Picture size

[P & H Macguire]

I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
They will be scanned at about 300dpi.

Regards

PJM

[Luke]

"P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
...
>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and wondered
>what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They will be
>scanned at about 300dpi.


640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.


Luke

[octothorpe]

"Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>
>
> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
> prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.
>
>
> Luke
>
>

May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good for
printing.

Tom

[The Old Bloke[_2_]]

"octothorpe" > wrote in message
news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>
> "Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>
>>
>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
>> prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.
>>
>>
>> Luke
>>
>>
>
> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
> display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good
> for printing.
>
> Tom
For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.

[Dave Kearton]

The Old Bloke wrote:
>> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
>> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>>>
>>> "Luke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>>> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>>>>> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want
>>>> larger prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never
>>>> shy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors
>>> cannot display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The
>>> 300 is good for printing.
>>>
>>> Tom
>> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.



Don't listen to him, he's from the dark side (by the way Luke, he's your
father)





--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Terry M[_3_]]

I prefer 800x600 or larger. Most of us have monitors set at that size or
larger. Using any smaller gives just that - a very small picture. The
640x480 size was for very old monitors - hardly anyone has their monitor set
at that resolution since monitors have physically grown in size.


"P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
...
>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and wondered
>what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They will be
>scanned at about 300dpi.
>
> Regards
>
> PJM
>

[Lynn Coffelt]

"Terry M" > wrote in message
m...
> I prefer 800x600 or larger. Most of us have monitors set at that size or
> larger. Using any smaller gives just that - a very small picture. The
> 640x480 size was for very old monitors - hardly anyone has their monitor
set
> at that resolution since monitors have physically grown in size.
>
>
> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
wondered
> >what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They will be
> >scanned at about 300dpi.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > PJM
> >
If one is going to benefit from old slide and negative resolution, scan
at the highest resolution your system can handle. Some amazing detail is
available in some of them. Store or archive them in that highest resolution.
Store on CD or DVD disks. Then when one wants to post to newsgroups or
internet sites, you can downsize copies for posting if that's what your
intended viewers want. BUT, keeping the high resolution scans makes it
possible to clip out portions of the original picture, magnify the clips and
find great history in the details!
For the record, I usually do not follow my own good sense advise.
Old Chief Lynn

[Joseph Testagrose]

1024x768 or larger would be fine. Joe.
On Sat, 12 May 2007 08:12:14 GMT, "P & H Macguire"
> wrote:

>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>
>Regards
>
>PJM
>

[octothorpe]

"The Old Bloke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>>
>> "Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>
>>>
>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
>>> prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>>
>>
>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
>> display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good
>> for printing.
>>
>> Tom
> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.

Noted. Thanks.

Tom

[octothorpe]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
...
> The Old Bloke wrote:
>>> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
>>> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>>>>
>>>> "Luke" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>>>> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>>>>>> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want
>>>>> larger prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never
>>>>> shy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Luke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>>>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors
>>>> cannot display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The
>>>> 300 is good for printing.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.
>
>
>
> Don't listen to him, he's from the dark side (by the way Luke, he's
> your
> father)
>
Dave, just what is that rubbish supposed to mean?

Tom

[§qu@re Wheels[_3_]]

On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig, P & H Macguire did state:

> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>
> Regards
>
> PJM

Absolutely scan at 300dpi or even more. You can always reduce (dpi, size,
etc.) but no matter what, no matter how a pic is, enlarging more than 25%
is useless and there is much quality degradation.

Avoid 72 dpi like unto the plague. That was a semi-arbitrary resolution
based on the early browsers that could not display more than that, and the
palettes were also fewer than 256 colours. Those were the old days.
And today's monitors, both LCD and CRT, can display even more than 300
dpi, and do it well.

Optimally, save at the highest settings all around for archival purposes;
with high quality CD+R disks selling for under a dollar apiece (Canadian,
eh? Prolly about U$D $0.70 or less), it shouldn't be a problem.

In addition to keeping the originals, the current post-production
(cropping, colour tweaking, sharpening, etc.) 'storage' size is 1600x1200.

Probably the best way to keep filesizes down is to (when finished tweaking
and all that) save at 85% of the original 'quality'. The difference
in filesize is striking, and truly, I have yet to find /anyone/ that can
tell the difference between 100% and 85% because of the way JPEG
compression handles the data.

