Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced

____ wrote:
In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

____ wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

So, when I used dpi, above to describe how many pixels I get off
of a film scanned at so many dpi, you still complain?

C'mon John!

Cheers,
Alan

When you bring the scanned image into photoshop the dimensions say
(x) pixels by (y) pixels not x dpi by y dpi..... thats a function
of your printer and unfortunately your scanner software.

Actually, when you bring the image into Photoshop, it will report
both x by y pixels and the resolution in ppi. Since dpi has been
historically associated with ppi because the application of the
terms is identical, there is no valid reason for confusion, and even
less for the misinformation that is being presented in this thread.
Dot gain is a non-issue w/r/t the ppi (or dpi) of the image, and
neither cameras nor scanners capture "dots" in any case.

So your point is? Very enlightening if dot gain is a non issue and
you had a printer that bleed all the colors into one big dot per inch
would you buy it (I think not)...likewise how about a camera that
captured a single pixel as big as the sensor?

Neither of these is a quality of the image. One refers to the behavior of a
printer, and the other has nothing to do with "dots", as I stated, above.

One would think the designers of the printers are counting the dots
based on a grid and how much their ink spreads, at the base of that
grid is math and one top of that the over lay of pixel instructions
given by the file.

Suppose your output is to a Lambda, an imagesetter, or a huge screen at a
ballpark? If you want to talk about the behavior of printers, you needn't
refer to images at all. ;-)

--
Neil

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Use a different scanner and that same image can have other pixel
matrix parameters, ergo, ppi is an abstraction that has nothing to
do with the image itself.

Of course it has.
It determines what the yet still not existing image will be.
The original is x inches wide, the scanner scans with y ppi, the
image will be x*y pixels wide. No more, no less, exactly that.
How's that something that has nothing to do with the image itself???

Because, in your example, the image in question is in the film, and ppi has
no meaning to that image.

A print consists of dots of ink, thrown, or transferred onto a bit
of paper. There too the machinery involved and technique it uses is
setting limits to what the picture it produces can be. It has very
much to do with the image itself.

This process has only to do with the conversion of an image into what
should
be considered a representation of the original image (for many
reasons).

What?

It has to do with what the image on paper will and will not be.
Sure it is an representation of another image. So?
It's the image the entire printing process is working to create. If
not important, because only a secondary image, why bother at all?

Because one wants to have copies of the original image. However, that is not
an issue of ppi, is it? Suppose that copy of the image will be presented on
a large screen? One pixel on that screen could be several inches across.
Same image, same readout in the image editor, but, what is the meaning of
ppi in that context?

But however you may think about a print, this is the only context in
which DPI really makes sense.

On this, we agree. It is a quality of a printed representation of the image.

Wait a second. When I press the MLU button, the mirror stays up
(locks) until something resets it. There is no obligation to *ever*
"release" anything other than the MLU, and then only if you want the
mirror to return
to its previous position. So, I'm very interested in hearing your
rationale
for calling the MLU function a mirror "pre-release" function.

It's in the "until something resets it" bit.
Only a few cameras out of many offer as that 'something' you deciding
it is time to let the mirror come down again.
In most, the mirror 'locks up' only until the camera is wound after
the very first exposure made since the mirror was 'locked up'.
Yet people always (!) talk about "MLU" when all they have is
pre-release. Makes you wonder, if that should be called "lock up",
what true lock up should be called.

So, you aren't arguing that there is not a MLU function, but that some
cameras lack one (btw, every manual SLR I have has MLU)? That sounds like a
reason to add a term, not eliminate one.

So why not try to set this "dpi" thing straight too?

Toward what end? ;-)

To set it straight. What else?
;-)

Many think that there is something important about, for example 300
ppi, and
I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size of the
pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as interpolation
values and image size.

--
Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

No, Neil. There is another image too.
The one that is being created in the scanning proces.
And as said before, it matters a lot for that image.

How so, given that pixels have no physical size? Since the "i" stands for
"inch", your argument would equally valid for pixels per ounce, but we can
readily see the absurdity of that notion.

Your a hard nut to crack, Neil. ;-)

First: as long as the image has a size, pixels have a size.
As simple as that.

Second, and back to the scanning: the sensor in the scanner has a size too.
It divedes that size into a fixed number of discrete elements, which
eventually become pixels.

Third: these diversions get you nowhere. The absurdity is completely yours.
;-)

Just to be clear, my statement was not that the terms "mean one and the
same
thing". It is that their usage is relevant to the same application, and
therefore anyone that needs to know such things won't be confused.

That must be the thing making it so difficult to get through to you. ;-)
The usage is correct for one application, incorrect for another.
You think that it doesn't matter, so you think it doesn't matter. No matter
what is explained to you, or how it is explained to you.
Where will this end, i wonder... ;-)

But sticking to your "suppose": as long as the monitor has a fixed
size, and the 'resolution' of the display is that too, there is not
only a ppi, but since a single pixel on screen is composed of three
colour dots, also a dpi.

