can one print at actual pixels size?

Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?

 

Of course, as long as you don't mind cropping your your image, or you
have access to a big enough printer. You can go bigger too. I've printed
a number of my 10D (6.3MP) photos at 10"x15" & 400DPI, which is roughly
400%.

Depends on the image, the software you have, & the printer.

If you explain what you're trying to achieve, we can probably give you
response that are much more useful than this one.

 

Can you rephrase that question? A pixel will have whatever size you print
it, or do you mean printing at the same size as the sensor?

Bart

 

hmm this is or appears to be an extension of what is a pixel?

A pixel is a picture element

A printer pixel is not the same as a monitor pixel and both are not the same
as a sensor pixel (sometimes called sensels)

A monitor relies on physical attribute of light - usually called additive
which combines 3 primary colors to obtain "white"

A printer (usually) relies on subtractive properties of inks so comining a
combination of all 3 inks produces something called "black"

See the difficulties?

What is intended is bto have 1 to 1 correspondence across the physical
properties of each device in order to render an accurate image. The image
will always be subject to the constraints of the physical limitations on the
hardware, software & drivers in place.

Plus - there is the aspect of human perception. While eyes allow light to
excite receptors the brain interprets these signals into an image.

Now the above is a gross over simplification. What was the question?

Oh - yeh. It depends upon having the correctly configured hardware,
software firmware. After that it's easy within the constraints listed above

das B

 

ps - seel Gisle's link below for even deeper reading on the effect called
interpolation

it's sorta important and for any budding mathematical genius out there -
yeh, it really is all math

das B

 

A pixel has no size. So - no you cannot print at pixel size.

Hmmm .... methinks you are trolling?


/Roland

 

[]

Most pixels have a finite and well-defined size - can you quote examples
where the pixel has "no size"? Of course, printing at the original pixel
size may not be quite what the OP wants!

Cheers,
David

 

The way I do it is:
Adjust the image so it looks the way I want it (Photo Shop or Elements)
Save it in TIFF on the Desktop
(on the machine connected to the printer) (Epson 750)
Open it in PSP on the printer machine
Tell PSP to print it
Use PSP's screens to
Choose paper and output mode
Fit the image to the paper
Push Print
PSP chews on it for a while, sends it to the printer
(Quite a bit later)
It comes out looking just like it did on the monitor

Lucky (simple) me.


Frank ess

 

The pixels stored in a file has no size.
A pixel as a concept has no size.
The pixels in my graphic card has no size.

A pixel can be matched to something that has
a size, e.g. a sensor, a monitor or a print.
You often also call this physical realisation
a pixel, but this is misleading.

Yepp - and this (probable) mistake shows that you
shall think of a pixel as having no size.


/Roland

 

No it don't. Why should it?

Lucky at least - if you got it right


/Roland

 

(Funny, you don't *look* trollish)

Sure, it *do*.

Same colors, contrast, etc., same shapes, same size within 10% (8x10);
in *the common picture-viewing experience*, the only considerable
difference between looking at one and the other is...

one is more difficult to hold at arm's length.


(Lucky) Frank ess

 

You left out that your monitor is the same size as your paper.

But the one that is harder to hold at arms lenght is much easier
to have standing at arms length.


/Roland

 

wrote in news:OciEc.6076$:

It is sometimes not stated what the size is, but and real-world image
stored in a file does have a size.

... although a zero-sized pixel could capture no information...

Nearly back to confusion caused by the 72ppi or the 300ppi image!

Thanks for the diversion.

David

 

A real world image stored in a file has a size? OK then - how
big is a real world 5 Mpixel image? In inches or meters,
whatever you prefer.

Uh? Have I said zero size? No size does not mean zero size.
No size means that it is not measured in meters. Just like a
bit or a digit has no size, a pixel has none either. The
number 45 has no size, it can be displayed at any size and
still be 45. Just as a pixel can be displayed at any size
and still be a pixel. And both contain information, without
having any size.

Yes - and I think it is here you go wrong. There are lots of pixels
in graphics files, in RAM and on graphics cards. Neither needs to
be displayed to exist.

You are welcome. But the diversion and confusion is totally
on your side


/Roland

 

Set up the print so it's sent to the printer at 72dpi, that's what most
monitors are. It'll look pretty lousy, though.

Mark

 

For every pixel output to a monitor assign it a particular colored jelly
bean

I thinh the comment "a pixel has no size" can be rephrased as "a pixel has
no standard universal size" onviously pixels do have size, shape and form
otherwise there would be no pix Remember the el bit is important too

Equally, a pixel is not a centrimetre but is does have size

they usually have color lol

dB

 

It IMHO is really about mindsets

eg: take sensel data and process it so every separate picture element has 3
references
the first is x-y position data the third is3-color representation (hmm a
recursive triplet!)

anyway, take a big bag of colored jelly beans

if the product of the x-y is prime place a red jelly been at the x-y
position

if the x-y product is divisible by 2 place a purple jellybean at the x-y
position

make up lots more rules like this unti the X-Y space is filled (note that
the 'white' jelly bean is really a light murky grey)

There, you have an image based on sensor data - it may not look much like
the original image but it may taste better.

That, in a nutshell, is an example of what happens rebdering data to a
visible picture

das B

 

Thank you Bill, that is exactly what I meant. Probably my reputation in
this NG will be damaged for the next 3 days because of my mental
laziness to work out the answer myself. When I scan a 6 x 6 at 14 bit,
I get huge files (450MB or so), which at 100% magnification still look
good. The further question would be if I treat this huge image at 72 ppi
with Neatimage and perhaps sharpen it with unsharp mask, would it look
on paper as good as it does on the monitor? Would the printer (who
likes 266 ppi and higher ) make it look worse than on the monitor? Has
anybody tried this? (I mean somebody who owns an Epson 7600 or even 9000
or "bigger").

 

Frankly, I prefer printing only one blown-up pixel per page, then arranging
the pages in order somewhere in the Nevada desert. Plenty of room and no
one's the wiser, except for a few scorpions.

Seriously, if you've got a row of X pixels printed at Y dots-per-inch, then
you'd need a print that's X/Y inches wide. The rest is left as an exercise
for the student.

 

You need to know the taking conditions, so that the angular resolution can
be computed.

My point is that a pixel which is of zero physical size (angular or
linear) could capture no information in any real-world sensor.

But in any real world image the pixel has a size. You take my "displayed"

No, I am never confused, I think!

Cheers,
David