As for filesizes, both physical and byte-wise, for this group, that would
depend on your FAQ or whatever has been decided either formally or by
general agreement, like the yEnc issue. (and yes, I know the debate
thoroughly; yEnc be GOOD, but Bill Gates has his own rules, which are by
default /your/ rules, like it or not)

Next door in ABPAutos, 1280 has now become the norm, and 1024 is
considered a bit small. It all depends, methinks, on how much detail you
wish to see, and for now, 1280 @ ~85% reduction is working extremely well.

However, beware of the various file manipulator progs. Your image editor,
e.g., PSP, Photoshop and The GIMP (Linux, /free/ and excellent, and I
believe there are versions for PC and Mac) are your best bets.

One notable exception to this is IrfanView, a freebie, and
although it is a small program, it has become legendary amongst users for
it's output quality, and legendary amongst programmers, who continually
praise its elegance of programming. Grab a copy and play with it a bit and
you'll likely be quite surprised at how much it can do and how well it
does it all. But, it should NOT be a replacement for a good image
manipulation graphics prog, but a very good adjunct program.

Drop by ABPAutos and have a look; you don't need to know anything about
cars to evaluate the pix; after all, I know virtually zilch about
aircraft, but I lurk here, and love it. I just think planes are cool, I
love learning about them, and I pass interesting pix along to two pilot
friends. (The Leduc-22 was the most recent; one of the pilots is also an
aviation journalist, and it took him on a very Sentimental Journey!)

FWIW, but I hope it helps in some small way.

However, the Gilded Rule is go BIG; you can always go downwards (or
'downsize' these days!) to suit your needs!


SW


--
There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like
about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to
other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham.

-Anna Sewell, writer (1820-1878)

[Pjmac35]

"P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
...
>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>
> Regards
>
> PJM
>

Thanks to everybody who took the time. A lot of food for thought
there.

Regards

PJM

[Grumpy AuContraire[_2_]]

§qu@re Wheels wrote:

> On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig, P & H Macguire did state:
>
>
>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>>They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>PJM
>
>
> Absolutely scan at 300dpi or even more. You can always reduce (dpi, size,
> etc.) but no matter what, no matter how a pic is, enlarging more than 25%
> is useless and there is much quality degradation.
>
> Avoid 72 dpi like unto the plague. That was a semi-arbitrary resolution
> based on the early browsers that could not display more than that, and the
> palettes were also fewer than 256 colours. Those were the old days.
> And today's monitors, both LCD and CRT, can display even more than 300
> dpi, and do it well.
>

Please list monitors (any) that display higher resolution than 72 dpi.



> Optimally, save at the highest settings all around for archival purposes;
> with high quality CD+R disks selling for under a dollar apiece (Canadian,
> eh? Prolly about U$D $0.70 or less), it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> In addition to keeping the originals, the current post-production
> (cropping, colour tweaking, sharpening, etc.) 'storage' size is 1600x1200.
>
> Probably the best way to keep filesizes down is to (when finished tweaking
> and all that) save at 85% of the original 'quality'. The difference
> in filesize is striking, and truly, I have yet to find /anyone/ that can
> tell the difference between 100% and 85% because of the way JPEG
> compression handles the data.
>
> As for filesizes, both physical and byte-wise, for this group, that would
> depend on your FAQ or whatever has been decided either formally or by
> general agreement, like the yEnc issue. (and yes, I know the debate
> thoroughly; yEnc be GOOD, but Bill Gates has his own rules, which are by
> default /your/ rules, like it or not)
>
> Next door in ABPAutos, 1280 has now become the norm, and 1024 is
> considered a bit small. It all depends, methinks, on how much detail you
> wish to see, and for now, 1280 @ ~85% reduction is working extremely well.
>
> However, beware of the various file manipulator progs. Your image editor,
> e.g., PSP, Photoshop and The GIMP (Linux, /free/ and excellent, and I
> believe there are versions for PC and Mac) are your best bets.
>
> One notable exception to this is IrfanView, a freebie, and
> although it is a small program, it has become legendary amongst users for
> it's output quality, and legendary amongst programmers, who continually
> praise its elegance of programming. Grab a copy and play with it a bit and
> you'll likely be quite surprised at how much it can do and how well it
> does it all. But, it should NOT be a replacement for a good image
> manipulation graphics prog, but a very good adjunct program.
>
> Drop by ABPAutos and have a look; you don't need to know anything about
> cars to evaluate the pix; after all, I know virtually zilch about
> aircraft, but I lurk here, and love it. I just think planes are cool, I
> love learning about them, and I pass interesting pix along to two pilot
> friends. (The Leduc-22 was the most recent; one of the pilots is also an
> aviation journalist, and it took him on a very Sentimental Journey!)
>
> FWIW, but I hope it helps in some small way.
>
> However, the Gilded Rule is go BIG; you can always go downwards (or
> 'downsize' these days!) to suit your needs!
>
>
> SW
>
>

