re: #172 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

He doesn’t understand much of what he is talking about anyway, and if he does, he can’t express himself properly, not being a journalist or a bright human being, but what he means is probably what I have indicated above (even if he actually believes in literal differently sized pixels). Namely, that it’s a paste job from digital pics of different resolutions, where one pic is zoomed relative to another, thus the “squares” (which are no longer pixels of course) being different.

You’re both right. He thinks that a composited image retains the differing pixel sizes of its original constituent components. So that the pixels from Roberts’ eye are larger than the pixels in Prince Andrew’s eye. He thinks that because that’s what his expert @FlippingOffCat has told him -> that if you zoom way in using her special scientific software suite, this is what she sees, two different sized pixels at the exact same level of magnification.

Except as we all know raster images don’t work that way, because motherfucking math that’s why. All pixels are addressed according to X by Y coordinates, and within any given raster image they are always the exact same size. If they ever aren’t the exact same size they’re no longer pixels in a raster image, but texels, or some kind of Voronoi / Vector based abstract shit, or the dots in an AM halftone print rip file, or anything other than the elements in a jpeg that you can zoom in on and view using your goddamned computer monitor.