Quoting keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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.
Of course it is not correct. The phosphor dots on your screen are placed further apart than the pixels in Dave's scanner. Jostein ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