[§qu@re Wheels[_3_]]

On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig,
Grumpy AuContraire did state:

> Please list monitors (any) that display higher resolution than 72 dpi.

Almost all today can default to 96 dpi, and if it's more than 19" can be
tweaked into the 110+ range.

DPI is extremely confusing, because there are so many variables. My
Samsung 214t is set to display at 131 dpi because in part it is set to
1600x1200 native res. When you get into the 5000xWhatever range (which I
can't; I'm maxed), then you're getting up to around the 300 dpi mark -- or
so the manufacturers say.

One major problem is that the Windoze environment has its own limits,
which are less than simply what the monitor is capable of (and that's
about all I remember about Windoze). As for the Mac environment, I know
zilch, though I've heard it's about the same as Windoze, except for
perhaps their newest pricey offering.

But in truth, right now dpi is far more important for printing and
archiving purposes, but for monitors it is increasing in importance as
well. The new widescreen monitors (as well as the monster 40" and up
plasma HDTVs) will display at a higher dpi because their native desktop
size is larger. And of course, the 5:4 vs 4:3 ratio issue is adding to the
confusion as well.

However, an expert can offer far better info than I; unfortunately my
personal 'Puter Wizard and wife are both on the road lecturing in
different places and unavailable.

So, 96 dpi is fairly universal, and that increases with acreage and price.
Since the Web is still basically a 72 dpi medium, most manufacturers have
not made increasing display res much of a priority. The vast majority of
people are happy just the way things are.

I tend to think in "High End" terms because so many of the people I know
are computer professionals, graphics professionals and media types. So I
really should have added that although many monitors can easily display
300 dpi, you pay /heavily/ for it, and many of these monitors are not even
available (yet) at the retail level.

And that's about all I can say; the whole issue is very
mathematically-oriented, and I just don't speak math very well at all.



SW


--
From: (via teranews)

> > Reported to: , ,


> And they are very tired of you.

Message-ID: >

Yes, there's a bitch that replies to me, kinda telling me the
problem's with the Canadian Shaw's personnel. But prescience pays off and
long as you violate the groups charter, or just Usenet's common decency,
I'll be there to report you. You being a traitor is a especial incentive.

[octothorpe]

"Jim Townsend" > wrote in message
...
> octothorpe wrote:
>
>>
>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
>> display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good
>> for
>> printing.
>
> FWIW, The DPI setting has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the file size of
> an image. It's a confusing subect :) The link below has a pretty good
> explanation.
>
> http://www.larry-bolch.com/dpi-revealed/
>
>

Thanks for the link, Jim. I'll have to open up Irfanview and PSP to
experiment.

Tom

[The Old Bloke[_2_]]

"The Old Bloke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>>
>> "Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>
>>>
>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
>>> prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>>
>>
>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
>> display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good
>> for printing.
>>
>> Tom
> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.

But don't post at that resolution.

Doug

[The Old Bloke[_2_]]

"octothorpe" > wrote in message
news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>
> "Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>
>>
>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want larger
>> prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never shy.
>>
>>
>> Luke
>>
>>
>
> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors cannot
> display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The 300 is good
> for printing.
>
> Tom
Yes for posting that is OK, but not for scanning. A slide is about 1 inch
by 1 inch, so at 72 dpi you would have only 72 dots across the image. So
scan at 2400 or 4800, and then sub sample for posting.

Dedicated slide scanners for home use usually use 2400/4800/9600 dpi.

