Pixel density revisited

Started Oct 22, 2008 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,073
Re: Pixel density revisited

ejmartin wrote:

igb wrote:

natureman wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

chuxter wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

natureman wrote:

In a comparison, things should be as fair as possible, and comparing
cameras at their maximum factory designated native output size is

Images and pixels have no size, except what the displayer assigns to

Actually, they do have a "native" size -- 36mm x 24mm for full frame.
I don't think anybody wants to view them at this native size,
however. ;-}

I am forced (kicking and screaming) to agree with John on this. You
have chosen to assign a size equal to the sensor size, for some

I was (half) joking. There is an objective size to the image as it
was captured on the sensor, which has a concrete physical size and a
"native" resolution in lines/mm. The thrust of the comment was to
point out the absurdity of the notion of "native" image size.

You and John are playing a cute little game, but anyone with the
slightest clue knows what I'm referring to when I say native. Let me
repeat: Maximum factory designated native output size. What that
means is the maximum size images the camera produces without
alterations (resizing or resampling) in post processing.

You mean the size that is dependant on you monitor/printer resolution

Yes, camera manufacturers set those at the factory. Using other
printer/monitor resolutions voids the warranty.

That's the next step from the 'Direct Print' button. Plug your camera into a non-designated output device and you'll get an 'Err 99'.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow