" should very quickly re-learn their job.
Michael
Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads to industry adoption of that description. You only need to look at the current description of ‘fonts’ and their traditional description to see that.
Eventually the widespread use of including dpi in the measurement of an image’s size and quality will become the norm and traditionalists will forever morn the passing of yet another dead pixel.
In article <FaPtc.1621$>, "aka 717" wrote:
And so we come full circle, right back to the original nonsense we stared with . I hope someone got something valuable somewhere in this circle of confusion.
I certainly learned that many people vehemently believe their own opinions… Even if they differ from what others do in day to day use. Right at the start I said the only way the OP would achieve his aim was to interpolate the image up to 300 dpi before printing.
I think that started the fiasco where all the Pixels got arrested by the dpi and so the tale continues with no one giving an inch to anyone else… It was you, too John, who first started the row over printing the image and Booo’d me for suggesting it maybe possible if interpolated… Geezzzz!
Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads to industry adoption of that description.
In article <_XVtc.15963$>, "Wilder andRight
Wilder" wrote:
I certainly learned that many people vehemently believe their own opinions… Even if they differ from what others do in day to day use.
dpiat the start I said the only way the OP would achieve his aim was to interpolate the image up to 300 dpi before printing.
I think that started the fiasco where all the Pixels got arrested by the
Itand so the tale continues with no one giving an inch to anyone else…
Oil.was you, too John, who first started the row over printing the image and Booo’d me for suggesting it maybe possible if interpolated… Geezzzz!
The "Booo" was for your recommendation of Genuine Fractals, aka: Snake
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising large dimensions and produce good to very good results…
Eventually the widespread use of including dpi in the measurement of an image’s size and quality will become the norm and traditionalists will forever morn the passing of yet another dead pixel.
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising large dimensions and produce good to very good results…
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
jjs wrote:
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
Daunting, yes. But written by someone who is clearly not as knowledgable as he thinks himsef. Just look at this quote: "today’s best cameras record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if, in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher resolution."
That is nonsense. Yes, you can easily scan 20 Mpixel or more out of that piece of film.
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:48 -0500, (jjs)
scribbled:
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
Voivod wrote:
Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
The difference between 11MP and 14MP is absolutely ZERO, and possibly
MINUS. Why? because pixels don’t indicate quality in regards to how those pixels combined contribute to overall tone and color rendition, nor resolution.
If you live by the manufacturers’ metrics, you are already blinded.
"The best of the
current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who the hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ… What is Arazona? Does anyone actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising large dimensions and produce good to very good results… But then mypython
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
In article <nucuc.17432$>, "Wilder andover
Wilder" wrote:
Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for
thea year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who
hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ… What is Arazona? Does anyone actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
And your point is? NG has been accepting B&W forever, too. 🙂 Arizona Highways was referring to pictures it also uses for exhibitions, if that helps.
Consumer and prosumer digital cameras tend to have a lower dynamic range than film. That means that while the film can still capture detail in the highlights and shadows, the digital image just shows white in the highlights and/or black in the shadows. (It’s the shadow end that’s typically most problematic for digital cameras.)
"jjs" wrote in messageWho
In article <nucuc.17432$>, "Wilder andover
Wilder" wrote:
Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for
a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality.
theanyone
hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ… What is Arazona? Does
actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
And your point is? NG has been accepting B&W forever, too. 🙂 Arizona Highways was referring to pictures it also uses for exhibitions, if that helps.
No, there were talking about their out of this world quality, see here: "But an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp, high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch"
My guess is that there are no stores offering digital cameras along Arizona’s highway’s yet or that Mr. Ensenberger is a Hasselblad or Leica user.
Stephan
"Not for Publication" wrote in messagesurprising
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to
belarge dimensions and produce good to very good results… But then mypython
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
Nobody would expect you to want to know you got ripped off. GF is not any better than Stair Interpolation and Stair interpolation can
replaced by a home made, free, action.
