"color's free" <aitches_2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:47b74ba7_2@cnews:
>>
>> 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
>>
> Joe, thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I never grasped
> how screen size was independent of print size, even after a few other
> people tried to explain. I have attached a 'straight' images of the
> same subject. I made a print at 8" at 300 pixels and I resized an
> image at 800 pixel width to attach. In print size, it's only a couple
> of inches, but looked good on the email I sent to myself.
>
> Harv
Glad to see that you're getting the concept, Harv. (By the way, I
should have mentioned that, when resizing with Resample Using, you also
have to make sure that the dropdown box beside it shows Smart Size.
Sometimes a script will set it to Pixel Size or something else and that
can cause a really bad looking image :-)
Yes, your image resized to 800 pixels wide will look just fine to you
and to others on their monitor. As you have now seen, because resizing
just the pixel size and leaving the resolution alone, the resolution
didn't change and still says 300ppi, and remember this is only an
instruction that your printer can understand, and it tells the printer
how many pixels of the existing image you want the printer to print on
each inch of paper. Because your resized image only has 800 pixels in
width to work with, the printer divides 800 pixels by 300, so that it
knows how many inches it can print if it puts 300 pixels of your image
on each inch of printed paper. So by the time it has printed 2.667
inches, it has laid down, on paper, all of the pixels available.
When your image was 2400 pixels wide, the printer divided those 2400
pixels by the 300 pixels you wanted it to print on each inch of paper,
and concluded that this would allow it to print 8 inches wide, and then
it would have completed printing all of the image pixels (8 inches wide,
with 300 image pixels printed on each inch, equals a total of 2400
pixels, the original pixel width of your image).
And, of course, your monitor (and mine) doesn't care about printing. It
only cares about how many pixels wide and high the image contains,
because it is set to a certain pixel resolution horizontally and
vertically, and has to map each pixel of the image into an available
pixel on the monitor. If your monitor resolution contains more pixels
wide and high than the image, it will use the number of pixels needed to
represent the image and there will be blank space around the image. If
the image has more pixels wide and/or high than you have set your
monitor to show, then the monitor will have to hide some of the pixels
of the image (requiring you to scroll to display them) or your image
program/viewer/browser will automatically resize the image by a
percentage such that you can see the whole image on the monitor but it
isn't being displayed at 100% pixel size. (When it does this latter
resizing, by the way, it's like resizing smaller in PSP - i.e. you
aren't seeing all of the available detail so it may not look as sharp as
it would look at 100%)
Sorry to be so wordy, but I do know that resolution (monitor, image,
print, etc.) is often one of the more confusing issues for people doing
graphic work and so I'd rather overdo it than be skimpy :-)
Regards,
|