2009/8/11 Michael Stevens <bigm...@bigmikes.org>: > -----Original Message----- > From: hramr...@gmail.com [mailto:hramr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michal > Suchanek > >>The problem is that the physical size is what the user sees, not the pixel > resolution. That's why it's better to avoid pixels and specify sizes in > points or other physical units where possible. > -- > > Agreed. But using px vs % vs em is not at all the topic. > >>Most monitor brochures do mention DPI or its inverse - the pixel pitch. So > any moderately knowledgeable electronics salesman can tell you they don't > have any 72 DPI monitors. > -- > > You must have some really smart salesmen where you are... My experience is > that not many people know a great deal.
Well, around here many can read the brochures which is pretty much as far as their "knowledge" goes. > > Case in point would be this entire discussion. Anyone "moderately > knowledgable" in computers will tell you a monitor's RESOLUTION (the > origional question) is measured ONLY by pixels wide by pixels tall. A > monitor can have a value that is labelled dots/pixels per inch but that is > not a monitor's resolution. That is also called resolution. That's why the question was resolution (DPI) to tell it apart from the number of pixels. > > And asking for a value that can range from 20 or less to 120 or more is a > waste of time, IMO. It's more like 90-150 for common screens with lower values if you use something like a TV for a screen (tends to be huge with few pixels) or some high-res screen - these would be around 200. Asking for the size in pixels which can vary from 320x200 to thousands x thousands is even more pointless. Even on a 30" screen the browser window still can be only 600x300 pixels but the DPI resolution applies to windows of all sizes. Other people have already pointed out that some 90%+ environments are broken and the resolution in DPI cannot be determined or the obtained value is not accurate. Still knowing the range you can expect can give you some idea what you are dealing with. > > Yes, having a photograph's resolution mean "dots per inch" and a monitor's > resolution meaning "pixels wide by pixels tall" is confusing but that's the > way it is. > > Pixel pitch is not a value of how many pixels are crammed into a given area > (which is slightly related to the OP). A smaller value is better because it > means there is less space between pixels and therefore a clearer image. But, > it's irrelevant to the topic. It's very relevant if you are talking about DPI. A pixel pitch of 0.26 mm gives you about 4 pixels/mm or about 98 DPI. Thanks Michal ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
