steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/22/88)
The discussion of the NeXT printer suggests that "resolution" isn't the appropriate word to use to describe what someone described as pixel density. In physics, resolution is a property of the receiver: the classic case is that of an observer watching a car with two headlights approaching on a road. "Resolution" refers to the ability to resolve the two headlights. At first, there appears to be only one source of light; at some distance, which varies according to the receiver (naked eyes of various strength, eyes with magnification, etc.), the two lights appear as distinct sources of light. Given the separation of the headlights and their individual intensities, resolution is a function of the maximum distance at which the receiver can perceive them as separate. There is a relationship between this physical property and the ability of a laser printer to reproduce an image of smaller and smaller fineness (or a given image with greater and greater detail). However, as has been pointed out, resolution is a linear quantity, whereas the quality of the image produced by a laser printer appears to improve as a function of the area. So we can either use pixel density or something more descriptive, such as reproductive precision (sounds sufficiently remote as to confuse most people) to describe what is under discussion. Alternatively, we could all agree to ignore the conventional meaning of "resolution," and use it anyway. That's probably what will happen given that it has already begun. But perhaps this exercise will make us stop and think about what we are discussing. Steve Goldfield
vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) (10/25/88)
I always thought that the linear density matters more than anything else becuase (idealized) letters and drawing have lines rather than rectangles. In other words, the question is `How does the look of slanting lines and circles improve when the linear resolution increases?' ??????