Re: [SLE] Need advice

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:35 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Carl,

On Sunday 12 February 2006 17:46, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Sunday 12 February 2006 20:03, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Nonsense. Pixels have rectangular boundaries. That's all there is
to it.

Who told you this? It's not true! There are even imaging applications
that let you specify rectangular or circular pixels.

My god! What are you talking about? Pixels are display device entities.
Are you thinking of half-tone screens? They are completely different
things. The only control you have over the nature of the pixels is
choice of which device use use to render the image. Software cannot
(CAN NOT) do that.


They absolutely are immune to such artifacts.

Nonsense. Show me a real life demonstration of this supposed
"immunity." You cannot, ergo the "immunity" is only theoretical.

You insist on conflating the mathematical object and its rendering.

You started by saying that lines drawn on raster devices had the jaggies
(which they do--at all angles except those of the raster axes). Then
you said vector drawing was "less susceptible" to this problem. Either
it is exactly as susceptible, 'cause to view such a line or curve it
has to be rendered, or it is entirely immune to such effects because
the line or curve itself is a mathematical entity defined over the
reals.

Mixing them up just confuses the issue and leads to incorrect
understandings.


You mislead when you say "less susceptible." They are, plain and
simple, immune to it.

See my point above. I think you are being misleading by insisting on
imposing theoretical perfection in a real life, practical
circumstance.

On the contrary, I'm insisting on making the proper distinctions between
the principals and the engineering practice. You're muddling the issue
by refusing to separate the two.


...

Feel free to use as few words as you like. Zero's always a safe
choice.

OK, Randall, you've proven you have some knowledge but, from a
*practical* standpoint, has this tangent contributed one bit to the
resolution of Art's original problem? I don't think it has. That's
why I hate these kinds of unnecessary technical "wee wee" contests.
If you'd weighed the real value of offering your unnecessary
'corrections' to my original advice, maybe "zero" words would have
been better choice this time?

Yeah. I've worked in digital and print imaging in both raster and vector
realms. I know something about the principles (the math) and the
practical matters (the subtleties of film, ink, paper, CRT and LCD
displays).

As to why I correct you: When I see someone post incorrect, misleading
or oversimplified information and I know it, I like to correct it.
There's too much confusion afoot and knowingly letting it stand is not
cool to me.

That's why I challenge fallacies when I see them.


Anyway, the lights just flickered (winter storm) so I've gotta shut
down.

Carl

Don't lick any flag poles or lamp posts.


Randall Schulz


I did not get into the discussion on pixels, but I do understand the
difference between raster and vector, etc. I can see where the line is
jagged because of low resolution, completely understandable. What I
don't understand in Gimp, I see the jaggies on the display, but when I
print it out on a 600 dpi printer, I would expect them to be much
smoother than on a 100 dpi screen. When I look at the same drawing with
the rectangles added in Inkscape, I do not see the jaggies anywhere near
as much on screen, that is, they are not as obvious. Guess the Pixel
resolution for that must be based on the drawing and not the screen
resolution in Gimp, where in Inkscape, it is based on the screen
resolution, when translated to postscript for a 600 dpi printer, it
becomes even less obvious. Is that right?

Art




--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
    ... a CRT are not a precise match to the pixels in the digital image you're trying to show. ... With a CRT it is only an approximate match. ... The phosphor dots of course won't move; but the spread of the beam (deliberate spread, if the CRT is smart enough to notice the lower input resolution) will result in an input pixel being shown as some blend of dots around the target. ... The experiment we need involves two computer-quality screens of each technology, comparable size, and two different resolutions. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: resolution for web sites
    ... The 72/96 pixels per inch have nothing to do with physical size or screen ... resolution. ... are now using 1024 x 768 or larger screens, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Large LCD choice?
    ... wide screens can be rotated to portrait mode. ... I would like to have a widescreen monitor for photo editing, ... Normally I'd say that you should go for the highest resolution available ... Your comments on screen readers suggest that larger pixels may be ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Multi monitors in OS X
    ... exactly the same image and they must be the same number of pixels. ... screens, will then display very different numbers of pixels. ... If the resolution chosen by the user happens to be the native one ... If the monitor is able to support scaling an image at a different ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: HD post-switchover
    ... want to blame someone. ... I've seen "resolution" variously given in expressions like "240 ... I always work out the square root of the number of pixels and use that as a ... what I see in practice. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)