Re: OT: are 72dpi still state of the art for screen design?
If you are drawing text, and want the text to occupy an exact amount of screen area (perhaps because you are doing a page layout, and want to hold up the physical paper against your screen and see that it's the right size), then dpi may matter. If you're working on graphics in Photoshop, that are to be printed to a 300 dpi printer, then you may need that dpi in the image, and it would have nothing to do with the size of your screen. In the case of a bitmap that has an exact number of pixels width and height, and could be going to any sort of device, you would want to work in a standard way, and an easy way to do that would be to work in points per inch. A 'point' by definition is 1/72 of an inch. Hence seeing 72 pixels per inch being used. So, don't worry so much about dpi of images, just have them be wider or taller. For example, if you want the same background image to fill the width of an iPad, iPhone 4, and iPhone, it might be 1024 pixels across, 72 dpi, but by the time it appears on iPad it will 132 pixels per inch, on iPhone 4 it would be 326 pixels per inch (but actually the image is scaled down to 960 across too), and a 480 pixel image at 163 pixels per inch on iPhone. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: OT: are 72dpi still state of the art for screen design?
Hi Tiemo, I like to supplement to what Colin is saying, that as long as we talk about screens, there is practically no way to tell how large a pixel is. So you can fill in whatever measure suits you. On screens, the only 'true' measurement is pixels. Currently I have an external screen attached to my iMac. The built-in one is 110 ppi (pixels per inch; dpi is only correct for printers), and the other screen is 86 ppi. Should it recalculate all measurements to compensate that difference? I don't think so, and neither do the makers of the system software. So when I drag a window from one monitor to another, I see it enlarge. The OS actually cannot know how large a pixel is on the monitor it is displaying on. Take LCD projectors for example. I use an 1024 x 768 pixel setting to project on a screen, but there is no way for the software to know how large a pixel on the screen is. It might be in a range between 5 and 25 ppi. So, you can follow the old Macintosh convention of 72 ppi, or Windows with its 96 ppi standard. Both are equally incorrect and irrelevant. Use whatever value that suits you. The number of pixels per inch only starts to matter when you print the image. Only then the dimensions of the image become measurable with a ruler. Terry ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: OT: are 72dpi still state of the art for screen design?
Hah hah! Try explaining all this to a graphic artist who never used a computer before! Years ago we had an excellent illustrator come to work for us to revamp all our corporate art and what have you. He had learned to do everything "conventionally" which is code for "old school" because at the time that is all they had. But they were just starting to use digital film processing, so I figured I'd let him in on that thinking he's be excited. He insisted that it was not presently (then) possible, and that the technology was 10 years away. His college instructor had said so, and what, did I know better than him?? So I produced a book cover for our next publication, and when I showed it to him I announced it had been done entirely digitally. That woke him up. All this talk about PPI and DPI brings back memories. Bob On May 2, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Terry Vogelaar wrote: > Hi Tiemo, > > I like to supplement to what Colin is saying, that as long as we talk about > screens, there is practically no way to tell how large a pixel is. So you can > fill in whatever measure suits you. On screens, the only 'true' measurement > is pixels. > > Currently I have an external screen attached to my iMac. The built-in one is > 110 ppi (pixels per inch; dpi is only correct for printers), and the other > screen is 86 ppi. Should it recalculate all measurements to compensate that > difference? I don't think so, and neither do the makers of the system > software. So when I drag a window from one monitor to another, I see it > enlarge. > > The OS actually cannot know how large a pixel is on the monitor it is > displaying on. Take LCD projectors for example. I use an 1024 x 768 pixel > setting to project on a screen, but there is no way for the software to know > how large a pixel on the screen is. It might be in a range between 5 and 25 > ppi. > > So, you can follow the old Macintosh convention of 72 ppi, or Windows with > its 96 ppi standard. Both are equally incorrect and irrelevant. Use whatever > value that suits you. The number of pixels per inch only starts to matter > when you print the image. Only then the dimensions of the image become > measurable with a ruler. > > > Terry > > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
