A "pixel" has no dimensions, it is just a piece of data. It is "given" dimension by the "output device" whether that be printer, monitor or whatever. A pixel displayed on a monitor at 72dpi is very large indeed compared to the same pixel printed on a 1200dpi printer at 1200ppi. Note that ppi refers to a "desired output size" and dpi refers to the *capability" of an output device such as printer or monitor. A decent photo quality print would be at least 300ppi, printed on a printer capable of at least 1200dpi. 2008x3008 pixels does not in any way refer to image size, it simply states that there are 6,040,064 "picture elements" in the image. How many ppi this is sized to or how many dpi it is displayed at is dependent on the software/hardware used. (Clear as mud?) ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pixel Puzzlement > > > I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought > that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? > > What I mean is this. If there's an image that has a resolution of 72ppi, > typical for web presentation, and another image, from a scanned version of > the same source, of 4000ppi, are the pixels in each image the same size? > It doesn't seem possible, since if 72 pixels make up an inch each > individual pixel would seem to be larger than if there were 4000 pixels in > the same space. But then, if an image has more pixels per inch than > another image, why is the image larger. Example: one scans a photo @ > 100ppi and again @ 1000ppi, the 1000ppi scan has greater dimensions, but, > it seems to me, it's just crammed more pixels into the same space, and the > dimensions should be the same, right? > > > Shel > >
