Most widely available lossless format for documents?

[Hecate]

Oh don't get us started on that again! Pixels are abstract objects
which do not have any intrinsic dimensions *until* they are physically
rendered. If they had a fixed width and height, how would you explain
the same image, with the same pixels, being printed at different sizes -
special relativity?

They are physically rendered on a computer screen - where they have a
width and height expressed in pixels. I'm talking about images, I
don't know what you're talking about.

 

[David Combs]

Rubbish, there are plenty of dimensionless units. Gradient of a slope
is one example most people encounter at an early age. If the slope
increases 1ft in every 10ft then it has a gradient of 0.1ft/ft - the
units cancel out and you have a dimensionless gradient of 10%. It is
pretty clear to everyone learning to walk that a 5% gradient is half as
steep as a 10% one!

Interest rates are another example - for every $10 you invest your bank
will give you $1. Interest rate is 0.1 dollars per dollar, or 10% - no
dimensions. You would be pretty pissed off if your bank then turned

FALSE! (finally, something in this group that
I actually know something about!)

Dimension of an interest-rate is [1/T].

(Although after some thought it's obvious, I first
saw that in a book
I own, "Dimensional Analysis for Economists")

Interest rate is: dollars per dollar -- PER PERIOD OF TIME.

Hope this helps.

David

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

They are physically rendered on a computer screen - where they have a
width and height expressed in pixels.

But that width and size of the image is not unique - on another screen
exactly the same pixels will produce an image of another size, so the
size is not an intrinsic parameter of the pixels. Just because a
rendered image has a width and height does not mean that the pixels
themselves have - it is the rendering process defines the width and
height, not the pixels. The same pixels can produce an image the size
of a postage stamp or half the surface of the planet - indeed, a
significant portion of the visible universe if necessary!

Lets make it simple for you:
The image has n x m pixels. It is rendered at y "pixels per inch".
The image height is therefore n/y pixels/(pixels/inch) = n/y inches.
The image width is m/y pixels/(pixels/inch) = m/y inches.

ie. both width and height are determined from the calculation of the
following units: pixels/(pixels/inch) = pixels/pixels * inches.

The dimensions of a pixel can be anything you like - oranges, elephants
or chocolate cookies, because they completely cancel out in all
calculations. Thus, invoking Occam's razor demonstrates they need be
nothing at all - completely *dimensionless*.

Now come up with a derivation of the dimensions you believe pixels to
have, or just apologise to Toby for getting it wrong.

I'm talking about images, I
don't know what you're talking about.

So why did you dispute Toby's statement that the pixel count is
dimensionless - you may be talking about images, but you are talking to
yourself! As Toby stated, the pixel count *is* dimensionless (which is
the specific statement you disputed) simply because it is the total
number of items which each have dimensionless units.

 

[Hecate]

Now come up with a derivation of the dimensions you believe pixels to
have, or just apologise to Toby for getting it wrong.

As I said below I'm not talking about pixels per se. A pixel is just
that. I'm talking about i9mages which do have dimensions.

So why did you dispute Toby's statement that the pixel count is
dimensionless - you may be talking about images, but you are talking to
yourself! As Toby stated, the pixel count *is* dimensionless (which is
the specific statement you disputed) simply because it is the total
number of items which each have dimensionless units.

Because I'm talking about images or am I mistaken in thinking a
Photoshop group is about images?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Because I'm talking about images or am I mistaken in thinking a
Photoshop group is about images?

You are certainly mistaken in thinking that you are just talking on a
Photoshop group or that discussion of pixels and their counts is somehow
off-topic on such a group.

There is nothing wrong with talking about images in any of the groups
you are posting to, but there is something wrong when you dispute a
perfectly valid statement and then claim to be talking about something
else entirely. Most people would have the decency to say "sorry" about
that rather than attempt to justify their error with misplaced
semantics.

 

[Andrew Morton]

The point being, sometimes it's not feasible to OCR written text.

That's when you need to store or transmit such scanned documents as
images, so the orginal poster has a very valid need.

The OP specified typed text, not handwritten text.

Andrew