I wanted a comparison between the different pixel and point sizes.
I’ve listed the increasing numerical size for each series side-by-side, illustrating how points get progressively larger.
In the table below I’ve set the style in the pixel and point columns such that it’ll over-ride the CSS configured elsewhere.
| Pixel (px) | Point (pt) | |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Distaghil Sar | Pakistan |
| 8 | Himalchuli | Nepal |
| 9 | Gasherbrum IV | Pakistan |
| 10 | Annapurna II | Nepal |
| 11 | Gasherbrum III | Pakistan – China |
| 12 | Gyachung Kang | Nepal – China |
| 13 | Shishapangma | China |
| 14 | Gasherbrum II | Pakistan – China |
| 15 | Broad Peak | Pakistan – China |
| 16 | Gasherbrum I | Pakistan – China |
| 17 | Annapurna I | Nepal |
| 18 | Nanga Parbat | Pakistan |
| 19 | Manaslu | Nepal |
| 20 | Dhaulagiri I | Nepal |
| 21 | Cho Oyu | Nepal – China |
| 22 | Makalu | Nepal – China |
| 23 | Lhotse | Nepal – China |
| 24 | Kangchenjunga | Nepal – India |
| 25 | K2 | Pakistan – China |
| 26 | Mount Everest | Nepal – China |
The simple table looked boring and uninviting with just the two initial columns: one for pixel and one for point sizes. So I’ve replaced these by columns with the highest mountains and their countries, as derived Wikipedia.