So, the idea of 0.037 ppi is more useful to you somehow than knowing the
matrix size of the screen (the actual value that those creating such
images
use, btw)?

Nope. Why would you think such a thing?
It is - as mentioned - another instance, besides printing, in which DPI
makes sense.

What's more,

More than what?

there is no use that I know of for the "three colour
dots" in the screen. Each image pixel will always use some combination of
those dots as a single screen location (screen pixel might be a useful
notion), and once again, there is no relevance to the "inch" value.

You're still completely wrong about the no relevance bit.
I'll help you, but only a bit. You still have to think about this yourself:
why do people buy larger monitors (more inches) when they need a larger
"pixel matrix" to be displayed on their monitors?

But you are right about the dots and pixels bit. So now open your mind, and
also try to understand what you (yes, you! ;-) ) are telling us here.
I'l help you here too: there are dots (per inch, no less), and pixels (also
per inch), and the two are not the same.


No, it doesn't make sense and really never did. For analog screens, the
measurement of resolution was in vertical lines and horizontal frequency
that was also expressed in "lines" for convenience. There is no
correlation
between analog screen resolution and inches, as monitors from 4" to 32" or
more had identical resolution values!

You are really starting to worry me now. ;-)

Your "identical resolution value" pixel matrix on a 20" screen will have
larger pixels than that same pixel matrix on a 9" screen, right?
The pixel matrix size being the same, the size of the screen (in inches),
not, the count of pixels per inch is not the same, right?

The dpi notion was a marketing ploy introduced by Apple when they were
selling the orignal Mac to the print industry. [...]

Now see that my worries were justified!? ;-)


So who was trying to eliminate a term???

Maybe - quite probable, even - that's why terms get used in ways they
should not: people don't bother to read, and understand, properly.
Now that also makes me want to ask you what cameras you have that
have a true lock up...
;-)

See above.

To find what?

There is a lever that locks the mirror up on my manual SLRs, and
that is not an atypical feature on professional cameras.

You haven't answered the question about eliminating terms, so i'm still
wondering whether you are on the same page as the rest of us.

And you haven't answered the question about what cameras you have that offer
mirror lock up.
Almost all cameras have a lever that flips up the mirror, yes. Great.
But until when?

Come on, Neil! Spill the beans!

I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size of
the pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as
interpolation values and image size.

All depends on context, Neil.
When i want to have a "pixel matrix", as you call it, to do things
to, it would be nice to know that i get one that measures more than
2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25" negative.

What one _should_ know in such a usage is that one is unlikely to get 2x2
pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. ;-)

And that crossing the road in front of a heavy truck hurtling at great speed
in your direction might have an extremely painful outcome...

What usage are you talking about?
That of terms that are nothing but a completely unimportant, irrelevant
even, marketing ploy? And then, still, "_should_"?
Does all of that still make sense to you? For i can't see what sense that
still could be.

But no: i really do. You are agreeing that ppi is a useful and meaningful
concept.
Just like you have agreed above that dpi is too.
And just like you have agreed that dpi and ppi are different thingies, so
using both terms interchangeably is wrong.

The only thing still outstanding is your answer about this mirror lock up
thing.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Because, in your example, the image in question is in the film, and
ppi has no meaning to that image.

No, Neil. There is another image too.
The one that is being created in the scanning proces.
And as said before, it matters a lot for that image.

How so, given that pixels have no physical size? Since the "i" stands for
"inch", your argument would equally valid for pixels per ounce, but we can
readily see the absurdity of that notion.

Because one wants to have copies of the original image. However,
that is not an issue of ppi, is it?

No.
It's a matter where dpi makes sense.
And where the difference between ppi and dpi (and the fault in using
both expressions as meaning one and the same thing) is evident.

Just to be clear, my statement was not that the terms "mean one and the same
thing". It is that their usage is relevant to the same application, and
therefore anyone that needs to know such things won't be confused.

Suppose that copy of the image will be presented on
a large screen? One pixel on that screen could be several inches
across. Same image, same readout in the image editor, but, what is
the meaning of ppi in that context?

Yes. Let begin to suppose all kinds of scenarios, and see if, and if
so how, ppi make sense in any one of them.

But sticking to your "suppose": as long as the monitor has a fixed
size, and the 'resolution' of the display is that too, there is not
only a ppi, but since a single pixel on screen is composed of three
colour dots, also a dpi.

So, the idea of 0.037 ppi is more useful to you somehow than knowing the
matrix size of the screen (the actual value that those creating such images
use, btw)? What's more, there is no use that I know of for the "three colour
dots" in the screen. Each image pixel will always use some combination of
those dots as a single screen location (screen pixel might be a useful
notion), and once again, there is no relevance to the "inch" value.

But however you may think about a print, this is the only context in
which DPI really makes sense.

