Christoph wrote: > The resolution of the image is too low for printing, only 72 dpi. > You need at > least 200 dpi, better 300 dpi. The reason it looks worse in full > resolution > is that its "flaws" become obvious.
Whoa! There is no such thing as absolute "72 dpi resolution." Resolution is the pixel count divided by the output size. The pixel count of the image is 2235 pixels wide by 501 pixels high. Dividing 501 by 1.9 inches (the height of the frame) gives a resolution of 263 dpi--well over your recommended 200 dpi. The frame I tried it in is 7.5 inches wide. 2235 pixels divided by 7.5 gives a resolution of 298 dpi. So the resolution is NOT too low for printing. Well, on what is essentially line art, a resolution of 600 dpi to match the laser printer would be better (assuming it's a 600 dpi printer). Line art looks best if the dpi matches the resolution of the output device. So why is the resolution given as 72 dpi when you open the image in an editor like the Gimp or Photoshop? It's because the image doesn't include desired dimension, just pixels. In that case image editors assume a conventional resolution of 72 dpi for screen output. Look at the assumed size in inches of the image: approximately 31 inches by about 7 inches! If you up the resolution to 300 dpi *without* interpolation (in other words, keep the same file size), the dimensions are now 7.45 inches by 1.67 inches. You have not in any way changed the picture; you have simply given it smaller dimensions than it had at 72 dpi. Therefore, the pixels are smaller and the picture looks better. I'm surprised that this fact was missed on a DTP list. Dpi in itself means nothing unless you know the dimensions of the image. Pixel count is everything. --Judy Miner USA Registered Linux User #397786
