Dots Per Indeterminate
-
@LB_ the problem is, since no browser (and probably no other image viewing application) supports this, the images themselves likely never have it set correctly. So your endeavor would be quite pointless.
DPI is an absolute mess. [warning: terrible photos coming up]
I've adjusted my DPI in Windows to match the actual monitor size:
There's some perspective distortion here, but it's pretty spot on.
Now let's compare an actual A4 sheet of paper (that's 210 mm across, FYI) to various program's depiction of "A4" at 100% zoom. Note: adjusting the DPI of these images had no effect on their measured size on my screen.
Word
Great job! It's near perfect, especially considering that the paper might be slightly curled.
Professional graphics program
Could use some work, but it's close. I think this one might have actually been better before DPI adjustment?
Drawing program
yeah, nice try. This one gets closer when the canvas's long edge is aligned with the paper's short edge. Oddly, it also works well at 141% zoom 
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Getting back to browsers: note the first image above indicates that things should be scaled by 110%. Firefox, at least, somehow takes this as an indicator that I want the entire page forever zoomed in to 110% at normal scale, resulting in slightly blurry images everywhere. Joy. If the browser is set to 90% zoom, the two seem to cancel out and make images appear normally, but I can't usually be bothered to do that.
And another image feature that browsers ignore is embedded colour profiles. I'd never have thought the only way to get an image to display normally in a browser was to not embed its colour profile. But here we are
-
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
And another image feature that browsers ignore is embedded colour profiles. I'd never have thought the only way to get an image to display normally in a browser was to not embed its colour profile. But here we are
It's generally a nightmare to match CSS colors with ICC profile adjusted colors, so for best results avoid them anyway.
-
Like most of the web, these issues exist because nobody thought about them back in 199x when the browser "standards" coalesced from the chaos. Now fixing it would break everything.
-
@error said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
And another image feature that browsers ignore is embedded colour profiles. I'd never have thought the only way to get an image to display normally in a browser was to not embed its colour profile. But here we are
It's generally a nightmare to match CSS colors with ICC profile adjusted colors, so for best results avoid them anyway.
In what sense do "CSS colors" differ from "ICC profile adjusted colors"? "Red", "Green" and "Blue" mean nothing on their own, so they are given precise definitions in an ICC profile. For the web, that's sRGB.
The whole point of ICC profiles is to make conversions between spaces easy, so I can't see how having a profile for the other space would make anything a nightmare. I'd rather have one than not.
Filed under: please do not get me started on colour, you do NOT want me to tell you about colour
-
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Filed under: please do not get me started on colour, you do NOT want me to tell you about colour
Please do not get me started on web dev, you do NOT want me to tell you about web dev.
-
@error said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Filed under: please do not get me started on colour, you do NOT want me to tell you about colour
Please do not get me started on web dev, you do NOT want me to tell you about web dev.
The Alternate Lifestyle thread is
as you well know...
-
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Oddly, it also works well at 141% zoom
That's the least odd thing of all in this mess. A4 has a 1:SQRT(2.0) aspect ratio (or very close to it), and SQRT(2.0) is 1.41, give or take.
-
@error said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Filed under: please do not get me started on colour, you do NOT want me to tell you about colour
Please do not get me started on web dev, you do NOT want me to tell you about web dev.
Correct. I don't want that stuff on me.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Oddly, it also works well at 141% zoom
That's the least odd thing of all in this mess. A4 has a 1:SQRT(2.0) aspect ratio (or very close to it), and SQRT(2.0) is 1.41, give or take.
@kazitor probably never had to use a photocopier to enlarge or reduce something from A4 to A3 or A5, because then “141%” would be instantly recognisable :)
-
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
“141%” would be instantly recognisable :)
Or perhaps I had put
there for a reason, and I'm far less humorous then I typically suppose…
Adobe Acrobat displays A4 as 222 mm across, which is better than the second program in the OP, but MS Word is still the best so far. Coincidence or actually doing something right?
-
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
MS Word is still the best so far. Coincidence or actually doing something right?
The only program that's actually used to make documents for printing?
-
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
(1) The world is good, except that most of it doesn't really understand monitors with that many pixels, much less a DPI that high.
-
According to this calculator I've got 95.78 ppi which is surprisingly close to the "rule of thumb" value of 96 ppi that I have had in the back of my mind for a few years. I thought 72 ppi was the 90s standard.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
-
@hungrier said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
According to this calculator I've got 95.78 ppi which is surprisingly close to the "rule of thumb" value of 96 ppi that I have had in the back of my mind for a few years. I thought 72 ppi was the 90s standard.
72 DPI was the real value, but Windows lied to applications and claimed the display had 96 DPI so text would be rendered larger.
-
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
-
@loopback0 Ha my beamer has 15 dpi
-
@loopback0 said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
E-peen battle conceded. Well played.
-
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
Recently was involved with a display that had <1 DPI
(Roadside display the size of a billboard)
-
@loopback0 said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
Pfffftttt, mine is 400.53. Suck it!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@loopback0 said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
Pfffftttt, mine is 400.53. Suck it!
-
@topspin said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@loopback0 said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Gurth said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@kazitor said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
72 DPI is standard for web-based stuff, but no modern display is anywhere near that. Mine, for instance, are about 105, and phones are much larger.
Just noticed this.
Pfft. Wuss. Mine are about 157 dpi. (28" diagonal 3840x2160)(1).
Pfft. Wuss. Mine is 218 dpi (27″ iMac 2019 model, 5120×2880)
Pfft, etc. Mine is 221dpi (15" MacBook Pro 2016, 2880x1800)
Pfffftttt, mine is 400.53. Suck it!
And the girls too!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Suck it!
okay, but you are going to return the favor, yes?
-
@Vixen said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Suck it!
okay, but you are going to return the favor, yes?
For sure! 👰
-
@levicki said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Dots Per Indeterminate:
Pfffftttt, mine is 400.53. Suck it!
I can't remember where I put mine otherwise I would have bested you all.
IBM has beaten all of us:
