|
|
Posted by oldami on 12/04/05 20:12
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Your stupidity is beyond amazing...check this out...
>
>
>>1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.
>
>
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png
>
> That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you're
> feeling especially stupid, MORON.
>
<SNIP>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
This thread proves two things:
1 - hatter can piss off people in any news group. It's his special talent.
2 - most people (even [alleged] professionals) interchange and misuse
DPI vs PPI. I don't really give a shit.
However, I can't pass up the chance to point out the obvious absurdity
of hatter's above comment. The specified image is 400 pixels across.
On my 19inch LCD at 1024x768 resolution, the image is 4.625 inches
across or 400/4.625 = 86.5 pixels per inch.
If I change my screen resolution to 800x600 the image appears to be
7.375 inches across or 400/7.375 = 54.2 pixels per inch.
I am sure there is some setting that would *render* the image at 72
pixels per inch, but the image itself exists independent of any specific
claim of being "EXACTLY 72..blah.blah.blah"
-oldami
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|