Timeline for Is there any practical difference between saving at 300ppi or 72ppi?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2021 at 0:21 | comment | added | Michael C | @Seeker I've done that also. The pages display at different sizes. An FHD 27" monitor displays the same pages at larger sizes than a 2K 27" monitor. The monitor with the higher density displays the image smaller. What you're convinced happens with all display devices only happens with very high density devices like Apple's retina displays. | |
| Dec 21, 2021 at 20:22 | comment | added | Seeker | @MichaelC You are saying your one monitor is 27'' and the other one is 24'' so they are not of the same dimensions. Get two screens of same dimensions but different pixel density "ppi" and then see | |
| Dec 16, 2021 at 23:17 | comment | added | Michael C | @Seeker Actually, yes it does make a difference. When my browser is set to 100% magnification (one screen pixel per one page pixel), items are smaller on my 27" 2K monitor with 108 ppi than on my 24" FHD monitor with 96 ppi. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 22:41 | comment | added | Seeker | @MichaelC ppi being different is not an issue. The thing is, does any web page looks different in terms of dimensions of content that is present on the web page, on two screens of same dimensions. Like you have two screens of exactly same size, one is HD and the other is Full HD. If you view a web page on both of them, will it look any different in way that content of web page is bigger or samller on one.I don't think so. While pixel unit is used in css to design the layout. Here pixel is software and unit of length and same for different ppi screens. | |
| Dec 13, 2021 at 7:25 | comment | added | Michael C | Many displays do have 96 pixels per inch. The very common 24" FHD monitor does, for instance. But many also do not. The current monitor I use most of the time, which is 27" at 2K, has a pixel pitch of 108 ppi. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 16:34 | comment | added | Rafael | The 1/96 inch is a rough intent to solve the math inside the so-called "retina devices" to make the old px CSS unit backward compatible. This would be an interesting topic to analyze. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 16:34 | comment | added | Rafael | First of all, welcome!. You are mentioning an interesting new topic to the mix. The CSS px value. Unfortunately for everyone on the planet, we have not only "2 definitions" of a pixel. Software pixel and hardware pixel, but there are at least 3. I am trying to use the term "dixel" to the hardware pixel. "Dixel" for "display element". But that is another story. And then we are still left with the pixel as a matrix of data on an image, and a CSS pixel that messes up more the definitions, because a pixel has no intrinsic spatial dimension. | |
| Dec 11, 2021 at 13:57 | review | Late answers | |||
| Dec 18, 2021 at 13:35 | |||||
| S Dec 11, 2021 at 13:34 | review | First answers | |||
| Dec 25, 2021 at 13:36 | |||||
| S Dec 11, 2021 at 13:34 | history | answered | Seeker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |