*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
For me, I prefer to make images at the highest quality that I ever
think i will ever need (in real world situations). This way, if I
ever need the image for something else, I don't have to remake the
image at a higher resolution. It is just a waste of time. I think it
is better to have an image that is 'too good' than an image that is
'just not good enough.' Sure, you can have the perfect image, that is
the perfect size and the perfect resolution, but I believe this
eliminates the flexibility of ever using this image for other things,
especially if the image is too small. Plus, with todays PC power, it
is just as simple and painless to make the higher resolution image to
begin with, which you can then edit as you like in your favorite image
editing software.
* if you save the script it takes one minute to render an image with
today's PC power.
* an image of 400x400 is about 10 times less in size than 1200x1200.
* the memory of my notebook is 256MB not 2560MB and thus size matters
(I do need a new notebook though)
* the size argument gets amplified when we talk about movies; at least
render your movies in the real size!
* making a 1200x1200 2D rendering of a 3D image, which later you make
300x300 in PP in 2D,
is NOT the same in quality as a 300x300 direct 2D rendering of the 3D
image.
* Making a poster is real world; I do render pictures at 4800x3600 when
needed but not all of them !
* I honestly am totally against using my favorite image editing to edit
experimental images:
and thats what your density and model images are.
Do people edit gels in their favorite image editing software ...?
(scary; well, some do !)
Thats all - apologies for lengthening this thread; I thought it was
useful to add these.
Tassos
