Bryan Hoyt | Brush Technology wrote:
> components on the same point. My claim is that this is not true. Thinking > about it like digital audio, we have "the real thing", a continuous image > not made of pixels, and sampled as appropriate for the current target > device. So the idea of images made of rgb pixels is dead. And for examining > and editing images, no music producer works with individual samples, > although in the > old times all of them did work cutting and gluing magnetic tape. The sameThe glaring difference between audio & image is that audio is almost always sampled at a rate far higher than humans are capable of hearing (44Khz even for commercial CD audio), whereas our screens are still far from that point. Even the highest-res screens still have easily distinguishable pixels. And even where you can't see the pixels, you still need a significantly higher resolution to prevent common artifacts.
All I'm saying is technology's not quite at the point where we can start ignoring individual samples. I think it'll be a good few years yet :-)
- Bryan
Well, in the book and magazine printing industry, the only ones who care about the smallest printable dots are the people working on the low level software. Everybody else works at a higher level. I think the same should be done for displays. The same model should be used by both. I mean, the time for Display Postscript like system has come. And software like Inkscape is already pretty close!
Cheers, Juan Vuletich