You're right. What a dufus I am :-).I've been doing much more work than
I had to, but at least it helped me understand the relationship between
pixels and dimension. But thanks for the tip.
Paul
Todd Stanley wrote:
>
> I have Photoshop LE, but wouldn't just be easier to go into 'Image Size'
> and then uncheck the box labeled 'Resample Image', and then change the
> size? Sure you might end up with some odd DPI, but there shouldn't be any
> interpolation.
>
> Todd
>
> At 08:19 AM 8/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >If your original scan includes a sufficient number of pixels, you can
> >resize in Photoshop without interpolation. (In the following examples,
> >I'm going to use made up numbers to illustrate the point, so all of you
> >mathematicians put your pencils away, because the numbers won't
> >calculate out exactly. )
> >What you must do is change the dpi as you change the dimensions of the
> >picture. For example, if I scan a neg to approximately 8 inch x 12 inch
> >dimensions at around 400 dpi, I can change it to 10 x 15 at about 300
> >dpi without altering the image. It's easy to see when Photoshop is not
> >interpolating when using the "Image Size" tool by keeping an eye on the
> >megabyte value at the top of the box. When, after choosing the
> >dimensions of your blowup, the box shows two megabyte values at the top
> >of the frame, you know the software is interpolating, EVEN IF THE VALUES
> >ARE THE SAME. At that point, you can just fool with the decimal places
> >in your resized photo until one of the megabyte values at the topof the
> >box disappears. That's Photoshop's way of telling you that it's not
> >going to fool with your pixels. For example, if you go from 12.13 inch
> >by 8.07 inch at 405 dpi to 15 x 10 at 324 dpi, you might get see
> >something like "56.5 M 56.5 M" at the top of the box. That means your
> >new sizing is close to the same but not exact enough. At this point, I
> >would start adding decimal places to the dimension value on the resized
> >picture. For example. I might try 15.1 inch, but that would probably be
> >too much (since I'm already at the same megabyte count. If I was at 56.4
> >meg it might be a good starting point). If it bumped my megabyte count
> >up to 56.6, I'd try 15.05. If that resulted in the second megabyte
> >dimension remaining the same, I'd add more decimals, 15.051. If that
> >didn't cause the second value to disappear, I'd try 15.052, then 15.053.
> >At some point, the second megabyte value at the top of the box will
> >disappear, and I'd be left with a single "56.5 M" value. I would then
> >know that my original scan and my resized pic had exactly the same
> >number of pixels, which means that to the computer, they're identical
> >and there is no need to interpolate. This may sound confusing, but it's
> >quite easy in practice. I'm no Photoshop expert and their may very well
> >be an easier way to do this than "guess and check," but it works for me.
> >Paul Stenquist
> >
> >
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
