agedbriar wrote in post #18563478
Image pixels, in printing, are rendered by Dots, which must not to be confused with the high number of droplets, which only serve to 'paint up' the Dots to the required color.
In fact, that's been my point throughout this thread.
Edit: The confusion stems from the printer specs, where the makers want to impress with high numbers of DPI (Dots Per Inch - while actually stating droplets per inch) and further down calling the droplets with their proper name when stating the 1, 2, 5 picoliter droplet volumes.
I think the difficulty here is that what you are referring to as "Dots" are in fact pixels. Pixels make up the image, and the dots of ink from the nozzle build the pixels. The 9600 DPI figure is not in fact an attempt to impress with high values, but the correct use of the term Dots per Inch.
The larger issue is that most computer software seems to be able to universally interchange the terms DPI and PPI, and most of the time it is not an issue. It does become a problem at the point where we are converting pixels to dots for final output though. Take the case of my monitor for example. That outputs square pixels at a linear resolution of 219 Pixels per Inch. Each pixel is made up of three light emitting "dots" that are rectangular, and are each one third the width of the pixel, and it's full height. So the monitor has a horizontal resolution of 657 DPI, while it has a vertical resolution of 219 DPI. Different monitors have different layout of the sub pixel elements, so X and Y resolutions have to be considered differently for all different monitors.
Actually if you want an example of puffing specifications you only need to look at the specs for DSLR rear screens. Some time around 2008 or so I think it was they suddenly managed to triple the resolution of the displays. What they did was instead of specifying the total number of pixels in the screen, they switched to using the number of sub pixel dots. This was about the time that Canon went from the tiny little screens they used to use, on cameras like my 300D and 20D, to the much larger screens. They did this without making really huge increases in the number of pixels, so switching to "dots" really helped the numbers.
The same applies in digital inkjet printing where pixels are still pixels, and are made up from dots, which are actually the drops of ink.