I explicitly talked about the best case scenario, which would have been "one camera pixel is able to retrieve precisely the information of one printed pixel (or several printed pixels that act as one)"
From there, I simply listed sources of error that would make it worse and words. The only place I could see conflation occurring is when I wrote about "sub 0.1mm" which indeed refers to the printed thing, and correspond roughly to the tolerance that would be needed to achieve millions of "printable" pixels, but even if it's about the printed pixels, it still limits the amount of information that would be stored.
Would you mind indicating where there seem to be confusion according to you? Re-reading it quickly, the comment seems consistent and indicates that both the camera pixels AND the printed pixels would cause issue.
From there, I simply listed sources of error that would make it worse and words. The only place I could see conflation occurring is when I wrote about "sub 0.1mm" which indeed refers to the printed thing, and correspond roughly to the tolerance that would be needed to achieve millions of "printable" pixels, but even if it's about the printed pixels, it still limits the amount of information that would be stored.
Would you mind indicating where there seem to be confusion according to you? Re-reading it quickly, the comment seems consistent and indicates that both the camera pixels AND the printed pixels would cause issue.