can one print at actual pixels size?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by nobody nowhere, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?
     
    nobody nowhere, Jun 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nobody nowhere

    Lionel Guest

    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. :)
     
    Lionel, Jun 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 29, 2004
    #3
  4. nobody nowhere

    bagal Guest

    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
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #4
  5. nobody nowhere

    bagal Guest

    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
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #5
  6. A pixel has no size. So - no you cannot print at pixel size.
    Hmmm .... methinks you are trolling?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #6
  7. []
    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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 29, 2004
    #7
  8. nobody nowhere

    Frank ess Guest

    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
     
    Frank ess, Jun 29, 2004
    #8
  9. 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
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #9
  10. No it don't. Why should it?
    Lucky at least - if you got it right :)


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #10
  11. nobody nowhere

    Frank ess Guest

    (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
     
    Frank ess, Jun 29, 2004
    #11
  12. 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
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #12
  13. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 29, 2004
    #13
  14. 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
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #14
  15. nobody nowhere

    Mark B. Guest

    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
     
    Mark B., Jun 29, 2004
    #15
  16. nobody nowhere

    bagal Guest

    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
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #16
  17. nobody nowhere

    bagal Guest

    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
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #17
  18. 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").
     
    nobody nowhere, Jun 30, 2004
    #18
  19. nobody nowhere

    Paul H. Guest

    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.
     
    Paul H., Jun 30, 2004
    #19
  20. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.