What units?

[AntonM]

From browsing this forum, I have the impression that the professionals (or quite a lot of them, anyway) tend to use pixels as their preferred unit of measurement.

I've always used millimetres, on the assumption that it doesn't matter what size your monitor is, or what zoom you're using -- millimetres are defined independently of graphic art soft- and hardware.

I've tended not to use pixels because, to me, a pixel is a programmable dot on a monitor -- i.e., pixels are defined in terms of electronic display devices. While you may get 90x90 pixels in a 1"x1" square on a "normal" sized monitor at 1:1 zoom, as soon as you zoom up to say 2:1, you've got 180x180 pixels in that square. Of course, I know that in the virtual world this doesn't have to be so.

I'm not for a moment trying to argue in favour of any particular method, as I cannot speak with any authority. The reason for this rather rambling post is to find out whether pixels are really the professionally preferred unit and, if so, what the advantage is over the more conventional real-world units of measure?

[AntonM]

From browsing this forum, I have the impression that the professionals (or quite a lot of them, anyway) tend to use pixels as their preferred unit of measurement.

I've always used millimetres, on the assumption that it doesn't matter what size your monitor is, or what zoom you're using -- millimetres are defined independently of graphic art soft- and hardware.

I've tended not to use pixels because, to me, a pixel is a programmable dot on a monitor -- i.e., pixels are defined in terms of electronic display devices. While you may get 90x90 pixels in a 1"x1" square on a "normal" sized monitor at 1:1 zoom, as soon as you zoom up to say 2:1, you've got 180x180 pixels in that square. Of course, I know that in the virtual world this doesn't have to be so.

I'm not for a moment trying to argue in favour of any particular method, as I cannot speak with any authority. The reason for this rather rambling post is to find out whether pixels are really the professionally preferred unit and, if so, what the advantage is over the more conventional real-world units of measure?

[John Rayner]

Hi Anton,

I use the units that are the most appropriate. When I am doing something for the web, I use pixels. When I do print I use inches... (I am in the states) If I do metric, I would use mm...

PCs use 96DPI as a default, Macs use 72DPI. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[amoore]

What John said. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[wW]

I use Pixel as my main unit when creating art for web & interactive CD software.

For screenprint or Print work, I do everything in Inches.

Depends on the job-like John said. Dang he's smart! And quick too...

[Egg Bramhill]

Ditto
Can't follow your reasoning about zooming though, at 2:1 zoom the 90 x 90 pixel square is still only 90x90 pixels in size (although it does use more pixels on screen) in the same way a 1" x 1" square remains a 1" x 1" square when zoomed 2:1 (altho it's bigger on screen)
Egg

[John Rayner]

"Dang he's smart! And quick too..." - Waldo

Must be another John.... Drat, foiled again... http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[AntonM]

Originally posted by Egg Bramhill:
Can't follow your reasoning about zooming though, at 2:1 zoom the 90 x 90 pixel square is still only 90x90 pixels in size (although it does use more pixels on screen) in the same way a 1" x 1" square remains a 1" x 1" square when zoomed 2:1 (altho it's bigger on screen)
Egg

Er, yeah, it's the "more pixels on the screen" that I meant. Your point is of course valid and I tried, not very successfully, to indicate in my original post that I realised that. No matter, I think we're all on the same page... http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Egg Bramhill]

Fine Anton. If I'm working in pixels and want to know the rough size in inches, I divide the pixels by 100 (close enough to 96).
Egg