On 8/15/2010 5:09 PM, Ann Sanfedele 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 ?
No, not really. The resolution of your display, and html, (or other
code), on your web page will control how large the image will be
displayed. PNG was conceived originally as a GIF replacement, and grew
into an everything replacement. As such it's really quite bloated.as
file formats go. It will, in certain circumstances produce better
colors and less artifacting than jpeg or GIF files, but usually at the
cost of a much large file than the equivalent of either of those standards.
"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...
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?
My eyes are so shot i know it doesnt matter, but it does matter that
others see my stuff at it's best under certain circumstances.
I've avoided asking you guys this for awhile cause it makes me feel
inadequate not to know -- :-)
Almost all the files I send to smugmug are 300 ppi/dpi and 12 inches
across - and a few mgs... but I don't know if
the site translates them to show them on my site at a lesser resolution.
ann
annsan.smugmug.com
--
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like 'Psychic
Wins Lottery'?"
--Jay Leno
--
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.
