Digital BW, The Print

Hi Roy,

> The word
> "resolution" has
> been a consistent "concept" for a long time.  Its basically the
> measure of discerning
> information over the spacial dimension.

Yes, I agree.

> They could have all instead used
> pixels per inch to
> spec monitors but they felt the unit "pixels per monitor" was
> much more useful
> and informative.

I have no problem with calling it "pixels", as it is pixels...but the point
is, it's not called pixels.  It's a misuse of the term "resolution" to say a
monitor has a resolution of 1280 x 1024, as no spatial dimension (well,
except "per monitor", which isn't really a very useful unit of measure,
since monitor sizes vary ;-) is "really" specified.  I think you understand
the point.

> To me a consistent usage, in a clear cut context, with no
> confusion, defines the term for that context. Arguing that people a wrong
> when they are the ones in complete agreement is a misplaced effort.

Well, for "us" pedestrians, which I am one of when it comes to monitors,
yes, it is a misplaced effort...but for someone who is "in the business",
it's a very important concept to understand.

Honestly, I don't consider the majority of people in "here" pedestrian when
it comes to imaging...as we are a "cut above" the "Joe point and shoot"
digital camera guys...and I do believe the correct use of the concept of
dynamic range won't be lost here.

Austin