[The Old Bloke[_2_]]

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> §qu@re Wheels wrote:
>
>> On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig, P &
>> H Macguire did state:
>>
>>
>>>I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They
>>>will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>PJM
>>
>>
>> Absolutely scan at 300dpi or even more. You can always reduce (dpi, size,
>> etc.) but no matter what, no matter how a pic is, enlarging more than 25%
>> is useless and there is much quality degradation.
>>
>> Avoid 72 dpi like unto the plague. That was a semi-arbitrary resolution
>> based on the early browsers that could not display more than that, and
>> the
>> palettes were also fewer than 256 colours. Those were the old days.
>> And today's monitors, both LCD and CRT, can display even more than 300
>> dpi, and do it well.
>>
>
> Please list monitors (any) that display higher resolution than 72 dpi.

My monitor is an Apple Mac 23" (running on a PC) and it has 1920 X 1200.
The vertical dimension is 12" So about 100dpi.

My Sony VAIO notebook has 1920 X 1200 and the screen is 9" high. That's 133
dpi.

There are two issues. Scanning for archive and then the (reduced) size for
posting.

When I scan a slide I do it for archiving and I use 4800. Even that doesn't
do the slide its full credit. For archival, you also need to consider the
colour depth. 48 bit is great for a slide, but normal jpg will only save 32
bit. There is a higher depth jpeg (jpeg2000, I think) but I don't use it.
It's a rare format and I don't trust trust it to supported in 20 years time.

If you do scan a slide at 72 dpi, then you will have an image that is
roughly 72 X 72. Almost unusable.

Regards

>
snip

[The Old Bloke[_2_]]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
...
> The Old Bloke wrote:
>>> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
>>> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
>>>>
>>>> "Luke" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
>>>>>> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
>>>>>> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want
>>>>> larger prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never
>>>>> shy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Luke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
>>>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors
>>>> cannot display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The
>>>> 300 is good for printing.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.
>
>
>
> Don't listen to him, he's from the dark side (by the way Luke, he's
> your
> father)
>
>
Oi Davo, carefull!!!! :-))

[§qu@re Wheels[_3_]]

On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig, The
Old Bloke did state:

> There is a higher depth jpeg (jpeg2000, I think) but I don't use it.
> It's a rare format and I don't trust trust it to supported in 20 years time.

It's not even supported now, AFAIK. Haven't seen one in over a year, and
even then the poster got blasted for using it.

I think PNG will be around for a while; it at least is being used, but
mostly as a hi-res high-colour GIF would be because it has transparency
capabilities.

Filesizes are out of line, though. If they can get that under control, it
might hang around a while.

Meanwhile, the JPEG crowd (Joint Photographic Expert Group) are trying (or
were) to grab royalties as a propriety format. If they ever succeeded,
which is about as likely as me inheriting the British Crown Jewels, it
would be a revenue-neutral business.


SW


--
From: (via teranews)

> > Reported to: , ,


> And they are very tired of you.

Message-ID: >

Yes, there's a bitch that replies to me, kinda telling me the
problem's with the Canadian Shaw's personnel. But prescience pays off and
long as you violate the groups charter, or just Usenet's common decency,
I'll be there to report you. You being a traitor is a especial incentive.

[Al Denelsbeck]

"P & H Macguire" > wrote in news:yFe1i.14160$8E.416
@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
>
> Regards
>
> PJM


Okay.

To be technical, DPI is a printing resolution, and you cannot scan
at that. This is nit-picky, because the actual term for scanning
resolution is PPI (pixels per inch), and most people use them
interchangeably, but there is a difference.

For scanning slides, start at max resolution and try working
backwards on the sharpest slides, watching the differences carefully at
100% in your image editing program. This will largely appear to be
blotches of indistinct color, but you can see whether the higher
resolutions make any difference to your slides. Super sharp slides may
benefit from scanning at 2400 PPI or higher, but film grain, lens
quality, and steadiness of the photographer all play a part, and pics of
lesser quality may not show any improvement between 1200 PPI and 2400 PPI
because, quite simply, the resolution isn't there in the film.

For scanning prints, you typically will not pull up much, if any,
detail beyond 300 PPI. Magazine prints can typically go lower, but
scanning at a higher res with the page at a slight angle helps correct
for screening (moire) patterns, and the pic can be straightened after
scanning in your editing program.