On this, we agree. It is a quality of a printed representation of the
image.

I don't anymore.
That dot-pitch of monitors also is a dpi, which really makes sense.
;-).

No, it doesn't make sense and really never did. For analog screens, the
measurement of resolution was in vertical lines and horizontal frequency
that was also expressed in "lines" for convenience. There is no correlation
between analog screen resolution and inches, as monitors from 4" to 32" or
more had identical resolution values!

The dpi notion was a marketing ploy introduced by Apple when they were
selling the orignal Mac to the print industry. Their 8" x 8" screens had the
equivalent of 72 dpi, which would supposedly correlate with the typographic
72 points per inch. Of course, it was quickly dropped because in actual use
it was a pointless virtue. ;-) The Mac feature that was adopted throughout
the industry at about that time was a square aspect ratio for screen pixels.
With the advent of monitors with fixed matrices (LCD, plasma, etc.), it is
the matrix size that is used for composition, and there is no correlation
between that value and inches for the same reasons as for the analog
screens.

So, you aren't arguing that there is not a MLU function, but that
some cameras lack one (btw, every manual SLR I have has MLU)? That
sounds like a reason to add a term, not eliminate one.

So who was trying to eliminate a term???

Maybe - quite probable, even - that's why terms get used in ways they
should not: people don't bother to read, and understand, properly.
Now that also makes me want to ask you what cameras you have that
have a true lock up...
;-)

See above. There is a lever that locks the mirror up on my manual SLRs, and
that is not an atypical feature on professional cameras.

I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size of
the pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as
interpolation values and image size.

All depends on context, Neil.
When i want to have a "pixel matrix", as you call it, to do things
to, it would be nice to know that i get one that measures more than
2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25" negative.

What one _should_ know in such a usage is that one is unlikely to get 2x2
pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. ;-)

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

First: as long as the image has a size, pixels have a size.
As simple as that.

Since you maintain that a pixel has a particular size, tell me what that
size is. As simple as that.

On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed on a
surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that this
calculation will not be too difficult for you.

Sigh.

Indeed.

Perhaps you should examine the actual pixel matrix of screens before
making
such claims. To address your question: a larger screen does not always
come
with a larger pixel matrix. Take a look at video projector resolutions,
for
example. Big screen, lots of inches, relatively few pixels. There is no
requisite correlation between the pixel size and inches.

It's staring you in the face, coming out of your mouth, yet you do not see
it...

Of course larger screens do not always (sic) come with a larger pixel
matrix. Doesn't matter.
So put that out of your mind, and look at what you wrote. Again and again,
if necessary, until you see that you are talking about pixels sizes and PPI.

I understand quite well what I'm telling you here. I don't think it's
getting across, though, as you repeatedly assert that I state ppi and dpi
to
be "the same".

You are saying that the terms are used interchangeably, and that there is
nothing wrong with that.

Again, what is the size of a pixel in a digital representation of an
image?

Where does this "in a digital representation" suddenly come from?

And perhaps more importantly, why would you think there are pixels in a
digital representation of an image?


To begin with, my excerpt that you are replying to refers to analog
monitors, which have no pixel matrix. They have only a number of vertical
scan lines and horizontal scan frequencies. In that context, resolution is
independent of screen size, as a 4" monitor (typical in broadcast
environments) may have (for example) a 480 x 720 line resolution, and so
might the 20" monitor that the viewer watches. There is no mention of
"inches" in the resolution values for these monitors, as it is not a
relevant factor.

Indeed.
That's why i completely ignored that irrelevant bit you brought up, and
skipped right to the relevant bit.
Which is that these analogue monitors are used to display "pixel matrices",
which in turn are used to show images.

However, to address your questions; I agree with the first one. So, the
digital image that has a 1:1 correlation with the pixel matrix now has two
s
izes.

Great! Finally!

If ppi was a meaningful value, this couldn't happen.

Alas. Too soon...

Your male member has a size.
If it is functioning well its size is not a singe, fixed one.
So talk about the size of your appendage is meaningless. If it were
meaningful, your private part could not change size.

See how wrong, silly even, your thinking is? ;-)

I have no idea what you are getting at with the second question due to its
wording. Sorry.

Yes, a "," too many.
It simply states that if your above mentioned appendage at one time measures
a certain number of marks on a measuring rod, and another time another
number of marks, it still has a measure counted in numbers of marks, no
matter that you think that all that matters is that you have only a single
appendage.

Oh? If you disagree with that statement, please explain why. OTOH, I've
got
the Mac and worked through that period in the print industry (actually
from
the 1960's on, but back then that was purely analog work). ;-)

Good for you!

So you worked with screens? How, again, were they measured?
Using a term that was no more but a marketing hype of Linotype-Hell?

You haven't answered the question about eliminating terms, so i'm
still wondering whether you are on the same page as the rest of us.

