> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:38 PM
> To: 'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning nitpicking
>
>
> Perhaps you will think I'm biased, based on my email address, but I think
> "screen area" describes it quite well.
> Digital images are measured in pixels and the "screen area" setting tells
> the user how many pixels the area of the screen will display.
> What is wrong
> with that?
When I think of the area of anything, I think width X length in some kind of
linear units, like inches, feet, meters, etc. My screen area is fixed:
16"X12". It doesn't change with the screen resolution I choose. The sizes of
pixels are entirely relative and by themselves tell us nothing about the
value of the screen area if you just take those words in their usual
meanings without stretching them into jargon.
> When you change the "screen area" you are also changing the resolution in
> terms of pixels per inch of your screen.
Sorry, the screen area of my monitor is fixed at 16"X12": 192 square inches.
Period. End of story. Okay, so it's not quite the end of the story, as I
continue to babble on. 192 square inches is the screen area of my monitor,
and within that area I can specify a resolution anywhere between 640X480 and
2048X1536. That's the way people talk and everyone understands it.
Microsoft's use of the words "screen area" is entirely off the wall and
foreign to what the words mean in common speech. Microsoft doesn't even
follow its own interface standards as specified in "The User Experience".
Don't get me started.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
