> "John McWilliams" <jpmcwcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
>>what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
> Oddly enough most Europeans don't have the variable descriptions to words
> which English speaking nations have. Consequently, many Europeans who write
> instructions in English, misunderstand the inflections native English
> speakers take for granted. Roland wasn't telling anyone what should be
> important to them any more than Gisle was.
> If you read Gisle's blog to grasp the spirit with which it was written, you
> will see that Gisle feels many of the often confusing measurements of an
> image should be discarded in your mind if you don't understand them because
> the *real* dimensions of an image are the pixel density... Nothing else
> I think it is unfair to presume that a doent written in English by a
> European is telling anyone what *should be* important to them for no reason.
> After all, the day someone can define a measurement to a pixel, will be the
> day images become precisely measurable too. Gisle is essentially correct
> that the Pixels per inch of a camera file are useless to anyone and
> everyone. If there was a measurement for say; an array of pixels, it might
> be relevant. Hmm. Could that be megapixels, perhaps?
> Editing programs like Photoshop are the ones which open an image at the
> resolution of a monitor... Deemed (wrongly) to be 72 PPI. Just changing that
> to 300 dpi does not alter the size of the image or the fact that it is
> displayed at 72 PPI. It is the printer which needs 300 dpi. Monitor's need
> 72 dpi. Any description of dpi or PPI by other devises is irrelevant at the
> point they lose control over them.