can one print at actual pixels size?

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

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

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Jun 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nobody nowhere

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that nobody nowhere <> stated
    that:

    >Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)?


    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%.

    > How is this done?


    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. :)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jun 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:ytcGk$...
    > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?


    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

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: nobody nowhere
    >
    >Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?


    If you mean "can you print so the print is the same size as what's on the
    screen at 100%" (which is what I *think* you mean), then yes, you can do this
    IF you can figure out the rez of your screen.

    Many older monitors have a dot pitch of 72 dpi (which is why that's a common
    default number in many graphics programs) and many new ones are around 96 dpi.
    So I'd try setting the image size rez at one of these numbers and printing at
    that size, but the print will be really big. Note that most printers like
    200-300 ppi input file rez so the print will be pretty thin and low rez for,
    say, the Epson desktops.

    To put numbers on this, a typical 6 Mpixel dSLR file might be 3,072 x 2,048
    pixels (for the Canon 10D, say). Set the resolution to 72 ppi and it will
    print 28.444 x 42.667 inches, set the rez to 96 ppi and it will print 21.333 x
    32 inches, set the rez to 240 ppi (enough to get a nice print on most printers)
    and it's 8.5 x 12.8 inches.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jun 29, 2004
    #4
  5. 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

    "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:ytcGk$...
    > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?
    > --
    >
    > nobody
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #5
  6. 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

    "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:ytcGk$...
    > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?
    > --
    >
    > nobody
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #6
  7. nobody nowhere <> wrote in news:ytcGk
    $:

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


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

    > nobody


    Hmmm .... methinks you are trolling?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #7
  8. "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9517C970EF127klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    []
    > 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 29, 2004
    #8
  9. nobody nowhere

    Frank ess Guest

    nobody nowhere wrote:
    > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?


    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
    #9
  10. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.uk> wrote in news:OciEc.6076$:

    > Most pixels have a finite and well-defined size - can you quote examples
    > where the pixel has "no size"?


    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.

    > Of course, printing at the original pixel
    > size may not be quite what the OP wants!


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


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #10
  11. "Frank ess" <> wrote in news:YgiEc.19884$Fy.4790
    @twister.socal.rr.com:

    > 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


    No it don't. Why should it?

    > Lucky (simple) me.


    Lucky at least - if you got it right :)


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

    Frank ess Guest

    Roland Karlsson wrote:
    > "Frank ess" <> wrote in news:YgiEc.19884$Fy.4790
    > @twister.socal.rr.com:
    >
    >> 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

    >
    > No it don't. Why should it?
    >
    >> Lucky (simple) me.

    >
    > Lucky at least - if you got it right :)
    >


    (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
    #12
  13. "Frank ess" <> wrote in news:eek:NiEc.20161$Fy.15909
    @twister.socal.rr.com:

    > 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.
    >


    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
    #13
  14. "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9517D0CCA9C57klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.uk>

    wrote in news:OciEc.6076$:
    >
    > > Most pixels have a finite and well-defined size - can you quote

    examples
    > > where the pixel has "no size"?

    >
    > The pixels stored in a file has no size.


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

    > A pixel as a concept has no size.


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

    > The pixels in my graphic card has no size.


    ... an interesting idea. Can the pixel exist without being displayed? <G>

    > 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.
    >
    > > Of course, printing at the original pixel
    > > size may not be quite what the OP wants!

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


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

    Thanks for the diversion.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 29, 2004
    #14
  15. > It comes out looking just like it did on the monitor

    Well, unless you have a /really/ good monitor, or a /really/ useless
    printer - the print should look much better than the screen (higher
    res., larger gamut).

    (And I think the OP was trolling.)
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Jun 29, 2004
    #15
  16. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.uk>
    wrote in news:BzjEc.6198$:

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


    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.

    >> A pixel as a concept has no size.

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


    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.

    >> The pixels in my graphic card has no size.

    >
    > .. an interesting idea. Can the pixel exist without being displayed?


    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.

    > Nearly back to confusion caused by the 72ppi or the 300ppi image!
    >
    > Thanks for the diversion.


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


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 29, 2004
    #16
  17. nobody nowhere

    Mark B. Guest

    "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:ytcGk$...
    > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?
    > --
    >
    > nobody


    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
    #17
  18. nobody nowhere

    scott Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9517D0CCA9C57klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > > "David J Taylor"
    > > <-this-bit.nor-this.uk>

    > wrote in news:OciEc.6076$:
    > >
    > > > Most pixels have a finite and well-defined size - can you quote
    > > > examples where the pixel has "no size"?

    > >
    > > The pixels stored in a file has no size.

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


    True, many image formats have a dpi field or whatever which tells you the
    size. But mostly this is meaningless, I mean (as Roland says) how big is an
    image form a X-megapixel camera? It really does depend entirely on how you
    display it.

    Also don't forget that although a monitor is 96dpi and a printer is 300dpi,
    a monitor can display any one of 16 million colours for each dot, whereas (I
    believe) a normal "household" printer can only display 8 different colours
    for each dot. The printer needs to use clusters of dots to give the
    impression of many more colours. Hence if you have a 300dpi printer you can
    print an image at 150dpi (or even 75dpi) and it not look any worse quality
    to printing it at 300dpi.

    > > A pixel as a concept has no size.

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


    Why not? A pixel doesn't have physical size. If I had my JPEG image that
    was 800x600 pixels but I set the dpi fields to zero, then the pixels would
    have zero size but there would still be an image.

    > > The pixels in my graphic card has no size.

    >
    > .. an interesting idea. Can the pixel exist without being displayed?
    > <G>


    Of course it can. At the moment I am working on some image processing
    software that captures images from a webcam in real time and outputs just a
    few numbers. At no point are the pixels displayed (apart from for testing
    purposes) but the pixels certainly exist and are fundamental to the
    operation of the software.
     
    scott, Jun 29, 2004
    #18
  19. 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

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    > news:ytcGk$...
    > > Can one print at actual pixels size (100 %)? How is this done?
    > > --
    > >
    > > nobody

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #19
  20. 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

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.uk> wrote
    in message news:BzjEc.6198$...
    > "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9517D0CCA9C57klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.uk>

    > wrote in news:OciEc.6076$:
    > >
    > > > Most pixels have a finite and well-defined size - can you quote

    > examples
    > > > where the pixel has "no size"?

    > >
    > > The pixels stored in a file has no size.

    >
    > It is sometimes not stated what the size is, but and real-world image
    > stored in a file does have a size.
    >
    > > A pixel as a concept has no size.

    >
    > .. although a zero-sized pixel could capture no information...
    >
    > > The pixels in my graphic card has no size.

    >
    > .. an interesting idea. Can the pixel exist without being displayed? <G>
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    > > > Of course, printing at the original pixel
    > > > size may not be quite what the OP wants!

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

    >
    > Nearly back to confusion caused by the 72ppi or the 300ppi image!
    >
    > Thanks for the diversion.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
     
    bagal, Jun 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    15,218
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  2. Dean Tran
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,096
  3. kl_tom

    Can hot pixels become dead pixels?

    kl_tom, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    564
    Bill Funk
    Oct 5, 2006
  4. John Smith

    Actual Pixels or not

    John Smith, Apr 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    457
    David J Taylor
    Apr 21, 2007
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    636
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page