I have never discerned any difference between saving in TIFF
(lossless) format and highest quality JPEG, except for the tremendous
savings in file size - this, mind you, is for the original scan. Archive
off the original scans and back them up - you never know when a slide
will get damaged or disappear. And always work on a copy. There's nothing
more frustrating than hitting "Save" instead of "Save As..." and
overwriting your original scan.

As for display resolution, you can ignore DPI entirely - it means
absolutely nothing to the monitor or display. My vote goes for 1024x768
pixels or smaller, because I'm one of those miserly people who maintains
that as a monitor resolution. Larger just means scrolling, and that
detracts from the affect of the shot, especially if you're the type to
frame a shot carefully.

JPEG compression seems to work just fine at between 50% and 80%
quality (100 being full quality, not compressed) - it depends on, not the
detail of the shot, but the gradients, which is where jpeg compression
has its first affects. If you see your skies becoming blocky in places,
increase quality.

Sharpening should be done sparingly, if at all. If you see halos or
fringing occurring along areas of high contrast, you're sharpening too
much.

More info than you asked for:

DPI is considered a printing resolution, but most printers nowadays
ignore it entirely and simply interpolate what is needed from the final
print size you indicate. Even the home inkjets will print far more than
300 dots per inch, but this is because they have to make a 16 million
color gamut from 6 ink colors or less, and have to layer in multiple tiny
ink dots to give the impression of a field of clear Prussian Blue.

About the only place I've seen DPI make any difference whatsoever
has been when you're laying text in over the image (like a copyright
mark). Photoshop, at least, judges font size on the DPI resolution, so
pick one and stay with it. It can be 1 DPI if you like, and the file info
may consider your pic to be a thousand inches wide, but it'll still
display one pixel per pixel on a monitor at 100%. 300 and 72 DPI are the
defaults, and either one works fine. Information like that is ignored by
both browsers and monitors, which only work from the pixel dimensions.

And in fact, even for web pages, the photo displays at the pixel
dimensions specified in the html, which may not be the pixel dimensions
of the jpeg file. Lots of novice web designers cause huge page loading
delays because they take a jpeg way too large for the web and "size it"
in the html. All it means is a large file takes time loading just to
display at a res that it could have been sized to in the first place.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

[Pjmac35]

"Al Denelsbeck" > wrote in message
.128...
> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in
> news:yFe1i.14160$8E.416
> @newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
>
>
> And in fact, even for web pages, the photo displays at the pixel
> dimensions specified in the html, which may not be the pixel
> dimensions
> of the jpeg file. Lots of novice web designers cause huge page
> loading
> delays because they take a jpeg way too large for the web and "size
> it"
> in the html. All it means is a large file takes time loading just to
> display at a res that it could have been sized to in the first
> place.
>
>
> - Al.
>
> --
> To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

Again, thanks to everybody for these very full and interesting
replies. I had no idea I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest!

Regards

PJM

[Peter Dohm]

"octothorpe" > wrote in message
news:CVm1i.6994$cu1.1851@trnddc01...
>
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Old Bloke wrote:
> >>> "octothorpe" > wrote in message
> >>> news:mJg1i.5118$3B5.4926@trnddc08...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Luke" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
> >>>>>> wondered what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G.
> >>>>>> They will be scanned at about 300dpi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 640X480 is a dandy size for initial viewing. If folks want
> >>>>> larger prints for wallpaper or suck they will ask. They are never
> >>>>> shy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Luke
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> May I add that the size that you suggested should be at ~72 dpi
> >>>> resolution to keep the file size smaller for the web. Monitors
> >>>> cannot display the 300 dpi res any better than the 72 dpi res. The
> >>>> 300 is good for printing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom
> >>> For qualty retention 4800X4800 is needed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't listen to him, he's from the dark side (by the way Luke, he's
> > your
> > father)
> >
> Dave, just what is that rubbish supposed to mean?
>
> Tom
>
>
Someone is not a Jedi... :-(

