Picture size

"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

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

"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

"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

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!

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.

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

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)

§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

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.