Mark, very well stated. Thanks.
-Brendan --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brendan MacRae wrote: > > >Whether or not people are wrong in equating dots > and > >pixels the terms are often used interchangeably > since > >monitor resolution is measured (or used to be > anyway) > >in "dot pitch." Hence part of the confusion between > >dpi and ppi. > > > >My scanner also measures pixels per inch but even > the > >side of the box reads "4000 DPI." So, perhaps some > of > >criticism for the confusing nomenclature should be > >leveled at Nikon (and others). After all, it's a > >scanner not a printer, right? > > In the case of a scanner you're pretty safe using > either term, DPI or > PPI: A scanner looks at one tiny area (a dot) on the > physical medium > and generates one digital picture element (pixel) > from it. So at this > particular boundary between the digital and analog > realms, one dot = > one pixel, hence PPI and DPI are equivalent. > > But once you have a digital file, DPI makes no sense > because there are > no "inches" to a digital file. > > And at the final digital/analog boundary, the > printer, DPI and PPI are > still not equivalent because inkjet printers make > "dots" in separate, > individual colors and at DPI resolutions (1440 DPI - > 2880 DPI) far > beyond what's sensible for PPI output res of a > digital file. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