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Lynn Coffelt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Terry M" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I prefer 800x600 or larger. Most of us have monitors set at that size
or
> > larger. Using any smaller gives just that - a very small picture. The
> > 640x480 size was for very old monitors - hardly anyone has their monitor
> set
> > at that resolution since monitors have physically grown in size.
> >
> >
> > "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
> wondered
> > >what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They will be
> > >scanned at about 300dpi.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > PJM
> > >
> If one is going to benefit from old slide and negative resolution,
scan
> at the highest resolution your system can handle. Some amazing detail is
> available in some of them. Store or archive them in that highest
resolution.
> Store on CD or DVD disks. Then when one wants to post to newsgroups or
> internet sites, you can downsize copies for posting if that's what your
> intended viewers want. BUT, keeping the high resolution scans makes it
> possible to clip out portions of the original picture, magnify the clips
and
> find great history in the details!
> For the record, I usually do not follow my own good sense advise.
> Old Chief Lynn
>
>
It also keeps the old scans usefull with future monitors for a longer time.

Don't ask me how I know. :-(

Peter

[Luke]

"Pjmac35" > wrote in message
...
> Again, thanks to everybody for these very full and interesting replies. I
> had no idea I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest!


Hornet's nest? good lord man, this is no hornet's nest. This is simply
a thread that got a few replies. You want to see some "hornet's nests",
check out some of the lengthy and vitriolic thread in
alt.binaries.pictures.military, or even
alt.binaries.pictures.motorcycles.harley. Them's some hornet's nests...
BTW, welcome to the group.


Luke

[Shiver]

> I had no idea I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest!

Of course that's an F-18 Hornet's nest.

[®i©ardo]

Pjmac35 wrote:
> "Al Denelsbeck" > wrote in message
> .128...
>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in
>> news:yFe1i.14160$8E.416
>> @newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
>>
>>
>> And in fact, even for web pages, the photo displays at the pixel
>> dimensions specified in the html, which may not be the pixel
>> dimensions
>> of the jpeg file. Lots of novice web designers cause huge page
>> loading
>> delays because they take a jpeg way too large for the web and "size
>> it"
>> in the html. All it means is a large file takes time loading just to
>> display at a res that it could have been sized to in the first
>> place.
>>
>>
>> - Al.
>>
>> --
>> To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain
>
> Again, thanks to everybody for these very full and interesting
> replies. I had no idea I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest!
>
> Regards
>
> PJM
>
>
Which hornet was that?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Pjmac35]

"shiver" > wrote in message
...
>> I had no idea I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest!
>
> Of course that's an F-18 Hornet's nest.

No! A De Havilland Hornet of course!

Regards

PJM

[®i©ardo]

Lynn Coffelt wrote:
> "Terry M" > wrote in message
> m...
>> I prefer 800x600 or larger. Most of us have monitors set at that size or
>> larger. Using any smaller gives just that - a very small picture. The
>> 640x480 size was for very old monitors - hardly anyone has their monitor
> set
>> at that resolution since monitors have physically grown in size.
>>
>>
>> "P & H Macguire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I am in the process of scanning some old slides of 60s to 90s and
> wondered
>>> what the optimum size should be for posting on this N/G. They will be
>>> scanned at about 300dpi.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> PJM
>>>
> If one is going to benefit from old slide and negative resolution, scan
> at the highest resolution your system can handle. Some amazing detail is
> available in some of them. Store or archive them in that highest resolution.
> Store on CD or DVD disks. Then when one wants to post to newsgroups or
> internet sites, you can downsize copies for posting if that's what your
> intended viewers want. BUT, keeping the high resolution scans makes it
> possible to clip out portions of the original picture, magnify the clips and
> find great history in the details!
> For the record, I usually do not follow my own good sense advise.
> Old Chief Lynn
>
>
>
>
...and you are not alone in that!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[john smith[_2_]]

> If one is going to benefit from old slide and negative resolution, scan
> at the highest resolution your system can handle. Some amazing detail is
> available in some of them. Store or archive them in that highest resolution.
> Store on CD or DVD disks. Then when one wants to post to newsgroups or
> internet sites, you can downsize copies for posting if that's what your
> intended viewers want. BUT, keeping the high resolution scans makes it
> possible to clip out portions of the original picture, magnify the clips and
> find great history in the details!


What he said, plus...
Make certain that you save the file in .tif format.
When you resize for posting the web, save that image as a .jpg.