On Sunday 12 February 2006 20:03, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Nonsense. Pixels have rectangular boundaries. That's all there is to it.
Who told you this? It's not true! There are even imaging applications that let you specify rectangular or circular pixels.
They absolutely are immune to such artifacts.
Nonsense. Show me a real life demonstration of this supposed "immunity." You cannot, ergo the "immunity" is only theoretical.
You mislead when you say "less susceptible." They are, plain and simple, immune to it.
See my point above. I think you are being misleading by insisting on imposing theoretical perfection in a real life, practical circumstance.
And you were only talking about drawing lines and curves on a raster. My point here is that changing the size or resolution of an existing raster image also encounters related but distinct problems.
Feel free to use as few words as you like. Zero's always a safe choice.
OK, Randall, you've proven you have some knowledge but, from a *practical* standpoint, has this tangent contributed one bit to the resolution of Art's original problem? I don't think it has. That's why I hate these kinds of unnecessary technical "wee wee" contests. If you'd weighed the real value of offering your unnecessary 'corrections' to my original advice, maybe "zero" words would have been better choice this time? Anyway, the lights just flickered (winter storm) so I've gotta shut down. Carl