Rongnongno wrote:
Yes, and that is the issue. "Whatever it needs to spit out" (I really love your choice of words because it really exposes the issue at hand.)
If you do not prepare your image BEFORE printing, you let the printer driver/profile do it for you. Not a great idea if you care about the final print. That is one of my points.
Printers do a decent job, if you control the pixel array BEFORE sending the image to the printer, you also control what the printer needs to do.
The dots printed are where they are supposed to be w/o modification, assuming the printer color space matches the image color space.
As stated: One needs to know what the final product is in order to achieve optimal printing result. This prevents the device used to do "Whatever it needs to spit out".
There is no argument as to the so-called physical size of a pixel, as it is a mathematic formula. The size issue enters only when using a device to display the image. In effect, the device used to view/print used is controlling the pixel array, giving it a physical size. When scanning, this is the reverse, a sensor array has a physical size and so does the individual sensor.
When you look at the image this way, the number of pixels to use when post-processing is determined by the device PPI/DPI array.
This reality is obfuscated by the mantra 'a pixel has no size'.
Yes, and that is the issue. "Whatever it need... (
show quote)