A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 15th 15, 05:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

Peter Irwin wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:


A pixel is an addressable
element of a digital picture. It is not a measure of information
content. Now, it happens that there is a maximum information content
set by the number of pixels so that a pixel can represent just under
one half cycle of spacial information in each dimension, but resampling
to a higher number of pixels does in fact create more pixels even
though it doesn't create more information.

that's a longer version of what i said.


"nope." applies to this instead of that.


OK, then what does Floyd say a pixel is?


Your statement was very good. My point is that nospam's
claim to having said the same thing is not true. He didn't.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #82  
Old May 15th 15, 06:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

On 5/15/2015 12:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:


A pixel is an addressable
element of a digital picture. It is not a measure of information
content. Now, it happens that there is a maximum information content
set by the number of pixels so that a pixel can represent just under
one half cycle of spacial information in each dimension, but resampling
to a higher number of pixels does in fact create more pixels even
though it doesn't create more information.

that's a longer version of what i said.

"nope." applies to this instead of that.


OK, then what does Floyd say a pixel is?


Your statement was very good. My point is that nospam's
claim to having said the same thing is not true. He didn't.


That is as close to an admission of being wrong as we will ever hear
from nospam.

--
PeterN
  #83  
Old May 15th 15, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

PeterN wrote:
On 5/15/2015 12:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

A pixel is an addressable
element of a digital picture. It is not a measure of information
content. Now, it happens that there is a maximum information content
set by the number of pixels so that a pixel can represent just under
one half cycle of spacial information in each dimension, but resampling
to a higher number of pixels does in fact create more pixels even
though it doesn't create more information.

that's a longer version of what i said.

"nope." applies to this instead of that.

OK, then what does Floyd say a pixel is?


Your statement was very good. My point is that nospam's
claim to having said the same thing is not true. He didn't.


That is as close to an admission of being wrong as we
will ever hear from nospam.


:-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #84  
Old May 16th 15, 12:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

A pixel is an addressable
element of a digital picture. It is not a measure of information
content. Now, it happens that there is a maximum information content
set by the number of pixels so that a pixel can represent just under
one half cycle of spacial information in each dimension, but resampling
to a higher number of pixels does in fact create more pixels even
though it doesn't create more information.

that's a longer version of what i said.


"nope." applies to this instead of that.


OK, then what does Floyd say a pixel is?


that was never the issue.
  #85  
Old May 16th 15, 12:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The printer is actually printing 360 pixels per inch. Not 150, not 300,
not any other imaginary number you want to come up with.

not if you send it 150 ppi, it isn't.

it can upsample to 360 ppi but that isn't going to regenerate details
that aren't there.

You are misunderstanding what "pixel" means.


nope.

A pixel is an addressable
element of a digital picture. It is not a measure of information
content. Now, it happens that there is a maximum information content
set by the number of pixels so that a pixel can represent just under
one half cycle of spacial information in each dimension, but resampling
to a higher number of pixels does in fact create more pixels even
though it doesn't create more information.


that's a longer version of what i said.


"nope." applies to this instead of that.


nope. what he said is the same as what i said, but in a lot more words.
  #86  
Old May 17th 15, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

nope. what he said is the same as what i said, but in a lot more words.


His made sense. Yours didn't.


maybe to you it didn't but it's clear to anyone who understands what's
going on.
  #87  
Old May 18th 15, 08:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

John McWilliams:
Who maintained the Epson 3800 could print
at 150 dpi?

Floyd L. Davidson:
At least two people have said that it
could. You and nospam.

John McWilliams:
Proof, please. If not message number, date and time of posting.


Sandman:
Proof? Haha, this is Floyd, remember. He doesn't deal with such
things :-D


Here's what nospam said:


"if you send it a 150 ppi image, they will." / nospam- 05/11/2015


That was, of course, not in relation to the Epson 3800


What nospam said is hilariously wrong, and it was absolutely about
Epson printers. And that is the proof asked for.


It was not about the Epson 3800. Learn to read.

--
Sandman
  #88  
Old May 18th 15, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

On 5/18/15 PDT 12:51 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

John McWilliams:
Who maintained the Epson 3800 could print
at 150 dpi?

Floyd L. Davidson:
At least two people have said that it
could. You and nospam.

John McWilliams:
Proof, please. If not message number, date and time of posting.

Sandman:
Proof? Haha, this is Floyd, remember. He doesn't deal with such
things :-D


Here's what nospam said:


"if you send it a 150 ppi image, they will." / nospam- 05/11/2015


That was, of course, not in relation to the Epson 3800


What nospam said is hilariously wrong, and it was absolutely about
Epson printers. And that is the proof asked for.


It was not about the Epson 3800. Learn to read.


No, what was asked for is "proof" of my assertion above, which you
cannot prove, as usual.

  #89  
Old May 19th 15, 07:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

In article , John McWilliams wrote:

John McWilliams:
Who maintained the Epson 3800 could
print at 150 dpi?

Floyd L. Davidson:
At least two people have said that it
could. You and nospam.

John McWilliams:
Proof, please. If not message number, date
and time of posting.

Sandman:
Proof? Haha, this is Floyd, remember. He doesn't deal
with such things :-D

Here's what nospam said:

"if you send it a 150 ppi image, they will." / nospam-
05/11/2015

That was, of course, not in relation to the Epson 3800

Floyd L. Davidson:
What nospam said is hilariously wrong, and it was absolutely
about Epson printers. And that is the proof asked for.


Sandman:
It was not about the Epson 3800. Learn to read.


No, what was asked for is "proof" of my assertion above, which you
cannot prove, as usual.


I think you replied to the wrong person here...

--
Sandman
  #90  
Old May 19th 15, 06:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Commercial print resolution about 5 megapixels?

On 5/18/15 PDT 11:38 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , John McWilliams wrote:

Sandman:
It was not about the Epson 3800. Learn to read.


No, what was asked for is "proof" of my assertion above, which you
cannot prove, as usual.


I think you replied to the wrong person here...


To me, the "you" clearly referred to Lloyd, but I can see how it might
be confusing. Sorry.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Site: SEE Megapixels vs. Print Size Paul Furman Digital Photography 1 April 28th 06 03:38 PM
DPI,Megapixels and print size OL'Hippie Digital Photography 8 February 22nd 06 04:29 PM
How many MegaPixels to print 8X10 tk Digital Photography 91 August 25th 04 10:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.