That sounds about right to me. He said it was from a 4800dpi scan from a slide. If your monitor is at 96ppi (which is certainly the right kind of figure) then you are, indeed, looking at a 50x enlargement.
Nobody ever mentioned a print (and certainly not one at a mere 96 ppi) On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:06:02AM -0800, keith_w wrote: > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >The photo ~is~ cropped in that what you see is not full frame. However, > >the portion that you see is shown at 100% of the original size, it's not > >been resized in any way. > > > >Shel > > Okay then. If that's how you define it, that makes sense. > > However, let's do the numbers. If that bug that Davuid Mann showed in > his image was indeed 1/2 mm long, how large was the original image?! > > The bug, as shown on my monitor, measures about 2.5 cm long, which > indicates I'm looking at an enlargement of about 50X... We agree on that? > > Since the extent of David's image on my monitor is already 15 cm > (5.0955") vertically, that must mean the _original_ 100% unresized print > or image was some 295" vertically! > > Somehow I don't think that's correct. > > keith whaley > > >>[Original Message] > >>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>That being the case, the term "100% crop" doesn't mean anything to me. > >>Perhaps you can elucidate? > >> > >>thanks, keith whaley > > > >>========= > >>Ditto. Seems an oxymoron. I have decided people mean it's NOT cropped > >>when they say 100% crop. But I don't know why they don't just say that. > >> > >>Marnie aka Doe ;-)
