> Has the "positions of their centers are referred to as their positions" statement any hidden tricks behind it? Do "dimensions of an image" always denote difference in min and max values of pixel positions a.k.a. their centers along the respective coordinate, or should we assume something missing from the statement about the shape of the pixels? (For example, supposed that they are squares, (-0.49,-0.49) actually "falls on the original image"?)

• "without size" (0) frkstyc 2006-09-29 22:23:15
  • Re:"without size" (84) ulzha 2006-09-29 23:14:50