|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 12/06/05 01:45
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:12:14 -0500, oldami
<oldami@youcantgettherefromhere.com> wrote:
>This thread proves two things:
>
>1 - hatter can piss off people in any news group. It's his special talent.
Oh it's more than that...it's like an infectious disease, spreads
through a froup like wildfire and in some extreme cases can cause some
groups to rip themselves apart completely.
>2 - most people (even [alleged] professionals) interchange and misuse
>DPI vs PPI. I don't really give a shit.
For kids like you I'm sure it's VERY important to differentiate
between the two, but when you not in the junior league you can
interchange them easily as long as you're keeping them in a particular
context...printing, scanning, screen, etc.
>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"
Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass who thinks you can resize a
raster image to any size and it'll retain the same quality. Free
cl00, kiddie, even if you up yer res, it's still 72 pixels per inch,
altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but
it's STILL 72, you fucking moron. What, do you think your computer
can just MAKE UP pixels that don't exist? LOL
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|