My thoughts exactly. I used to use the tiff file format, but now use the PNG
format. The selling point for me is the non-patented, completely lossless
compression and open source code. Windoze Explorer and I believe the newer
Netscape can also read these files for web pages. They compress better than
Tiff
files too.
Check out the PNG page at: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/
--
Conrad Vogel
John Hudson wrote:
> Erwin Voogt wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Two replies in one message...
> >
> > Lex Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:57:05 PDT
> > From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [OM] New pictures: butterflies and Thailand
> >
> > Erwin, if you're scanning prints for your website there's really no need to
> > scan at greater than 240-300 ppi. More doesn't equal better. In fact,
> > scanning at 100 ppi will result in screen size images nearly equivalent to
> > the original prints. So a 4"x6" print scanned at 100 ppi will deliver a
> > screen sized image measuring only a little larger than 4"x6" on most
> > monitors, at an actual resolution of 400x600 ppi.
>
> I would like to add my $0.02 worth.
>
> I scan prints at 1200 dpi having set the scaling percentage to around
> 30 0.000000or 4" x 6" prints and 25 0.000000or 5" x 7" prints. I save as an
> uncompressed tif file which generally comes in at 8 to 10 mb. I then
> resize the tif file to say 600 x 400 pixels, reduce the resolution to
> 100 dpi, tweek slightly with the unsharp mask, and then save the
> uploadable file as a jpeg with about 30 ompression. I make no more
> than one adjustment to the tif file before I save it as a jpeg. If I am
> not satisfied with the jpeg I got back to the tif file and start over
> again; I do not manipulate the jpeg file at all. I make a thumbnail by
> going back to the tif file and repeating the above process except that
> the thumbnail is either 125 pixels wide or high.
>
> Compared to scanning at say 300 dpi and saving directly as a jpeg and
> then manipulating the jpeg, the tif to jpeg routine produces far
> superior images at least on my monitor. They look to have more life, are
> truer to the original print, and display less "noise".
>
> John Hudson
> Vancouver, BC
>
> -----
> >
> > Lex, I'm scanning slides, not prints, so to obtain an image size of about
> > 800x600 you need 600 DPI. I use 1200 DPI to have some "playground" (although
> > almost all the images I have published are "as they are") and because there
> > is not much difference in scanning time between 600 en 1200 DPI.
> > You're right that it doesn't make sence to scan prints at such a high
> > resolution!
> > By the way: great pictures on your site!
> >
> > Frieder Faig wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I get alway a error, whe trying your site, so I can`t coment on :-(.
> >
> > But I read in the german ct` magazine, that a possiblity to improve the
> > quality/size
> > ratio of JPEG pictures is to soften the background and unimportend details
> > bevor
> > compressing. The soft parts of the picture can be better compressed.
> > ----------
> >
> > Xoom behaves very strange. Sometimes it is very fast, often very slow, on
> > some computers it won't work, some computers have no problem at all.
> > I use IE5 and the behaviour of Xoom seems to depend on which site I have
> > visited during a session... very odd (a cookie problem?).
> > I don't know if the version with the advertising banners works better than
> > the one without. Compare:
> >
> > http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/photovoogt/index.html
> > http://members.xoom.com/photovoogt/index.html
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Erwin Voogt
> > Utrecht, The Netherlands
> >
> >
< 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 >
|