Posted by oldami on 12/06/05 03:16

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass
<SNIP the rest of the expected rant>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net

Exactly the response I expected - all rant and no facts.
It is way too easy to yank your chain.

It would be easier for you to explain where I was wrong if you were not
always responding emotionally. I was attacking your explanation because
it was so lame. I knew what you were trying (and failing) to explain
and I knew I was wrong when I said a file has no "inherent" DPI.
(sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't)

You, as always, respond like a child with screams of moron and dumbass,
when an intelligent answer would have been far more effective. That, of
course, assumes that you don't do this for the enjoyment. I believe
that most of us know that assumption is wrong.

This whole argument can easily be settled by referring to
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/ppi/ppi.html
partially quoted below.

<QUOTE>
Many image formats, including JPG, include a "dots per inch" (dpi) or
"pixels per inch" (ppi) setting as part of the file. This setting is a
single number stored as part of the JPG file, and is used my most
programs in determining the scale at which to print the image. This
setting has no effect on screen image size in nearly all web browsers.
(Are there any that do?) The number is ignored by most software in
displaying images on screen, but is used frequently in determining print
size.
</QUOTE>

I doubt this will settle this issue, even though it supports your position.
-oldami

[Back to original message]