It's not a conscious choice to use those methods, they just are what they are.
And I don't measure density, honestly, I have no reason to.

And I am a graphic designer, and when I'm designing for the web, pixel is the Only way to go, as all dimensions in the CSS and HTML are indicated in pixels.

- A web graphic is always 72 dpi, unless for some strange reason its
needed at higher clarity, then I use 96 dpi.
- Images for ads in news print are usually good at 200 dpi.
- Graphics used for full colour print use 300 dpi
I instinctively know the size on the image as it adjusts between the different dpi settings. it's part of the job from doing it for so many years (lol - plus, Photoshop tells you as you reduce the dpi what size it is )

But like I said, if I'm designing for print, then I use Points and Picas - not pixels.

That seems unnecessarily confusing.

How do you describe density? Pounds per litre?

And pixels are a terrible way to measure "computer". That's why so many 3rd party Windows applications screw up when you change the DPI (which obviously should be DPCM )

When I was growing up in Ireland all the roadsign distances were in KM and the speed limits in MPH. Confused the hell out of tourists

I've found, that "for me," it depends on what I am doing which determines the system I'm using.
Distance: Kilometers makes the most sense.
Temperature: Celsius makes way more sense
Measurements around the house and building: Inches and feet are the standard.
Design: Points and Picas are the most useful
Computer: Pixels (unles the output is print, then back to Points)
Weight: Pounds/ounces
Volume: Liters and Milliliters

Your video, the large pixel collider PC gamer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oh yeah, pixel art is huge right now, especially among indie games.

My thoughts:

* For technology that is 8 years old, this is mighty impressive how small the difference is. It's worth looking back to see the 360/PS3 launch titles to see just how much has come from programming efficiency rather than raw processing power. It will be interesting to see if in 5 years, these new consoles will look equally miles better than they do now.

* Textures are sharper, particle effects like smoke and dust are snazzier and draw distance is greatly improved but ... on the whole, the lighting, most of the doodads in the environment, and the overall 'feel' is the same if you don't look too close.

* Sony's consoles seem to always display darker by default than MS's. I don't understand why for the purposes of comparison they can't pump up the brightness.

* With all the furore about Xbox One being 720p and PS4 being 900p (which doesn't sound too bad but is about 50% more pixels to the PS4), there doesn't seem to be a large diference in detail. If anything the environmental effects seem slightly better on the Xbox One.

BTW, 4K for TV is 2160p. Thats 3840x2160 or 8.3 megapixels. Four times more pixels than 1920x1080 which comes out to 2.1 megapixels. Devices with 4k res will usually be labeled as Ultra high definition television or UHDTV

Like slow loading 34mb GIFs that I can set the embedded width and height to 9999 pixels!

6 shades of awesome. It's still fake though. I can see the pixels.

Holy crap! Up until he got close to the 2nd guy and i could see some minor shadow pixelation i thought it was video trick with real humans.

> I can tell from some of the pixels

column 319, row 27 at timestamp 00:12.34

I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

Same here. I can't stand the ugly pixelated sprites. This one has many addons.

Graphics programmers call those 3D pixels "voxels". Once you have them in some sort of a spatial acceleration structure like an octree, rendering is usually pretty quick. Making voxels out of a bunch of high-res camera images is the expensive part.

See video here for explanation. Not to many cameras actually needed:
http://www.replay-technologies.com/technology.html

Our technology works by capturing reality not as just a two dimensional, or stereoscopic representation, but as a true three dimensional scene, comprised of three dimensional "pixels" that faithfully represent the fine details of the scene. This information is stored as a freeD™ database, which can then be tapped to produce (render) any desired viewing angle from the detailed information.

This enables a far superior way of capturing reality, which allows breaking free from the constraints of where a physical camera with a particular lens had been placed, to allow a freedom of viewing which has endless possibilities.

The current working deliverable of this technology ("Watch As U Want") allows producers and directors to create "impossible" camera views of a given moment in time as seen in Yankee Baseball YES View- But we believe that ultimately the biggest freeD™ innovation, as display technologies get better and more advanced, will allow the user to get fully and interactively immerse in the content.