Re: Ortonizer script

"color's free" <aitches_2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:47b6eb27_2@cnews:

> FWIW, to make life simpler I resize images to 8" and 100 pixels per
> inch, and then use saveas and optimize. Generally with a compression
> of from 5 to 20% the images will shrink to >150kb. The images size
> does inflate when it gets coded for appearence in your news reader,
> but if I try to resize an image over 100 ppi the compression needs to
> be too high and the image degrades way beyond using fewer pixels to
> start. I have seen images at 72 ppi that look fine too.
> 

Harv, the ppi is irrelevant to the size of the file on your monitor or when 
saved to disc.  It is only relevant to the printed image.  All you are 
doing is creating an image that is 800 pixels wide.  You can create an 
image that is 800 pixels wide and that has a print resolution of 800ppi. 
and save it with the jpg optimizer and it will give you the same file size 
that you'd get if you made it 800 pixels wide and set the print resolution 
to 100ppi, as long as you use the same compression settings.  The only 
difference would be in printing the image.  an 800 pixel wide image with a 
ppi of 800 will print 1 inch wide, and an 800 pixel wide image with a print 
resolution of 100ppi will print 8 inches wide (but the print won't be the 
greatest quality because you've only got 100 pixels printed for each inch 
of paper, and you should aim for 200.

Regards,

"color's free" <aitches_2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:47b721ea$1_3@cnews:

> 
> "JoeB" <mymail@myserver.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A466A8743EFFJoeB@207.107.16.194...
>> "color's free" <aitches_2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:47b6eb27_2@cnews:
>>
>>> FWIW, to make life simpler I resize images to 8" and 100
pixels per
>>> inch, and then use saveas and optimize. Generally with a
compression
>>> of from 5 to 20% the images will shrink to >150kb. The images
size
>>> does inflate when it gets coded for appearence in your news
reader,
>>> but if I try to resize an image over 100 ppi the compression needs
>>> to be too high and the image degrades way beyond using fewer
pixels
>>> to start. I have seen images at 72 ppi that look fine too.
>>>
>>
>> Harv, the ppi is irrelevant to the size of the file on your monitor
>> or when
>> saved to disc.  It is only relevant to the printed image.  All you
>> are doing is creating an image that is 800 pixels wide.  You can
>> create an image that is 800 pixels wide and that has a print
>> resolution of 800ppi. and save it with the jpg optimizer and it will
>> give you the same file size that you'd get if you made it 800 pixels
>> wide and set the print resolution to 100ppi, as long as you use the
>> same compression settings.  The only difference would be in printing
>> the image.  an 800 pixel wide image with a ppi of 800 will print 1
>> inch wide, and an 800 pixel wide image with a print
>> resolution of 100ppi will print 8 inches wide (but the print won't be
>> the greatest quality because you've only got 100 pixels printed for
>> each inch of paper, and you should aim for 200.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> JoeB
> 
> I print at 300 ppi. If I optimize an 8"x300 ppi image it starts at 2
> or 3megs and it takes a lot of compression to get to 150k and the
> image IMHO is quite degraded. If I resize the image (which I do for my
> usenet image folder) to 8"x100ppi it starts at about a meg and can be
> optimized to 150k at from 5 to 20% compression and the image loses a
> bit of tonality but is ok for most people's monitors. The image will
> open to about 6"x8" in the browsers preview window too, which
saves
> opening the viewer to see an image that previews at 11x14 or some such
> monster size. Regards,
> Harv 

You're missing the point, Harv (see my other post where I posted the 
images).

I am assuming you are saying you print images that are 8" wide when 
printed, and you use a ppi of 300.  This would mean that your image is 
2400 pixels wide on your monitor.  The word "inches" has no meaning
when 
it comes to what you see on your monitor, because it is dependant on the 
resolution of the individual monitor.

If you have a monitor with the resolution set to 800x600, and you have 
an image that is 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high, and you open the 
image on your monitor full screen (i.e., no toolbars, menu, status bar, 
etc.) then that image will completely fill your monitor at 100% image 
size.

