[filmscanners] Re: One more post on the PPI_DPI thread

["Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@vom.com>]

>Personally, I'm not ashamed to be concerned with linguistics, and
>though I've been part of this list for a very short time I don't see
>how its off topic to discuss, civilly, the terms which anyone
>involved with scanning or digital imaging encounters every day.

Michael O'Connor is, I think, right about this. Especially since
using "dpi" to mean different things clutters the list with confusion.


>[snip] If we took available terms maybe ppi for displays, dpi for
>files, spi for output devices, and lpi for halftones, would be the
>best we could do (almost no one uses samples per inch, and you could
>use sspi).

Yes, I think this is probably the most clarification we could hope to
successfully promote. Michael's further proposal, below, is I think
probably too ambitious, not that I object to his trying to promote it.


>But I think we'd be better off getting rid of the Per Inch
>altogether from file references, and for easiest comprehension of
>why a digital image is so variable as opposed to looking at a print
>or slide, it would be best to adopt a term that would dissuade
>people from thinking of the file as
>a captured picture.
>
>I think Bit Sets might be the best solution (BS would certainly be
>appropriate to our whole discussion here), or BSR, for Bit Set
>Resolution; it might fail the best shorthand test, since it
>would need both horizontal and vertical references (HBS and VBS?),
>but it would clear us of the most hurdles of logic.
>
>Michael O


Sam

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body