I thought we in essence agreed that you intended the addition of a term
rather than elimination of MLU. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Again, you worry me. ;-)
You were clear enough, don't worry about that.
But you should worry about how you fail to (or, as i suspect, not even try
to) understand what other peole say.
If only so i'm not alone in this. Preferably though so you do start to
understand. ;-)

I have never mentioned i wanted to eliminate a term.
Have in fact before also mentioned that i do not intend to eliminate a term.
And yet you think we agreed that i wanted to eliminate a term???

See why i wonder about that "same page" thingy?

In the case of my manual SLR cameras, e.g. Olympus OM-1, the mirror stays
up
until the lever is returned to the "mirror down" position (the OM-1 does
not
return the mirror when the shutter is fired).

Indeed. That's one of the few.
Which else?

I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi".
;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size
of the pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as
interpolation values and image size.

All depends on context, Neil.
When i want to have a "pixel matrix", as you call it, to do things
to, it would be nice to know that i get one that measures more than
2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25" negative.

What one _should_ know in such a usage is that one is unlikely to
get 2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. ;-)

And that crossing the road in front of a heavy truck hurtling at
great speed in your direction might have an extremely painful
outcome...

What usage are you talking about?

The usage is scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. How did you lose track of that
one so quickly? ;-)

So the usage of PPI is now joined by the usage that "is scanning a 2.25x2.25
negative"???

When was the last time that you got a 2x2 pixel matrix in that process? It
can be done, but not without some deliberate effort, so just "to know that
I
get one that measures more than 2x2 pixels" should not be a concern. ;-)

So now you finally do acknowledge the importance of PPI...

That of terms that are nothing but a completely unimportant,
irrelevant even, marketing ploy?

With regard to ppi on an analog monitor screen? Yes. A simple ruler proves
the point (pun intended).

.... but then again, you're still in the twilight zone.

You can measure the screen, know how many pixels are displayed on it, yet
putting the two together is nothing, merely a marketing ploy.

And then, still, "_should_"?
Does all of that still make sense to you? For i can't see what sense
that still could be.

I do get that impression. However, that may well be limited to your own
understanding of what I wrote.

LOL!

So here's a suggestion (i believe i have suggested something similar above):
You reread what you wrote. Do it once again for good measure. And then come
back here and tell us what coherent sense you have discovered in what you
wrote.

But no: i really do. You are agreeing that ppi is a useful and
meaningful concept.

As an abstract approximation for a particular application, yes. Useful,
sometimes, meaningful, not so much (again, what size is a digital image's
pixel?).

"A simple ruler proves the point (pun intended)."


Just like you have agreed above that dpi is too.

Definitely, but that doesn't apply to digital images since they lack
"dots".

That depends. If the output device uses dots, the images these things are
displaying certainly do not lack dots.
A monitor, for instance, has dots. Any image you see on a monitor therefor
has dots. And it can be measured in those dots too.
Nothing difficult about that.

And just like you have agreed that dpi and ppi are different
thingies, so using both terms interchangeably is wrong.

The terms apply to approximating the size and/or resolution of a digital
image when printed, and those that need to know such things won't be
confused by interchanging their use in conversation. What I find curious
is
that you don't wonder why that might be. But, then again, it seems to me
that your interest may be limited to the pedantic rather than practical
issues. ;-)

Again an assumption. An irrelevant one too, so one to ignore really. But
hey!

Irrelevant, because i too know what people might mean when they misuse these
terms, because i know what the terms really mean, what their proper usage
is.
Irrelevant, because all we have done is establish that there are people who
understand what should have been said. The thing, of course, is that this is
not making the misuse any more correct. Usingthe terms interchangeably still
is as wrong as it ever was.

Perhaps you are a parent, but even if not you'll know and understand:
children, while in the proces of trying to grasp a language, make lots and
lots of mistakes. Most adults understand what they are trying to say most of
the time anyway.
So should parents and teachers stop correcting them, stop trying to teach
them what they should have said instead?

So, I agree with the inaccuracy of interchangably using the two terms, and
still say that it is moot for most practical purposes.

See above: only for as long as people understand the silly mistake anyway,
still know what the terms really mean.
Lose that, and general ignorance increases once again.

The only thing still outstanding is your answer about this mirror
lock up thing.

Answered, see above.

Nope.
You managed to find just one camera that offers true mirror lock up.
Unless that is "every manual SLR [you] have", there is still an answer to be
expected.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

No, Neil. There is another image too.
The one that is being created in the scanning proces.
And as said before, it matters a lot for that image.

How so, given that pixels have no physical size? Since the "i"
stands for "inch", your argument would equally valid for pixels per
ounce, but we can readily see the absurdity of that notion.

Your a hard nut to crack, Neil. ;-)

First: as long as the image has a size, pixels have a size.
As simple as that.

Since you maintain that a pixel has a particular size, tell me what that
size is. As simple as that.

