RESOLVING RESOLUTION: An Introduction to Resolution
Mark A. Raimer · ETC.: A Review of General Semantics · 2000
MARK A. RAIMER [*] ALFRED KORZYBSKI wrote in his magnum opus Science and Sanity that different orders of abstractions [words] may have different meaning, with the result that they have no general meaning; for their meanings are determined solely by the given context [ldots] Korzybski called this ambiguity of words multiordinality. Korzybski and other authorities on neuro-semantics assure us that when we do not recognize the role context plays in language, much confusion and misunderstanding can result. This seems no less true in the graphic arts, a field notorious for its tricky techno-terminology. Here are a few examples, just to see what we're up against: In printers' lingo the word trap may mean a standard prepress technique or an anomaly in pressroom production, depending on who you talk to along the work path. Shadow has one meaning for a photographer, another for a retoucher. Likewise, the term PMT might refer to a proof type or a type of scanner. Ask a typesetter, an editor, and a multimedia artist what the word definition means and you will undoubtedly get three different answers. Even a simple word like cannot escape Korzybski's multiordinal characterization. (Any lengthy conversation about red with a professional pressperson should be more than enough to convince the reader of this.) Of all the snags in the graphic arts, the term seems to cause the most semantic static, perhaps because people -- amateurs and pros alike -- use the word to denote at least a half dozen different things. Only when we account for the specialized field or area from which the term derives can we determine the proper meaning for the term. Many people already know that has something to do with the clarity of an image, be it on a photographic print, a television screen, etc. Thanks to the advent of the desktop publishing revolution, many people also associate dpi (signifying dots per inch) with resolution. Depending on its context, however, dpi may refer to a monitor's or ruling, an imagesetter preference, a scanner's input quality, a printer's output quality, and so on ad infinauseum. In any case, most beginners tend to make the false inference that the higher the dpi the better the resolution. At first it sounds reasonable since a lower dpi can cause the notorious block-like pixilation phenomenon to occur, while a higher dpi should make an image more and uniform as the pixels (those tiny little dots that make up an image) size drops below our visual threshold. But all this fuss about dpi and ppi, lpi, etc., deals directly with the matter of finding the proper resolution. And in actuality, resolutions that are too high devour hard drive space, bog down processing time, and more-often-than-not produce a poor end product. So how are we to know what works best for an image? Unfortunately there are no absolute formulae we can employ to determine the perfect settings. Instead, we must follow a few general guidelines and, as Korzybski would say, keep a keen eye on context. Resolution, in general, refers to the number of pixels per centimeter (or inch) in an image, or the total number of pixels in a document, or the number of dots per centimeter (or inch) used by an output device. So when someone says resolution they could be referring to, among other things, the quality of an image on their monitor, a scanner or digital camera setting, or the output of their printer. Fortunately, identifying a problem seems a far easier task than trying to define the term resolution. Beginners should remember that the smaller the dots used to print an image, the less visible they become. The less visible the dots, the more seamless the image appears to the human eye. But, the smaller the dots in an image, the more difficult they are to print properly. For example, magazines can handle a smaller dot than newspapers because they print on better paper with better presses, higher-end hardware, etc. …