Rich Shepard wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Georg Baum wrote:
It probably took the 100dpi from your X setup.
Actually, when I looked more closely, the X and Y resolution of the
image
was 1 dpi, with a scaling factor of 100. It was invisible in the pdflatex
output. When I scaled the resolution to 200 dpi in the GIMP and left the
image size (in pixels) alone, it displayed nicely.
Just forget about "dpi". It is such an awkward way to size a raster image.
The image resolution is a certain number of pixels - plain and simple.
And in lyx you can set the image to be a certain size - in inches,
centimeters
or percent of the line width. The latter do the right thing in all cases,
i.e. an 100% line-width image will fit in any list, minipage or other
construct where the line width is different. Also, images scaled
to a percentage of the line width will work even when you
change the margins or paper size.
Many graphics programs mistakenly think that image "dpi" is something
worth caring about - I newer saw any use for that. If I size an
image, then it is because I want it to have a certain _size_, not a certain
printing resolution. The latter just make it hard to guess what the print
size will be. What will the size of a 653-pixel 72dpi picture be? And
no, I am not interested in the 9.064 inches that works out to, but
will it fit in this minipage? (Which is not measured in inches . . .)
Always use the full resolution of a screen dump. Screendumps usually
prints with visible pixels, and scaling them in gimp will always make that
much worse. Using the full resolution gives the best possible result,
the only possible downside being a largish pdf.
Think of the raster image as printed on a rubber sheet, lyx can stretch or
compress it to whatever output size you desire. If the image is too big in
lyx, use the separate scaling factor for "showing in lyx".
Helge Hafting