Stephan
From: "Stephan"
No, there were talking about their out of this world quality, see here: "But an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp, high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch"
My guess is that there are no stores offering digital cameras along Arizona’s highway’s yet or that Mr. Ensenberger is a Hasselblad or Leica user.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:11 +1000, "Not for Publication" found these unused words floating about:
The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves around their ideas.This would be a self-description?The day you can define a pixel as an element of linearGot plenty of ink/toner and paper?
measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
A pixel can easily be defined as having a linear measurement when referenced by dpi. THAT’s the whole point of having the dpi MARKER in the file. That it can be altered, that’s a function of modern technology.
pixel = 1/dpi in inches
Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots or lines. To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to be interpolated up to that size.
Eventually the widespread use of including dpi in the measurement of an image’s size and quality will become the norm and traditionalists will forever morn the passing of yet another dead pixel.
True story: When i was working professional prepress at a trade shop called Dimension, we had a job order come in one day where the client had asked for a transparency to be scanned such that the scan would be 9 by 12 inches at 300 dpi.
Now, for the past thirty years, Dimension’s clients had been art directors and serious advertising professionals at big-name advertising agencies, so they never made that particular mistake. Lately, as more and more companies attempt (usually with dismal results) tosave money by bringing their advertising in-house, the experience and skill of Dimension’s client has dropped significantly.
Anyway, the job bag was passed to the scanner operator. This particular scanner operator, with 28 years’ experience running a drum scanner, was completely flummoxed; he had no idea what to do. He came to me and said "How can I make a scan at 300 dpi? That doesn’t make any sense! Do they want a prescreened halftone at 300 lines per inch? What the hell are they talking about?"
I laughed and explained, "Don’t sweat it, just make a 300 pixel per inch scan. The job’s for an ignoramous amateur who thinks "dpi" and "ppi" mean the same thing."
Sadly, five years later, the ignoramous amateurs seem to outnumber the skilled professionals even in the professional design and advertising industries.
On 27 May 2004 14:36:20 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
No. The printed image has a size and you can determine pixels per inch using a ruler and your knowledge about the number of pixels. If you can’t apply the ruler to the image the units on the ruler have no meaning to the image.A digital image does have a resolution. This resolution, measured in pixels
Up to here I agree…per
inch, is stored as part of the file, usually in the file’s header. The resolution makes no difference until the image is printed; nevertheless, it is still a property of the file, and Photoshop will show it as such.
…here not.
We both know it is irrelevant until the image is printed and it stays irrelevant whether Photoshop or the pope in Rome shows it.
Tacit wrote:Consumer and prosumer digital cameras tend to have a lower dynamic range than film. That means that while the film can still capture detail in the highlights and shadows, the digital image just shows white in the highlights and/or black in the shadows. (It’s the shadow end that’s typically most problematic for digital cameras.)
That website is not talking about consumer of prosumer digital cameras. There are no consumer or prosumer cameras with 11 Mpixels.
Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who the hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ… What is Arazona? Does anyone actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
"jjs" wrote in message
One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over a year.
Well, I do know
Arizona Highways is printed in half tone, isn’t it, at
about 150-200 lines/inch. At the norm of 2.0-2.2
X lpi = ppi, then a scan or digital photo should be
from 300 ppi to 440 ppi.
That’s the way I figure it. Please correct me. It’s been a while.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over a year.
Newsweek has been accepting digital images for several years. Your point is?
This has nothing to do with how good the images are; a critical reader can spot the digital images 10 out of 10 times. It has everything to do with the nature of the publication; Newsweek journalists need to be able to provide images on a very short timetable, and National Geographic prints images takein in extremely remote locations where film services and shipping services are unavailable.
A digital image beamed to the publication over satellite is often the only viable way to get images from remote places. the fact that the images are lower in quality is an accepted trade-off. It’s about convenience, not quality.
Consumer and prosumer digital cameras tend to have a lower dynamic range than film. That means that while the film can still capture detail in the highlights
and shadows, the digital image just shows white in the highlights and/or black in the shadows. (It’s the shadow end that’s typically most problematic for digital cameras.)
On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:13:15 -0400, Uni
scribbled:Well, I do know
You of all people should never start a sentence with those four words.
In article , Tacit
wrote:
Consumer and prosumer digital cameras tend to have a lower dynamic range than film. That means that while the film can still capture detail in the highlights
and shadows, the digital image just shows white in the highlights and/or black in the shadows. (It’s the shadow end that’s typically most problematic for digital cameras.)
