Thanks Kevin, I do feel much more informed now. I still have a few
questions, which I hope you could answer.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:37:27AM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
> There are some VERY misleading statements on the web page referenced below
> regarding the specific question originally posted by the potential GIMP user
> in this thread.
I looked at the site. The content of the manual is great, but it deals
with Gimp 1.2.2. So I guess this is just outdated informatin.
BTW, I am more than a "potential" user, I am a fully-converted GIMP lover
:). However, I've only ever used GIMP for the web, and I want to
understand the issues involved in producing something for the printed
> Finally, you can specify both resolution and size in the standard File->New
> dialogue, as well as in the preferences options for new files.
I just noticed that, I can't believe I didn't see it before.
My first question:
If Gimp sees images as a matrix of pixels, what does it /mean/ for an
image for have 100ppi? Are you changing the ppi by just zooming in and
The concept of dpi/ppi only seems to come in when you print an image, so
> I'd also like to bring up one very important GIMP advantage that I didn't
> see mentioned at all in the Photoshop vs. GIMP comparison. The GIMP can in
> many cases handle LARGER images than Photoshop.
This is very interestig.
Elsewhere on the site give, it says that Photoshop is faster for large
images and GIMP is faster for smaller images. Is that still true?
> Photoshop (ALL versions) is limited to 32K pixels in any single
> dimension, whereas the GIMP is only limited by available memory
> (potentially including virtual memory). I routinely process images
> with over .5G total pixels, and over 300K pixels on one axis using the
> GIMP. Photoshop cannot handle these images at all. In fact, I have
> found very few other applications that can.
That sounds huge. Where do you use those images? posters?
How large should an image be so that it can be printed as a poster and
still look good? (say, a 22x34in poster).
How much memory do you need to handle an image that large?
Can a regular PC (e.g. Athlon XP 1800+) manipulate those images and be
fast enough to be useful?
Thanks for your help.
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Gimp-user mailing list