*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Good point Oliver! As it is meant to be art, one could also do one of these mosaic images where every pixel is represented by a little image!
Regarding ppi and dpi, the dots per inch are usually a larger value as the printer needs many dots to do one properly coloured pixel. But this depends on the printer. So you would have some leeway for the acquisition. 

Best wishes
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: "Burri Olivier" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: ‎06/‎08/‎2015 23:39
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Resolution; um/pix to DPI

Hi all, 

I figured I'd add my two cents to this little debate.

So as stated before 300dpi is a sort of standard dogma to get images where you did not see the grain of the data. This is why we talk DOTs per inch and not Pixels per inch. Because these two were often confused, what people usually mean is PPI or Pixels Per Inch. 

Now onwards to talking about scientific imaging, design and art.

There seems to be this impression that bigger is always better. Make tiles, zoom in or upsample with interpolation. But is all this really necessary?

Pixels are beautiful, pixels represent the reality of how the data was acquired. You don't Gaussian blur histograms because they look to blocky, do you? so what if they are big? Sometimes imaging requires it or there is no point in making the pixels smaller or the images bigger... 

Pixels have their own beauty 
http://www.ixxidesign.com/fr/producten/special-collectie/pixel


If we are talking about making something pretty for the sake of it, then go for it, acquire above nyquist, tile (and deal with those problems) or resize with interpolation. 

The most honest and usually more interesting approach in my opinion is to show the image with the actual pixels in all their beauty.(See 
That is, upscale it until you have reached the right size in inches but without interpolation. Sure it looks pixelated, but it’s closer to the reality of what you have acquired and worked on. I trust an image more if I see some pixels than a smooth image that means that some interpolation took place in-between. But of course this is just a matter of personal taste :)

All the best

Oli