Blurry fonts, Act III

[Egg Bramhill]

David,

1 pixel is 1 pixel irrespective of the resolution your working too. Tonys statement is a valid one (at 100% zoom). You only confuse the issue when you introduce real world measurements like inches. Regardless of what screen resolution you are working at if you create a 96 x 96 pixel square on your computer and print it it will be 1 inch x 1 inch (Provided you're working at the Windows 96 ppi). If you measure it on screen it could be any size. For example if you used a 96 x 96 pixel screen resolution, it would fill your screen (on a 15" monitor it would measure 12" x 9" ) but printed it would still be 1 inch x 1 inch.

[David O'Neil]

...Tonys statement is a valid one (at 100% zoom).

It is only valid under certain other assumptions as well, such as, as you pointed out, 1) you are creating print output, and 2) your system is set to the default Windows standard of 96 dpi (mine is one of the few that is not).

In addition, it is only valid when 3) you are using a program that has been programmed to that standard, 4) you create your illustrations to that standard, and 5) all the other programs you interact with honor that standard.

Not that it has much bearing on this, but it is a stupid story that kinda illuminates these additional points in a roundabout manner. When I first started playing with Xara I needed to create my signature at several different print resolutions (300dpi, 600dpi, 1200dpi) so I could get to the bottom of a print issue I was having (which I since learned had nothing to do with dpi ). Being new to this, my first thought was that I needed to scale the drawing within Xara for each different resolution. I did this because I was thinking in 'pixels.'

I remember somehow succeeding in that endeavor, which must have meant I was scaling the graphic down in Word to get the required dpi. (I cannot remember what I did, although I don't remember scaling in Word at the time, so ???) This proved to me that with enough stupid hacks, we can work around almost any perceived limitation. And when I realized that I did not need to rescale for each different dpi, you can only begin to understand the joy I felt from being freed from that limitation.

Well, as I said, it was a stupid story, but I hope you enjoyed it. In addition, the original thread poster was dealing with an issue regarding a non-print issue.

Best wishes,
David

[jedfrechette]

Forget about ppi, dpi and just remember 1 point equates to 1 or 1.333 pixels. (Depending on your zoom setting, of course)

Tonys statement is a valid one (at 100% zoom). You only confuse the issue when you introduce real world measurements like inches.

Ah, but as David pointed out a point is a real world measurement. It is 1/72 of an inch and has been, more or less, since the 1700s.

I think that you are absolutely correct when you say that introducing real world measurments only confuse the issue. Which is why I maintain that the 96 dpi "standard" or any other claimed standard display resolution is meaningless. When designing for digital display there is just no consistent mapping between digital units (e.g. pixels) and physical units (e.g. inches, mm, points). As others have already said it seems that about all you can do is work in pixels and accept that your design will appear at different sizes on different displays.

[Egg Bramhill]

Yes, but you do need a standard when going from digital display (a monitor) to the real world of printing. This is why the 96 ppi standard is used. The 1/72th of an inch point size is probably why Macs originaly used 72 ppi as their resolution. The resolution only matters when transfering between the two mediums.

[tonylondon]

Yes, but you do need a standard when going from digital display (a monitor) to the real world of printing. This is why the 96 ppi standard is used. The 1/72th of an inch point size is probably why Macs originaly used 72 ppi as their resolution. The resolution only matters when transfering between the two mediums.

If we trash the terms 72ppi and 96 ppi and talk about the pixel/point ratio it makes things simpler. The Adobe/Mac convention of one point = one pixel has some merit, although perhaps one day in the not too distant future screen resolutions will become similar to print resolutions, and in that case ten pixels per point would be more appropriate, since points (as a unit of length) are divisible and pixels are not.