But sticking to your "suppose": as long as the monitor has a fixed
size, and the 'resolution' of the display is that too, there is not
only a ppi, but since a single pixel on screen is composed of three
colour dots, also a dpi.

So, the idea of 0.037 ppi is more useful to you somehow than knowing
the matrix size of the screen (the actual value that those creating
such images use, btw)?

Nope. Why would you think such a thing?
It is - as mentioned - another instance, besides printing, in which
DPI makes sense.

Sigh.

What's more,

More than what?

there is no use that I know of for the "three colour
dots" in the screen. Each image pixel will always use some
combination of those dots as a single screen location (screen pixel
might be a useful notion), and once again, there is no relevance to
the "inch" value.

You're still completely wrong about the no relevance bit.
I'll help you, but only a bit. You still have to think about this
yourself: why do people buy larger monitors (more inches) when they
need a larger "pixel matrix" to be displayed on their monitors?

Perhaps you should examine the actual pixel matrix of screens before making
such claims. To address your question: a larger screen does not always come
with a larger pixel matrix. Take a look at video projector resolutions, for
example. Big screen, lots of inches, relatively few pixels. There is no
requisite correlation between the pixel size and inches.

But you are right about the dots and pixels bit. So now open your
mind, and also try to understand what you (yes, you! ;-) ) are
telling us here.

I'l help you here too: there are dots (per inch, no less), and pixels
(also per inch), and the two are not the same.

I understand quite well what I'm telling you here. I don't think it's
getting across, though, as you repeatedly assert that I state ppi and dpi to
be "the same".

Again, what is the size of a pixel in a digital representation of an image?

No, it doesn't make sense and really never did. For analog screens,
the measurement of resolution was in vertical lines and horizontal
frequency that was also expressed in "lines" for convenience. There
is no correlation
between analog screen resolution and inches, as monitors from 4" to
32" or more had identical resolution values!

You are really starting to worry me now. ;-)

Your "identical resolution value" pixel matrix on a 20" screen will
have larger pixels than that same pixel matrix on a 9" screen, right?
The pixel matrix size being the same, the size of the screen (in
inches), not, the count of pixels per inch is not the same, right?

To begin with, my excerpt that you are replying to refers to analog
monitors, which have no pixel matrix. They have only a number of vertical
scan lines and horizontal scan frequencies. In that context, resolution is
independent of screen size, as a 4" monitor (typical in broadcast
environments) may have (for example) a 480 x 720 line resolution, and so
might the 20" monitor that the viewer watches. There is no mention of
"inches" in the resolution values for these monitors, as it is not a
relevant factor.

However, to address your questions; I agree with the first one. So, the
digital image that has a 1:1 correlation with the pixel matrix now has two s
izes. If ppi was a meaningful value, this couldn't happen.

I have no idea what you are getting at with the second question due to its
wording. Sorry.

The dpi notion was a marketing ploy introduced by Apple when they
were selling the orignal Mac to the print industry. [...]

Now see that my worries were justified!? ;-)

Oh? If you disagree with that statement, please explain why. OTOH, I've got
the Mac and worked through that period in the print industry (actually from
the 1960's on, but back then that was purely analog work). ;-)

There is a lever that locks the mirror up on my manual SLRs, and
that is not an atypical feature on professional cameras.

You haven't answered the question about eliminating terms, so i'm
still wondering whether you are on the same page as the rest of us.

I thought we in essence agreed that you intended the addition of a term
rather than elimination of MLU. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

And you haven't answered the question about what cameras you have
that offer mirror lock up.
Almost all cameras have a lever that flips up the mirror, yes. Great.
But until when?

In the case of my manual SLR cameras, e.g. Olympus OM-1, the mirror stays up
until the lever is returned to the "mirror down" position (the OM-1 does not
return the mirror when the shutter is fired).

I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi".
;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size
of the pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as
interpolation values and image size.

All depends on context, Neil.
When i want to have a "pixel matrix", as you call it, to do things
to, it would be nice to know that i get one that measures more than
2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25" negative.

What one _should_ know in such a usage is that one is unlikely to
get 2x2 pixels when scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. ;-)

And that crossing the road in front of a heavy truck hurtling at
great speed in your direction might have an extremely painful
outcome...

What usage are you talking about?

The usage is scanning a 2.25x2.25 negative. How did you lose track of that
one so quickly? ;-)

When was the last time that you got a 2x2 pixel matrix in that process? It
can be done, but not without some deliberate effort, so just "to know that I
get one that measures more than 2x2 pixels" should not be a concern. ;-)

That of terms that are nothing but a completely unimportant,
irrelevant even, marketing ploy?

With regard to ppi on an analog monitor screen? Yes. A simple ruler proves
the point (pun intended).

And then, still, "_should_"?
Does all of that still make sense to you? For i can't see what sense
that still could be.

I do get that impression. However, that may well be limited to your own
understanding of what I wrote.