You need to qualify that.
Current digital cameras have about the same dynamic range as slide film.
But both slide and digital cameras have less dynamic range than negative film.
Chris
Wilder and Wilder wrote:Yah … right … dream on – those are only from the cheapies issued to their ‘reporters’.
Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who the hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ… What is Arazona? Does anyone actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
Well, I do know manufactures are using digital images to help sell their products. Also, it’s not uncommon to see advertisements in magazines that use digital images, too. You can always spot them and their jaggies.
Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?
Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?
"Not for Publication" wrote in messagesurprising
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to
belarge dimensions and produce good to very good results… But then mypython
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
Nobody would expect you to want to know you got ripped off. GF is not any better than Stair Interpolation and Stair interpolation can
replaced by a home made, free, action.
Stephan
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising large dimensions and produce good to very good results…
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <_XVtc.15963$>, "Wilder andRight
Wilder" wrote:I certainly learned that many people vehemently believe their own opinions… Even if they differ from what others do in day to day use.
dpiat the start I said the only way the OP would achieve his aim was to interpolate the image up to 300 dpi before printing.
I think that started the fiasco where all the Pixels got arrested by the
Itand so the tale continues with no one giving an inch to anyone else…
was you, too John, who first started the row over printing the image and Booo’d me for suggesting it maybe possible if interpolated… Geezzzz!
The "Booo" was for your recommendation of Genuine Fractals, aka: Snake
Oil.
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?
Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?
Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
🙂
Twerp.
🙂
Move along.
🙂
Uni
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
Pardon me Stephen but who said GF was better than SA?Anyone stupid or mis-informed enough to buy it of course.
Certainly not me.
"Stephan" wrote in messagecan
"Not for Publication" wrote in messagesurprising
I’ll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to
large dimensions and produce good to very good results… But then mypython
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
Nobody would expect you to want to know you got ripped off. GF is not any better than Stair Interpolation and Stair interpolation
be
replaced by a home made, free, action.
Stephan
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
hahahaha.
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
hahahaha.
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain
That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.
Yeah, right. Of course National Geographic has never worked in remote places before there were digital cameras. Because there was no way to ship the films out, they never went any further than Disneyland. Only now they start to discover our world.
Yeah, right. Of course National Geographic has never worked in remote places before there were digital cameras. Because there was no way to ship the films out, they never went any further than Disneyland. Only now they start to discover our world.
National Geographic has long used film, and prefers film. National Geographic now accepts digital images because sometimes, there is little alternative–not because digital is as good as film. It’s a matter of convenience, not quality–by using digital images, they can sometimes get images they could not have gotten as easily or as quickly before.
On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:43:33 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain
That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.
Odd how you cut out the link that mates Uni and ArtistMike into one being….
Here, I’ll put it back in:
And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&output=gplain
Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:43:33 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:
Boring People, That Way!!! —->
I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.
I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax. com
&output=gplain
That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.
Odd how you cut out the link that mates Uni and ArtistMike into one being….
Here, I’ll put it back in:
And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&o utput=gplain
Sheesh, you’d make a lousy detective.
🙂
Uni
I laughed and explained, "Don’t sweat it, just make a 300 pixel per inch scan. The job’s for an ignoramous amateur who thinks "dpi" and "ppi" mean the same thing."
For ignoramous amateurs? Guess you’ve not noticed that many of the companies that sell scanners (both low and high end) rate them with a DPI number and only some companies use the PPI term.
Seems to me that the fine distinction has really only come up in arguments in the last couple of years.
Why some people think that the same term can’t mean different things in different contexts is beyond me.
For ignoramous amateurs? Guess you’ve not noticed that many of the companies that sell scanners (both low and high end) rate them with a DPI number
Why some people think that the same term can’t mean different things in different contexts is beyond me.
PPI, after all, also means "pages per inch" and nobody quibbles about that.
Would it be appropriate, or even feasible for an ISO, ANSI, ASA, DIN, LSMFT or _someone_ to specify, for example, _exactly_ what Samples Per Inch (_not_ "SPI" which is taken) means for scanners, digicams and other image capture devices? Or have they? (Of course, I’d rather Samples Per Centimeter, but I’ll take what we can get.)
