Pete Rourke asked several questions: > I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .jpg) to > capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs > visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc. > > There are 2 outputs intended: > > 1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > > 2. A printed manual No problems here. Choose any of the four non-lossy raster image formats. > An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > > Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > > So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) What's the issue? 8MB is nothing, these days. On a hard disk, that much storage costs less than $0.01 (with disk prices currently running between $.20 and $1.00 per Gigabyte). And archiving to CD or DVD only costs another penny. And when you're working with your document, referenced images (as opposed to pasted-in images) are only loaded when you view a page, so the amount of data to be loaded for images shouldn't be an issue unless you're working on a *REALLY* slow network. The *number* of screenshots is more of a concern in this circumstance than the overall space occupied by the files, because each file has to be accessed separately; but that's something that you, as author, control completely. > So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? JPEG is the worst choice for screen shots. Don't use it for that purpose. The "P" in JPEG stands for "photographic", and continuous-tone photographs is what it was designed for. The compression technique the format uses is area-based and lossy, and relies on two important characteristics of photographic images to reduce the visibility of the artifacts and image degradation the compression inevitably produces. JPEG inevitably produces artifacts (a kind of "smudginess" near abrupt transitions between different colors, but this is OK because photos have relatively few of these and because the objects in the photos generally have anough surface texture to mask the artifacts. But screen shots are all about hard edges and abrupt transtions (that describes text characters, for example), and has *no* texture to mask the artifacts. My preferred file formats for screenshots (in order) are: GIF: very compact thanks to run-length encoding and indexed color, but produces posterized results on graduated color areas or photos. Can be used directly one the web and cross-platform. PNG: a modern superset of GIF supporting full color depth. Can be used directly on the web, but some browsers have issues displaying some "flavors" (color formats) of PNG. TIFF: good platform portability (usable on Windows, Mac, Unix) but large filer size than PNG or GIF. Not directly usable on the web. BMP: poor portability (Windows-only); large file size; not web-compatible > During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? No, but if you're really concerned about file size, this is one place you can make some improvement. Saving screenshots at 150 dpi rather than 96 results in image files that are 2.44 times as large. simply because there are that many more pixels to store. > I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be > acceptable? Dropping below 96 dpi loses a lot of quality and doesn't save much file space (assuming that this really is a legitimate issue). _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.