But no: i really do. You are agreeing that ppi is a useful and
meaningful concept.

As an abstract approximation for a particular application, yes. Useful,
sometimes, meaningful, not so much (again, what size is a digital image's
pixel?).

Just like you have agreed above that dpi is too.

Definitely, but that doesn't apply to digital images since they lack "dots".

And just like you have agreed that dpi and ppi are different
thingies, so using both terms interchangeably is wrong.

The terms apply to approximating the size and/or resolution of a digital
image when printed, and those that need to know such things won't be
confused by interchanging their use in conversation. What I find curious is
that you don't wonder why that might be. But, then again, it seems to me
that your interest may be limited to the pedantic rather than practical
issues. ;-)

So, I agree with the inaccuracy of interchangably using the two terms, and
still say that it is moot for most practical purposes.

The only thing still outstanding is your answer about this mirror
lock up thing.

Answered, see above.

--
Neil

The Kat wrote:

On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed on a
surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").

That would be ONE 'pixel set', others would be different sizes,
and different pixel counts, NOT necessarily directly proportional.

Great news! Thanks for sharing. Just what we needed, but were struggling to
find!

ARE you even aware that pixel stands for 'picture element'??

Are you really an asshole?? REALLY??

Better try to understand what something is about before budding in with
silly comments that show that you don't.

Neil Gould wrote:

On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed on a
surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that this
calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the digital
image, which is the topic at hand.

No. The size of pixels is the topic at hand.
If they have no size, an image consisting of 1024 pixels wide would not show
on the monitor. An image of 1,024,000 would not either.
To fill the monitor... you do the maths.

I have said that there will be no lack of communication with those who
need
to know. As long as you're being pedantic, at least acknowledge the
difference between our statements. ;-)

There isn't one to acknowledge. Even when trying to be extremely pedantic
there isn't.
People understand what they are saying ("there is no lack of
communication"), even though the terms are used incorrectly.

Where does this "in a digital representation" suddenly come from?

It's not "sudden" if you go back to my first reply and read the context.
This is merely a clarification of where I think we diverged into the
current
disagreement.

I see.
But then, Neil, the thing is still unresolved. You are still wrong in
thinking that pixels only have an abstract being.

And perhaps more importantly, why would you think there are pixels in
a digital representation of an image?

Because that is where PIcture ELements exist.

They do not. Only bits exist in a digital representation. A file does not
contain pixels.
The information content, the logical representation does contain pixels.

They do not exist in prints,
for example.

Well... again/still, that depends on how you look at them.

Using a term that was no more but a marketing hype of Linotype-Hell?

Where did you get THAT notion?

The same place you got the notion that DPI is a marketing ploy intoduced by
Apple.

Still, it's an interesting error on your part
to introduce Linotype-Hell into the discussion, as it would erode your
argument if you understood their product line, customer base, and the
history of these terms.

I'm sorry, Neil, but that's even more meaningless waffle.

Instead, why don't you answer the thing about printing screens. You know
(you must, since you have extensive experience in the business), the things
that have an anlogue of "dpi", Apple's marketing ploy.


I have never mentioned i wanted to eliminate a term.
Have in fact before also mentioned that i do not intend to eliminate
a term. And yet you think we agreed that i wanted to eliminate a
term???

Where did you get THAT notion? If you are going to be pedantic, please be
consistent! ;-) Your claim is the antithesis of what I wrote, above.

Yes. And i apologize. I missed how you 'cunningly' switched from assuming i
wanted to eliminate a term to assuming i wanted to add a term.
Neither is correct, of course. This whole subthread is about the proper use
of existing terms. So is this. From the beginning still is. Except in your
wayward way of assuming things.

So now you finally do acknowledge the importance of PPI...

If you are concerned about inadvertently getting a 2x2 pixel matrix when
you
are scanning your negatives, I'd think that ppi is of least "importance".

If it is not, what am i worrying about?

You can measure the screen, know how many pixels are displayed on it,
yet putting the two together is nothing, merely a marketing ploy.

Again, you are talking about your monitor, not the digital image.

No. I'm talking about (i'll name it all) how dots of a given size are used
to present a digital image, in such a way that three dots are used to form
one pixel, and thus about how pixels too have a size.
On that monitor, yes. But we have mentioned context before, so no need to go
over that again (i hope).

As an abstract approximation for a particular application, yes.
Useful, sometimes, meaningful, not so much (again, what size is a
digital image's pixel?).

"A simple ruler proves the point (pun intended)."

Oh. Now you have a way to place a ruler on a pixel? I lack that
capability.

Obviously.
The question we are discussing here all the time is whether that is a one of
your personal shortcomings, or an inpossibility.
I agree with you, that you lack that capability. ;-)

For the rest, i will refer to the maths i have proposed earlier. The one you
are still supposed to be able to solve.

So should parents and teachers stop correcting them, stop trying to
teach them what they should have said instead?

