There was a time when I thought you actually had a clue, Tacit… Time for a re-think on that area. You contridict yourself here. You say it’s "incorrect" that the pixel count of an image dictates the size/resolution of the picture yet go on to say exactly that in different words.
No; "resolution" and "pixel dimension" mean two different things.
Resolution, measured in pixels per inch or dots per inch, is a measurement of how many pixels occupy one inch of output; pixel dimention is a measure of the total number of pixels in an image.
So: Pixel dimension means how many pixels there are; resolution measures how big each pixel is.
It’s easy to confuse the two. Think of a raster image as a tile mosaic. Resolution is how big each tile is; pixel dimension is how many tiles there are.
Resolution, pixel dimension, and uncompressed file size are all related. If you take the number of pixels wide the image is, and multiply that by the number of pixels per inch, you’ll have how many inches wide the image is…
….when it’s printed. That’s the confusing part. When an image is displayed on the screen, the resolution is unimportant, and is discarded. Only the pixel dimension matters.
—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age:
http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html