Now change your monitor resolution to 1600x1200.  The image will now 
take up one quarter of the screen area (i.e., it will occupy on half of 
the available monitor width and one half of the available monitor 
height) because it is only using 800 of the available 1600 pixel width 
and 600 of the available pixel height.

That's why "inches" is meaningless when speaking of how big an image
is 
on a monitor - only pixels really matter.

Now back to your 2400 pixel wide image which you have set to a 
resolution of 300ppi to get an 8" print.

If you want to post it at a resonable size, forget about the resolution.  
Make a copy of the image.  Go to Resize, and have Resample Using 
checked, along with Lock Aspect Ratio and Resize All Layers.  In the 
Width box of the Pixel Dimensions part of the dialogue type in 800 (make 
sure that pixels is selected in the dropdown box to the right, not 
percent).  The height will automatically change accordingly.  The Print 
Resolution in the Print size box will NOT change.  Click OK.

Now you have an image that is 800 pixels wide, a decent size for posting 
in the group.  Because it has been resized it will need a little Unsharp 
Mask or DCNR Sharpening.  Then open Jpg Optimizer.  You will find that 
you can use a reasonable compression level that reduces the file size of 
the image to a reasonable file size for posting without causing any 
noticeable image degradation.

You have to get rid of the notion that the print resolution setting has 
any connection whatsoever with either the size of the file on disc, or 
the size of the image on a monitor.  You can see that this is irrelevant 
by viewing the two images I previously posted.  It will only effect the 
print size of the image.

Also, you don't have any way of knowing how big the image will look on 
somebody else's monitor because you don't know what their monitor 
resolution is.  The reason that 800 wide is usually suggested is because 
nobody uses any less resolution nowadays, and most people are ar 1024 
wide or higher, so 800 will ensure that everybody can view the image 
without scrolling, although on monitors with higher resolution settings 
the image will look smaller than it will on monitors with lower 
resolution settings.

The easiest to understand writeup I have seen on this issue is the PC 
Magazine site.  You might want to read this stuff:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790570,00.asp

Regards,

JoeB

"JoeB" <mymail@myserver.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9A466A8743EFFJoeB@207.107.16.194...
> "color's free" <aitches_2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:47b6eb27_2@cnews:
>
>> FWIW, to make life simpler I resize images to 8" and 100 pixels
per
>> inch, and then use saveas and optimize. Generally with a compression
>> of from 5 to 20% the images will shrink to >150kb. The images size
>> does inflate when it gets coded for appearence in your news reader,
>> but if I try to resize an image over 100 ppi the compression needs to
>> be too high and the image degrades way beyond using fewer pixels to
>> start. I have seen images at 72 ppi that look fine too.
>>
>
> Harv, the ppi is irrelevant to the size of the file on your monitor or 
> when
> saved to disc.  It is only relevant to the printed image.  All you are
> doing is creating an image that is 800 pixels wide.  You can create an
> image that is 800 pixels wide and that has a print resolution of 800ppi.
> and save it with the jpg optimizer and it will give you the same file size
> that you'd get if you made it 800 pixels wide and set the print resolution
> to 100ppi, as long as you use the same compression settings.  The only
> difference would be in printing the image.  an 800 pixel wide image with a
> ppi of 800 will print 1 inch wide, and an 800 pixel wide image with a 
> print
> resolution of 100ppi will print 8 inches wide (but the print won't be the
> greatest quality because you've only got 100 pixels printed for each inch
> of paper, and you should aim for 200.
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB

I print at 300 ppi. If I optimize an 8"x300 ppi image it starts at 2 or 
3megs and it takes a lot of compression to get to 150k and the image IMHO is 
quite degraded. If I resize the image (which I do for my usenet image 
folder) to 8"x100ppi it starts at about a meg and can be optimized to 150k

at from 5 to 20% compression and the image loses a bit of tonality but is ok 
for most people's monitors. The image will open to about 6"x8" in the

browsers preview window too, which saves opening the viewer to see an image 
that previews at 11x14 or some such monster size.
Regards,
Harv