dimensions of pictures
I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. I find this quite strange. Is there any way to know the relation between the pixel width and the width on the page? I use version1.6.0 on openSUSE 11.1 Sincerely, Hubert -- Hubert Christiaen Bloesemlaan 17 3360 Korbeek-Lo Belgium
Re: dimensions of pictures
Hubert Christiaen schrieb: I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This feature is for example possible woth TIFF images. Nevertheless the safest way to get all images in the same width is to scale them not ablutely but in respect to the column width. LyX's image dialog offers this (set width to xx col%). regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:08 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This feature is for example possible woth TIFF images. Uwe, I am interested in this statement. I work everyday with georeferenced rasters (where distance has a meaning, i.e. you set some unit for your pixel). But, concerning non-georeferenced rasters, the distance between pixels does not make sense to me. Pixels are... well, picture elements. And when you have an image 600x600 pixels that's all about it and it depends on the displaying device how big is each pixel or the printing device on how much you'll get out of it. Of course the term pixel is being used in many and varying contexts. Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? Thank you, Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: I am interested in this statement... Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? This is now a bit off-topic. I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical reasons the distance between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you usually take SEM images with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:01 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Nikos Alexandris schrieb: I am interested in this statement... Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? This is now a bit off-topic. Once and a while it doesn't hurt :-) I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical reasons the distance between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you usually take SEM images with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. This is, more or less, also the case with images referenced in a geographic coordinate system (think degrees, minutes, seconds). X and Y are in reality different since latitude varies greatly when you measure it near the equator against higher latitudes. The maps (images) look distorted but they are still, on-display, rectangulars. Anyhow, the scales (geo-maps vs. SEM's) have nothing to do :-) I wonder if GRASS-GIS, which is a power-full raster engine, could be of any use for SEM images? Why not referencing to a micro-scale reference system images and play around? :D You can also play around with voxels and 3D-stuff. For the fun of the game I would like to try it out some day. I might even post to folks over in GRASS-user mailing list about this (foolish perhaps) idea. The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. I understand here distance as resolution. Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a great, in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). I am pretty sure you could do neat stuff with your images. regards Uwe Kind regards and thank you for your explanation. Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. I understand here distance as resolution. Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. Exactly. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Yes, but the SEM software has already a solution for this, but one has to know this option. But now enough off-topic things ;-). Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a great, in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). LyX is using Imagemagick whenever you insert an image to your LyX document, also on MAC and Windows. And no, Imagemagick does not correctly hanlde my special TIFF files, but as I know the special SEM option that's no more a problem. regards Uwe
dimensions of pictures
I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. I find this quite strange. Is there any way to know the relation between the pixel width and the width on the page? I use version1.6.0 on openSUSE 11.1 Sincerely, Hubert -- Hubert Christiaen Bloesemlaan 17 3360 Korbeek-Lo Belgium
Re: dimensions of pictures
Hubert Christiaen schrieb: I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This feature is for example possible woth TIFF images. Nevertheless the safest way to get all images in the same width is to scale them not ablutely but in respect to the column width. LyX's image dialog offers this (set width to xx col%). regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:08 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This feature is for example possible woth TIFF images. Uwe, I am interested in this statement. I work everyday with georeferenced rasters (where distance has a meaning, i.e. you set some unit for your pixel). But, concerning non-georeferenced rasters, the distance between pixels does not make sense to me. Pixels are... well, picture elements. And when you have an image 600x600 pixels that's all about it and it depends on the displaying device how big is each pixel or the printing device on how much you'll get out of it. Of course the term pixel is being used in many and varying contexts. Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? Thank you, Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: I am interested in this statement... Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? This is now a bit off-topic. I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical reasons the distance between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you usually take SEM images with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:01 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Nikos Alexandris schrieb: I am interested in this statement... Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? This is now a bit off-topic. Once and a while it doesn't hurt :-) I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical reasons the distance between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you usually take SEM images with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. This is, more or less, also the case with images referenced in a geographic coordinate system (think degrees, minutes, seconds). X and Y are in reality different since latitude varies greatly when you measure it near the equator against higher latitudes. The maps (images) look distorted but they are still, on-display, rectangulars. Anyhow, the scales (geo-maps vs. SEM's) have nothing to do :-) I wonder if GRASS-GIS, which is a power-full raster engine, could be of any use for SEM images? Why not referencing to a micro-scale reference system images and play around? :D You can also play around with voxels and 3D-stuff. For the fun of the game I would like to try it out some day. I might even post to folks over in GRASS-user mailing list about this (foolish perhaps) idea. The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. I understand here distance as resolution. Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a great, in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). I am pretty sure you could do neat stuff with your images. regards Uwe Kind regards and thank you for your explanation. Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. I understand here distance as resolution. Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. Exactly. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Yes, but the SEM software has already a solution for this, but one has to know this option. But now enough off-topic things ;-). Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a great, in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). LyX is using Imagemagick whenever you insert an image to your LyX document, also on MAC and Windows. And no, Imagemagick does not correctly hanlde my special TIFF files, but as I know the special SEM option that's no more a problem. regards Uwe
dimensions of pictures
I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. I find this quite strange. Is there any way to know the relation between the pixel width and the width on the page? I use version1.6.0 on openSUSE 11.1 Sincerely, Hubert -- Hubert Christiaen Bloesemlaan 17 3360 Korbeek-Lo Belgium
Re: dimensions of pictures
Hubert Christiaen schrieb: I am converting a scientific wikibook to a full PDF by passing over TeX and Lyx. But some pictures suddenly show much bigger than in the wiki version. One 600 px width image just fits on the page and another is 600 px image has to be reduced to 60% to fit on the page. Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This "feature" is for example possible woth TIFF images. Nevertheless the safest way to get all images in the same width is to scale them not ablutely but in respect to the column width. LyX's image dialog offers this (set width to xx col%). regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:08 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Perhaps the distance between the pixels is different. This "feature" > is for example possible woth > TIFF images. Uwe, I am interested in this statement. I work everyday with georeferenced rasters (where distance has a meaning, i.e. you set some unit for your pixel). But, concerning non-georeferenced rasters, the "distance between pixels" does not make sense to me. Pixels are... well, picture elements. And when you have an image 600x600 pixels that's all about it and it depends on the displaying device how big is each pixel or the printing device on how much you'll get out of it. Of course the term pixel is being used in many and varying contexts. Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? Thank you, Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: I am interested in this statement... Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? This is now a bit off-topic. I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical reasons the distance between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you usually take SEM images with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. regards Uwe
Re: dimensions of pictures
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:01 +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Nikos Alexandris schrieb: > > > I am interested in this statement... > > Could you please extent a bit or give some pointers? > > This is now a bit off-topic. Once and a while it doesn't hurt :-) > I maintain at work a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Due to technical > reasons the distance > between the pixels in x-direction is different from the y-direction. So you > usually take SEM images > with 512x512 pixels, but get a rectangular, non-quadratic image. This is, more or less, also the case with images referenced in a geographic coordinate system (think degrees, minutes, seconds). X and Y are in reality different since latitude varies greatly when you measure it near the equator against higher latitudes. The maps (images) look "distorted" but they are still, on-display, rectangulars. Anyhow, the scales (geo-maps vs. SEM's) have nothing to do :-) I wonder if GRASS-GIS, which is a power-full raster engine, could be of any use for SEM images? Why not referencing to a micro-scale reference system images and play around? :D You can also play around with voxels and 3D-stuff. For the fun of the game I would like to try it out some day. I might even post to folks over in GRASS-user mailing list about this (foolish perhaps) idea. > The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF > header. I understand here "distance" as "resolution". Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. > Unfortunately the > only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image > viewer. In e.g. Adobe > Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a > non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a "great", in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). I am pretty sure you could do neat stuff with your images. > > regards Uwe Kind regards and thank you for your explanation. Nikos
Re: dimensions of pictures
Nikos Alexandris schrieb: The image format is TIFF and the pixel distance is specified in the TIFF header. I understand here "distance" as "resolution". Something like an image in which the x-dimension of a pixel is 1 metre and the y-dimension of the pixel is set to be 1.5 metre. Exactly. Unfortunately the only program that checks for the pixel distance is Windows' built in image viewer. In e.g. Adobe Acrobat you have to specify the pixel distance manually to get a non-distorted image. So you mean you have to set manually the resolution of x-y if I get it right. Yes, but the SEM software has already a solution for this, but one has to know this option. But now enough off-topic things ;-). Just for the records: under Linux you have for example imagemagick (a "great", in number and in abilities, collection of image manipulation tools). LyX is using Imagemagick whenever you insert an image to your LyX document, also on MAC and Windows. And no, Imagemagick does not correctly hanlde my special TIFF files, but as I know the special SEM option that's no more a problem. regards Uwe
