Actually, I think I'm the one who said >>>>640x480 pixels at 72 dpi<<<. As
much as I don't feel like being ignored, I prefer it to someone else being
slighted for my statement. The context of the phrase is from "I scan at
full resolution, then scale in Photoshop to 640x480 pixels at 72 dpi for
screen presentation, JPEG format, level 5 compression."
With Photoshop there are many ways to manipulate an image. My usual process
for screen presentation is to simply change the dimensions, in pixels, to
what I want, generally preserving one dimension and letting the other fall
where it may to preserve the aspect ratio, and setting the resolution to
match the output device so the size is about right. A 1024x768 (absolute
pixel size) image will fill most screens but is only 3.4 x 2.6 inches on my
printer at 300 dpi.
Garth stated much more eloquently and precicely what I was attempting to
state.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far".
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Ross <rhdesign@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Scanning for ADITL2
> Jan wrote:
> >> >>>>640x480 pixels at 72 dpi<<<
> >
> >So think of "DPI" (or "SPI" for scanners -- samples per inch) as a
> >characteristic of a media or process, NOT a characteristic of the
> >image data.
>
> And ignore those who say that images for display on monitors should be
> scanned at 72 dpi! Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
>
> Richard Ross
> Hemel Hempstead, England
> rhdesign@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|