In that respect, should this conversation end until you start using the
term
"pixel" correctly, or should we continue based on my understanding what
you
meant to say? ;-)

This conversation should stop the moment you are taught, and have shown to
understand, what "pixel" truly means.
Or when one of us gets bored, of course. ;-)

It appears that my "assumption" was not only correct, but entirely
relevant
to the basis for our disagreement. And, since the pedantic aspect appears
to
be the extent of your concern, we can move on.

Back to square one: people who correct your mistakes are pedantic oafs, not
because your mistakes would indeed not be mistakes, but because they are
being corrected. How dare they!
And you know what you mean anyway, so there!

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

First: as long as the image has a size, pixels have a size.
As simple as that.

Since you maintain that a pixel has a particular size, tell me what
that size is. As simple as that.

On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed on a
surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that this
calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the digital
image, which is the topic at hand.

I understand quite well what I'm telling you here. I don't think it's
getting across, though, as you repeatedly assert that I state ppi
and dpi to
be "the same".

You are saying that the terms are used interchangeably, and that
there is nothing wrong with that.

I have said that there will be no lack of communication with those who need
to know. As long as you're being pedantic, at least acknowledge the
difference between our statements. ;-)

Again, what is the size of a pixel in a digital representation of an
image?

Where does this "in a digital representation" suddenly come from?

It's not "sudden" if you go back to my first reply and read the context.
This is merely a clarification of where I think we diverged into the current
disagreement.

And perhaps more importantly, why would you think there are pixels in
a digital representation of an image?

Because that is where PIcture ELements exist. They do not exist in prints,
for example.

Using a term that was no more but a marketing hype of Linotype-Hell?

Where did you get THAT notion? Still, it's an interesting error on your part
to introduce Linotype-Hell into the discussion, as it would erode your
argument if you understood their product line, customer base, and the
history of these terms.

You haven't answered the question about eliminating terms, so i'm
still wondering whether you are on the same page as the rest of us.

I thought we in essence agreed that you intended the addition of a
term rather than elimination of MLU. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Again, you worry me. ;-)
You were clear enough, don't worry about that.
But you should worry about how you fail to (or, as i suspect, not
even try to) understand what other peole say.
If only so i'm not alone in this. Preferably though so you do start to
understand. ;-)

I have never mentioned i wanted to eliminate a term.
Have in fact before also mentioned that i do not intend to eliminate
a term. And yet you think we agreed that i wanted to eliminate a
term???

Where did you get THAT notion? If you are going to be pedantic, please be
consistent! ;-) Your claim is the antithesis of what I wrote, above.

When was the last time that you got a 2x2 pixel matrix in that
process? It can be done, but not without some deliberate effort, so
just "to know that I
get one that measures more than 2x2 pixels" should not be a concern.
;-)

So now you finally do acknowledge the importance of PPI...

If you are concerned about inadvertently getting a 2x2 pixel matrix when you
are scanning your negatives, I'd think that ppi is of least "importance".

You can measure the screen, know how many pixels are displayed on it,
yet putting the two together is nothing, merely a marketing ploy.

Again, you are talking about your monitor, not the digital image.

But no: i really do. You are agreeing that ppi is a useful and
meaningful concept.

As an abstract approximation for a particular application, yes.
Useful, sometimes, meaningful, not so much (again, what size is a
digital image's pixel?).

"A simple ruler proves the point (pun intended)."

Oh. Now you have a way to place a ruler on a pixel? I lack that capability.

And just like you have agreed that dpi and ppi are different
thingies, so using both terms interchangeably is wrong.

The terms apply to approximating the size and/or resolution of a
digital image when printed, and those that need to know such things
won't be confused by interchanging their use in conversation. What
I find curious is
that you don't wonder why that might be. But, then again, it seems
to me that your interest may be limited to the pedantic rather than
practical issues. ;-)

Again an assumption. An irrelevant one too, so one to ignore really.
But hey!

Irrelevant, because i too know what people might mean when they
misuse these terms, because i know what the terms really mean, what
their proper usage is.
Irrelevant, because all we have done is establish that there are
people who understand what should have been said. The thing, of
course, is that this is not making the misuse any more correct.
Usingthe terms interchangeably still is as wrong as it ever was.

Perhaps you are a parent, but even if not you'll know and understand:
children, while in the proces of trying to grasp a language, make
lots and lots of mistakes. Most adults understand what they are
trying to say most of the time anyway.
So should parents and teachers stop correcting them, stop trying to
teach them what they should have said instead?

In that respect, should this conversation end until you start using the term
"pixel" correctly, or should we continue based on my understanding what you
meant to say? ;-)

So, I agree with the inaccuracy of interchangably using the two
terms, and still say that it is moot for most practical purposes.

See above: only for as long as people understand the silly mistake
anyway, still know what the terms really mean.
Lose that, and general ignorance increases once again.

