On 16 August 2010 07:09, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there any point to display an image on line at 300 PPI as opposed to 72 > (or 96) with the same outside dimensions of, say > 1200 x 800 ? Or as .png as opposed to jpg ?
Hi Ann, Generally web Browsers ignore scaling factors embedded in image files (which is what the PPI value is, it's just a print scaling factor), they generally display pixel for pixel (unless set to automatically fit to screen or if the HTML code includes a specific scaling factor to apply to the image). So really the absolute pixel dimensions are all that you should need to be concerned about WRT sizing images destined for web display. > "someone" told me once that the human eye can't see any more detail on a > screen than 72 ppi anyway and since it loads faster, > one need not make images larger... No idea where that stems from, my current screens display ~99PPI (1600 pixels across 16 inches) and they look much sharper than a similar sized screen that can only display 1200 pixels across 16" (or 75PPI) > Yet it seems to me that some images you guys pointing to 1 mg to 3 mg files > on line do look "better"... on my LCD monitor... > Has something changed with the technology so that one can tell the > difference now as opposed to say 3 or 4 years ago? What you're seeing is probably more to do with sharpening techniques and the fact that already pretty sharp images are being downsized. Cheers, -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
