6 ms·
Yeah but the article is about a pixel, which has different meanings. Making blanket statements is not helpful in resolving definitions. Truth is, a pixel is bo
by glitchc 2y ago
Yeah but the article is about a pixel, which has different meanings. Making blanket statements is not helpful in resolving definitions.
Truth is, a pixel is both a sample and a transducer. And in transduction, a pixel is both an integrator and an emitter.
- grandempire 2y agoI’ll quote my other comment: > If you are looking to understand how your operating system will display images, or how your graphics drivers work, or how photoshop will edit them, or what digital cameras aim to produce, then it’s the point sample definition.
- tobr 2y agoSometimes yes. Sometimes no! There are certainly situations where a pixel will be scaled, displayed, edited or otherwise treated as a little square.
- seba_dos1 2y agoA little rectangle even.
- grandempire 2y agoWhat is a little rectangle? Physical display pixels are separate RGB leds with a non-rectangular shape.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThey're rectangles on my monitor.
- cma 2y agoIf black and white or some other cases, but there are typically subpixels that can make things like sparse enough text stroke transitions get 3X horizontal resolution.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe subpixels are rectangles on most screens.
- grandempire 2y agoThey tend to have rounded or cut corners and are not uniform.
- grandempire 2y agoDo the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel?
- Dylan16807 2y agoI'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel. They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good.
- grandempire 2y ago> And the mismatch of the square model So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. > doesn't mean the point model is good. What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems. You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are. If the point model was all you need, then objects small enough to slip between points would be invisible. Which is not the case. In particular a shot of the night sky would look pure black. So if being wrong means we should abandon the model, then we can't use squares or points.
- grandempire 2y ago> I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_ge... I look forward to your paper about a superior digital image representation.
- 2y ago
- afandian 2y agoBBC Micro in graphics mode 2 the pixel is a 2:1 rectangle. Other geometries for different modes. It's going back a bit, but very much living memory! https://beebwiki.mdfs.net/MODE_2 https://beebwiki.mdfs.net/MODE_2
- SimplyUnknown 2y agoIn medical imaging, data are often acquired using anisotropic resolution. So a pixel (or voxel in 3D) can be an averaged signal sample originating from 2mm of tissue in one direction and 0.9mm in another direction.
- grandempire 2y agoand it’s displayed with a completely different algorithm…
- seba_dos1 2y agoMany video formats use rectangular pixels. It's less common these days, but there were no squares on DVDs for example. Even some VGA modes have non-square pixels, and these were used by many games and... Windows 9x splash screen.