Hi.
What i am looking for is close to what your assume.
I need to be able to fit an image within a particular sized frame where i
know how many pixels this frame required in order to be filled out.
The problem is that if my images are smaller than required to fit the frame
I have do either do the pixelation and create a new image, or i have to set
the size.
Knowing i do not have enough pixels i wonder what batik does in this
respect. Will the image be drawn with less dpi to fit the frame or will it
output 300 dpi for the image , thus making the visible image on the paper
smaller..

Thanks.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hi Lars,
>
> "Lars Eirik Rønning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/12/2008 07:45:19
> AM:
>
> > I need to be able to produce high res images (300dpi) for my pdf.
> > This works beautifully when working with large images.
> >
> > However there is a requirement that all images have to fit a
> > particular rectanglular size (i use preserveSetting="xMidYMid
> > slice") for this. Basically all images have to fit a frame.
> >
> > If i add the PDFTranscoderHint Key_resoution(300)) will this try to
> > get the best possible image quality or am I suppose to handle this
> > my self?
>
>
>    KEY_RESOLUTION tells Batik what resolution it should render
> elements that it needs to flatten (for example filters).  I believe
> when you draw an image there are two cases.  One is that for at
> least JPEG it will embed the JPEG in the PDF document 'as is' (and
> provide a scale as needed).  The other is that Batik will flatten
> the image at 300dpi.
>
> > The latter would require me to calcuate for each image how
> > to find the best quality and set the dpi for each image
> > individually.(that means i would have to do the scaling myself..
> > The problem is whenever i have a low res image and need to display
> > this in the big rectangle the image will be small if i do this manually.
>
>    So if you have a low res image that is being displayed in a
> large rectangle then it will look bad regardless of who scales
> the image.
>
>    This paragraph makes me think that what you want is for
> Batik to calculate how large the frame should be for an image
> based on it's physical image size.  This is a pretty simple
> calculation:
>         <width in inches> = <image width pixels>/300; // similar for
> height.
>
>    Then you can just set the width/height of the image to that and
> Batik will scale appropriately.
>
>    To be honest I'm not sure I really understand what it is you
> are looking for.
>
> > I was hoping i would not have to do a lot of calculation to get the
> > best results.
> >
> > Thanks guys.
>

Reply via email to