It's only for print/manufacturing conversions. The operating system does not, most of the time, know what kind of screen is attached to the computer. So it does not even try to guess. Because it can not know it can not scale to physical size. But even in cases where it does it does not even try b...
If I have two images 600 photshop px wide one with reolution 72px/inch another with 36px/inches both have same size in mega bytes. Which means photshop doesn't change physical px in an image.
Would Photoshop behave similarly on retina display computers? E.g. consider a 2dpr laptop. Would changing resolution in Photoshop keeping width in px intact not change size in mega bytes?
user yes. The pixel doubling is just a trick for apple to make sure old web pages would not suffer from the significant screen resolution change. It was a very bad decision. Affects nothing really.
Its just that I have been thinking about this a lot and come to the conclusion that that in order for people to understand the answer has to be as short as possible
@Rafael only if one is familiar with the concept of a matrix
I work for a university of design. Wheni tred to say the concept of matrix all the graphgic designers zoned out
XD. He is mixing (as almost everyone else on the planet, or the graphic design realm) the pixel as the colorful dot on the screen
so, both. n_n
I think the key word here is "re interpretation"
I am trying to see on the paper, where is the case where the pixel is not interpreted as a square. I can imagine some cses, but im looking for it on the paper.
It is interesting paper, but most designers think in terms of "newtonian" pixels, and thinking of a matrix of data, yes they help, but still need to think on a dimension on where they can live, not in a "quantum" state of a pixel.
@Rafael thats hardly surprising you would need quite much more math skills to understand the central themes of signal processing
Singnal processing and control theory has evolved into a super mathematical thing in the last 30 years. So even things that didn't start out as signal processing, like designing a submarine. Has become signal processing or control theory. Even printing!
I mean i understand the concepts and mathematical tools... and then they go off into a laa laa land of some imaginary space thats not imaginary or even frequency domain and im lost,
Off topic. One thing I do have trouble understanding is the usage of the gamma on rendering images. Not the "gamma" correction on photoshop, but for example why a gamma needs to be present in a 3D rendering file.
There was an intersting discussion on the comments on one anwer... somewhere...
I do not remember if on this forum or on Photoxchange.
For example, I was a very active user of Kerkythea (3D renderer) and we had some discussions debuging the render engine. But what I did not understood if the gamma correction needs to be aplied in the initial calculations or it is just an output conversion.
Discussion between joojaa and user
Discussion between joojaa and user