It would be a start.
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:08:41 -0500, (jjs)
wrote:
Would it be appropriate, or even feasible for an ISO, ANSI, ASA, DIN, LSMFT or _someone_ to specify, for example, _exactly_ what Samples Per Inch (_not_ "SPI" which is taken) means for scanners, digicams and other image capture devices? Or have they? (Of course, I’d rather Samples Per Centimeter, but I’ll take what we can get.)
It would be a start.
Samples per inch seems to be a fine definition as it restricts itself to input devices.
But you still have to specify whether you measure the CCD chip (like some camera manufacturers do) or the object size (like for scanning someting).
And then: If there is interpolation involved, how do you convert samples per inch into pixels per inch?
Wouldn’t you just add another element to existing confusion?
Wouldn’t you just add another element to existing confusion?
On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" scribbled:Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads to industry adoption of that description.
Ladies and gentlemen – In this corner, wearing polka dots, weighing in at 98 lbs it’s the DPI Warrior! And in the other corner, weighing in at several ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..
Would it be appropriate, or even feasible for an ISO, ANSI, ASA, DIN, LSMFT or _someone_ to specify, for example, _exactly_ what Samples Per Inch (_not_ "SPI" which is taken) means for scanners, digicams and other image capture devices? Or have they? (Of course, I’d rather Samples Per Centimeter, but I’ll take what we can get.)
It would be a start.
Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" scribbled:Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads to industry adoption of that description.
Ladies and gentlemen – In this corner, wearing polka dots, weighing in at 98 lbs it’s the DPI Warrior! And in the other corner, weighing in at several ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:02:57 -0400, Uni
scribbled:Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" scribbled:Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads to industry adoption of that description.
Ladies and gentlemen – In this corner, wearing polka dots, weighing in at 98 lbs it’s the DPI Warrior! And in the other corner, weighing in at several ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..
And you’re back to having to edit people’s posts to get anyone to pay attention to you. Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed, pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?
Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?
It’s a concern of no one. Who cares if you state DPI, LPI, PPI, Dogs Per Inch, Lambs Per Inch or Parakeets Per Inch?
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 06/05/2004 1:00 PM:Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?
You really have no self control, do you.
Geri Panties wrote:
in article , Voivod at
wrote on 06/05/2004 1:00 PM:Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?
You really have no self control, do you.
Void lives in a fantasy world.
It’s a concern of no one. Who cares if you state DPI, LPI, PPI, Dogs Per Inch, Lambs Per Inch or Parakeets Per Inch? That MAIN thing, they’re all Per Inch!
It’s come up since people with little formal training or education have begun entering the design business, bringing their errors and their misconceptions with them.
A digital image is constructed of pixels
Wouldn’t you just add another element to existing confusion?
As long as the terminology was clearly understood and used properly, not at all. The PPI vs DPI issue is confusing solely because far too many people insist on using the two terms interchangeably, refusing to understand the difference and to use each in its proper context.
Also, can’t we all agree that dpi and ppi are sometimes synonyms?
Technically… not true. Only the screen display of the digital file is actually pixels.
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:08:46 -0400, Uni
wrote:
It’s a concern of no one. Who cares if you state DPI, LPI, PPI, Dogs Per Inch, Lambs Per Inch or Parakeets Per Inch? That MAIN thing, they’re all Per Inch!
Point taken. Agreed.
Also, can’t we all agree that dpi and ppi are sometimes synonyms?
Technically… not true. Only the screen display of the digital file is actually pixels.
Sorry, you are wrong on this. What do you propose a digital image is composed of then?
Also, can’t we all agree that dpi and ppi are sometimes synonyms?
Absolutely not, they are *never* synonyms regardless of common (mis)usage.
But I agree that this is a kind if nitpicking. The abstraction level most people work at is one higher: Pixels.
Michael
Interestingly enough, the academics that compile dictionaries would disagree.
Interestingly enough, the academics that compile dictionaries would disagree.
And they would be wrong, regardless of their academic credentials.
Oh, Ok. You’re right then I guess. People don’t use the terms as synonyms. My mistake.
While we’re at it let’s also nitpick…
Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
