I don't know what units the resolution is measured in: dots per inch or dots
per meter or whatever. And as to what formats indicate resolution, all I did
was open a bunch of files in ThumbsPlus and see which ones had a resolution
listed. It's possible that BMP files have an optional resolution fie
Shunith writes:
> Saved by Save for Web option the file is
> now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a
> print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm. How d'you
> retain your high resolutions?
By not using Save for Web or PS 7. I still use PS 5; I've never seen any
reason to upgrade beyond that. An ordinary Sav
>What on earth are you talking about? Where do you set the DPI of the
scan?
>Scanners scan in SAMPLES PER INCH, and create files that are PIXELS PER
>INCH. You are saving a file that is PIXELS ...>
Please, Austin, not again...There was merit at least to the density
range/dynamic range discus
> My apologies to the group for these posts...but I didn't start this,
> and it
> was entirely unprovoked. His hijacking of the conversation is entirely
> reprehensible, IMO.
So why perpetuate it?
Peter
Un
Paul D. writes ...
> I wonder if NikonScan will let you embed the device profile
> if you copy the device profile into the Windows profile
> folder and install it.
What do you mean by "intall it"?
> "Converting" to the device profile is a null operation,
> but it's possible that NikonScan won
By the way, the photo I used to make the prints is at
http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/images/NotreDameNight2Paper1600x1200.jpg
I worked from the original high-resolution scan, though, not from this
reduced version on the site. The scan was Provia 100F from a medium-format
camera scanned wit
"Anthony Atkielski" wrote:
> An ordinary Save As does not change the DPI.
Correct...
> Save for Web sounds like just another gadget to me--another
> bloated feature that Adobe added in order to try to persuade people to pay
a
> few hundred dollars for their umpteenth upgrade of a product that
Shunith writes:
> Mm well it does have it's advantages
Certainly if an upgrade provides something you need or want, no reason not
to buy it. But remember that software companies produce upgrades because
their business model requires you to buy their products over and over again
in o
On 8/16/02 9:43 AM, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to the differences in ppi, dpi, spi, sspi, and other resolution
> issues, Dan Margulis has posted a chapter from his book "Professional
> Photoshop" at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf . I found
> it very informati
Hi Austin,
>The real point wasn't about what a scanner scans at, but what the
file is
>saved at...and it isn't saved as dots, it's saved as pixels with some
other
>dimensional unit.<
I wasn't really looking to extend this. As I said, I always use PPI
myself when referring to files, and I cor
> From: michael shaffer
>
> What do you mean by "intall it"?
By "install", I mean right-click on it and select "Install". This lists it
in the registry somewhere, for what purpose I don't know. Actually, I think
it may also copy it to the built-in profiles folder, if it's in a different
folder.
What's happening is this. If you have an image that has lots of
high-frequency (spatial frequency, that is) irregular detail, such as grass
or leaves, and you downsample "correctly", the detail is averaged out. But
if you shoot or scan the image originally at a lower resolution, your camera
or sca
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single
> downsample, at least in PS. I've done that for images that are
> for the web
> (100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better.
Why are you targeting
Art Stated:
>
>>But I'm not the only one who noticed and caught your intent, Austin.
Austin Stated:
>
> No, you didn't "notice and caught [my] intent" as my intent was not
what YOU
> delusionally believe it was, whether you like it or not.
>
> Now, you somehow believe that this comment:
> From: Julian Vrieslander
>
> I think, perhaps, you meant
>
> "... may not be able to reproduce the original details correctly, ..."
>
> or, at least, that wording makes more sense to me.
No, what I meant is that instead of making each pixel the average of the
entire area it represents, it may i
> > As to the differences in ppi, dpi, spi, sspi, and other resolution
> > issues, Dan Margulis has posted a chapter from his book
"Professional
> > Photoshop" at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf . I
found
> > it very informative.<
Dan Margulis is the leading light of color corre
16 matches
Mail list logo
