Canon 30D Announced
Discussion
_dobbo_ said:I'm not sure they are though - it's always number of dots/pixels/lines per horizontal or vertical axis. The only time that it isn't is on the spec sheets of digital camera sensors, when the horizontal and vertical resolutions are combined to give a total number of pixels, which isn't really the same as resolution.
This has become a semantic argument as to the meaning of "resolution"! Print resolution and display resolution appear to be referred to entirely differently.
I agree though - this is getting very
UKBob said:
This has become a semantic argument as to the meaning of "resolution"! Print resolution and display resolution appear to be referred to entirely differently. Since digital cameras deal in both print and display resolution, it seems we could arguably both be correct. 
Sorry Bob, didn't mean to ignore you, infact your statement seems to me to be a concise and accurate summing up.
ehasler said:
This has become a semantic argument as to the meaning of "resolution"! Print resolution and display resolution appear to be referred to entirely differently.
I agree though - this is getting very
I bet Matt(gravy) is swearing at the screen if he's still reading this!
From what I understand of these things what we might refer to as resolution (i.e. what the eye can percieve) does not necessarily relate directly to pixel count anyway.
Additionally (pixel) 'Size Matters.' Apparently. So it's not just how many pixels there are but how much information they can capture that really matters.
But in the end the analogy of grain in 35mm film offers some insight. And the insight I have is that the better the optical quality of the lens used the better the acceptable visible resolution will be. For most printer and screens, unless you are presenting something that is very intricate and a tiny portion of the original image or you are printing something very large with the second mortgage money you have obtained to buy the ink and paper, the pixel count impact CAN be much less obvious than we may think. Precision of light focus on the sensor material (digital sensor or film) is more important than pixel count in the first instance.
Additionally (pixel) 'Size Matters.' Apparently. So it's not just how many pixels there are but how much information they can capture that really matters.
But in the end the analogy of grain in 35mm film offers some insight. And the insight I have is that the better the optical quality of the lens used the better the acceptable visible resolution will be. For most printer and screens, unless you are presenting something that is very intricate and a tiny portion of the original image or you are printing something very large with the second mortgage money you have obtained to buy the ink and paper, the pixel count impact CAN be much less obvious than we may think. Precision of light focus on the sensor material (digital sensor or film) is more important than pixel count in the first instance.
_dobbo_ said:No worries Dobbo. It begs the question (in my mind anyway
This has become a semantic argument as to the meaning of "resolution"! Print resolution and display resolution appear to be referred to entirely differently. Since digital cameras deal in both print and display resolution, it seems we could arguably both be correct.
Sorry Bob, didn't mean to ignore you, infact your statement seems to me to be a concise and accurate summing up.
) How long till the 40mp cameras are out? 
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff