On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 16:01 -0700, ChadDavis wrote: > But doesn't this mean that if my the portion of the screen that I'm > interested in is only 3 by 5 or so, then there is basically no way to > get a non extrapolated set of pixels that will print to 3 by 5 on the > page?
That's correct. It's the nature of the hardware. You can change the DPI from 300 to 72 to match the monitor but the print will likely be of much lower quality. You can scale up the screen shot but I'd only double it's size once to produce a larger print image at high DPI. Even then, you're likely to have a less than ideal print image. Scaling up is not a good thing with raster images. For what it's worth, I tend to make all my screen shots for books and magazines set to 250DPI, which produces a slightly larger print image at reasonable quality. -- Michael J. Hammel Principal Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://graphics-muse.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bumper Sticker: Jesus loves you... but everyone else thinks you are an asshole. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
