W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2000

Re: px vs. pt

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@mail.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:53:41 -0700
Message-ID: <002901bffc56$c76f2440$0200a8c0@distant>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Rowland Shaw said:
"Do any of the UAs react sensibly when resizing graphics? (a la PaintShop
Pro's "resample")"

I know what you're talking about, BUT:

"It's different." For those who'd like an example, I'll share my experience:

When I did a graphic for a CD Cover for my mp3.com CD, it had to be in
300dpi. Lo and behold, there's a setting in paint shop pro, completely
independent of the OS. It changes nothing but how it assumes you want the
printer to print it. An image that would have printed huge on my 72dpi (I
think) printer came out to be the exact size of a CD album cover.
When the resample tool is told to use inches or cm instead of pixels, it
uses the dpi number currently in the program's settings as a multiplier to
translate pixels and inches.

I'm sorry I couldn't use terms that EVERYONE would understand, but
basically: inches / cm / pt won't really work for images, because they'd get
translated to differing dpi, just like the fonts, and then we'd have
pixellated-looking scaled images. eeewwwww.

Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2000 03:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:05 GMT