It appears that my "assumption" was not only correct, but entirely relevant
to the basis for our disagreement. And, since the pedantic aspect appears to
be the extent of your concern, we can move on.

Best,

Neil

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed
on a surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that
this calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the
digital image, which is the topic at hand.

No. The size of pixels is the topic at hand.
If they have no size, an image consisting of 1024 pixels wide would
not show on the monitor. An image of 1,024,000 would not either.
To fill the monitor... you do the maths.

Here is my position in a nutshell:

Pixels in digital image files do not have a finite size, ergo, pixels per
inch is an abstraction, not a quality of the digital image.

Where does this "in a digital representation" suddenly come from?

It's not "sudden" if you go back to my first reply and read the
context. This is merely a clarification of where I think we diverged
into the current disagreement.

I see.
But then, Neil, the thing is still unresolved. You are still wrong in
thinking that pixels only have an abstract being.

To be clear, I think that ppi are an abstraction. I have not said that
"pixels only have an abstract being", as pixels exist as mathematical
constructs within a digital image file as well as in physical
representations on monitor screens, providing that the monitors are showing
a picture at the time. ;-)

And perhaps more importantly, why would you think there are pixels
in a digital representation of an image?

Because that is where PIcture ELements exist.

They do not. Only bits exist in a digital representation. A file does
not contain pixels.

Well, OK, then, you disagree with the term "pixel" as used in image editors,
viewers, scanners, and by those who programmatically access the particular
mathematical constructs within an image file that define a specific location
within that image. We can agree to disagree about this.

The information content, the logical representation does contain
pixels.

They do not exist in prints,
for example.

Well... again/still, that depends on how you look at them.

We can disagree about this, as well.

Using a term that was no more but a marketing hype of Linotype-Hell?

Where did you get THAT notion?

The same place you got the notion that DPI is a marketing ploy
intoduced by Apple.

As it applied to monitors, which was the context of that comment.

Instead, why don't you answer the thing about printing screens. You
know (you must, since you have extensive experience in the business),
the things that have an anlogue of "dpi", Apple's marketing ploy.

Printing screens, if electronically generated have both a dpi and an lpi,
neither of which is analogous to Apple's use of dpi in the Mac/+ monitor
screen (previously explained). Prior to Apple's usage, there was no need for
concern about the dpi of monitors, as the only application for digital
images was for video output, where dpi had no useful meaning, since
resolution was defined in lines, not dots. And, the reasons given for their
application of the term to their monitors turned out to be invalid, so, yes,
I'd call it Apple's marketing ploy.

I have never mentioned i wanted to eliminate a term.
Have in fact before also mentioned that i do not intend to eliminate
a term. And yet you think we agreed that i wanted to eliminate a
term???

Where did you get THAT notion? If you are going to be pedantic,
please be consistent! ;-) Your claim is the antithesis of what I
wrote, above.

Yes. And i apologize. I missed how you 'cunningly' switched from
assuming i wanted to eliminate a term to assuming i wanted to add a
term.

I stand corrected, as I misunderstood your statement, "I, for one, are hard
working trying to irradicate the use of "mirror lock up" when pre-release is
meant. And would you believe it, signs are beginning to show that people
take notice!".

Neither is correct, of course. This whole subthread is about the
proper use of existing terms. So is this. From the beginning still
is. Except in your wayward way of assuming things.

For me, this subthread has been about communication rather than pedantry.
For example, there seems to be an inconsistancy in the use of the term
"pre-release" w/r/t photography such that it may lead to less understanding
of the function of the mirror control (Google photography+"pre-release"). It
seems to me your hard work to use an ambiguous term to replace a term that
in practical use is likely to be functionally identical to the
photographers' intention sums up this subthread quite neatly. ;-)

In that respect, should this conversation end until you start using
the term
"pixel" correctly, or should we continue based on my understanding
what you
meant to say? ;-)

This conversation should stop the moment you are taught, and have
shown to understand, what "pixel" truly means.

If you insist that the original use of the term "pixel" is the only valid
definition of the term, then you can not assert that a printed image has
pixels, no matter "how you look at them". If you accept that the term has
evolved beyond its original usage, then you can not deny the use of the term
in other contexts (such as in digital image files). If you insist that both
of your assertions are true, then it is up to you to reconcile these claims
if you wish to communicate.

Back to square one: people who correct your mistakes are pedantic
oafs, not because your mistakes would indeed not be mistakes, but
because they are being corrected. How dare they!

Now, it is you making wayward assumptions. I have called noone an oaf, and
would not consider you to be one. At most, we disagree about some things.

To clarify your misunderstanding: people who correct my mistakes are often
helpful. The process of correcting my mistakes is often helpful in many
ways. Those who insist that their "correction" is correct when it is not can
also lead to a helpful dialogue, though not quite as often. ;-)

And you know what you mean anyway, so there!

Fortunately, as do others.

--
Neil