On 13 Feb 2008, at 13:15, Milan Davidovic wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham wrote:
>> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for
>> press, EPS is
>> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other
>> graphics
>> format, Frame passes the graphics through the Wi
> On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham wrote:
>> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for press, EPS
>> is
>> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other graphics
>> format, Frame passes the graphics through the Windows GDI when creating
>> Postscript. CMYK graphics are
On 13 Feb 2008, at 13:15, Milan Davidovic wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for
>> press, EPS is
>> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other
>> graphics
>> format, Frame passes the grap
> On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for press, EPS
>> is
>> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other graphics
>> format, Frame passes the graphics through the Windows GDI when creating
>> Postscript
On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham wrote:
> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for press, EPS is
> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other graphics
> format, Frame passes the graphics through the Windows GDI when creating
> Postscript. CMYK graphics are converted
On 2/4/08, Mike Wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're on the Windows platform, and creating documents for press, EPS is
> really the only way to go for color graphics. With every other graphics
> format, Frame passes the graphics through the Windows GDI when creating
> Postscript. CMYK gra
lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
Rick...
You are very correct about my brashness. My apologies to all of you. I
was anxious to try and squelch some misconceptions and got carried away. David
Creamer was particularly incensed with me because he thought I was aiming
Subject: RE: Working with Images
Rick...
You are very correct about my brashness. My apologies to all of you. I
was anxious to try and squelch some misconceptions and got carried away. David
Creamer was particularly incensed with me because he thought I was
There seems to be some confusing on the use of the term "adding resolution"
when referring to images.
Resolution is simply a measure of the amount of pixels (X/Y counts) and a
pixel-per-inch (ppi) setting. Resolution CAN be increased--period. This is
typically done in a program like Photoshop. (Wh
There seems to be some confusing on the use of the term "adding resolution"
when referring to images.
Resolution is simply a measure of the amount of pixels (X/Y counts) and a
pixel-per-inch (ppi) setting. Resolution CAN be increased--period. This is
typically done in a program like Photoshop. (Wh
John Sgammato wrote:
> When you capture a 96dpi image at higher resolution, you will never
> see detail that isn't there (of course) but you can do more with the
> image because your OWN image of the image is capable of showing
> greater resolution. You can look at it as if your high-res image
> ca
John Sgammato wrote:
> ...
> Note that with SnagIt you can opt to capture the image at other
> resolutions, so you need not change anything in FM. I capture images
> as 200dpi TIFFs, and then import them at 200dpi in my books. I go to
> print, PDF, and online help from a single set of screenshots.
John Sgammato wrote:
> When you capture a 96dpi image at higher resolution, you will never
> see detail that isn't there (of course) but you can do more with the
> image because your OWN image of the image is capable of showing
> greater resolution. You can look at it as if your high-res image
> ca
I don't think I've seen a mention about the variation of screen-pixel
size among different monitor brands and models. I realize that
although a screen pixel that's .35mm square, and one that's .25mm
square create different on-screen image sizes and granularity for the
same image, say 100px x 100px,
37 PM
>To: David Creamer; framers@lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>
>Rant begins...
>
>Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem
>to understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing
>with screenshots and ra
f Dennis
>Brunnenmeyer
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM
>To: David Creamer; framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>
>Rant begins...
>
>Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem
>to understand what you are
I don't think I've seen a mention about the variation of screen-pixel
size among different monitor brands and models. I realize that
although a screen pixel that's .35mm square, and one that's .25mm
square create different on-screen image sizes and granularity for the
same image, say 100px x 100px,
John Sgammato wrote:
> ...
> Note that with SnagIt you can opt to capture the image at other
> resolutions, so you need not change anything in FM. I capture images
> as 200dpi TIFFs, and then import them at 200dpi in my books. I go to
> print, PDF, and online help from a single set of screenshots.
David...
This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
Dennis...
At 02:07 PM 2/5/2008, you wrote:
>On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/08 11:36
>AM:
>
> > Rant begins...
> >
>
to:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Brunnenmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM
To: David Creamer; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
Rant begins...
Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to
understand what you are talking
unnenmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM
To: David Creamer; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
Rant begins...
Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to
understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing with scr
On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/08 3:18 PM:
>
> This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
Hmmm... You quote my email and refer to me by name in your self-described
rant. OK...
>
> I was referring to true image resolution. By resampling to a high
On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at dennisb at chronometrics.com wrote on 2/5/08 3:18 PM:
>
> This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
Hmmm... You quote my email and refer to me by name in your self-described
rant. OK...
>
> I was referring to true image resolution. By resamplin
David...
This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
Dennis...
At 02:07 PM 2/5/2008, you wrote:
>On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at dennisb at chronometrics.com wrote on 2/5/08 11:36
>AM:
>
> > Rant begin
Rant begins...
Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to
understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing with
screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed
to vector or llne art.
First of all, display devices, whether printers or
On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/08 11:36
AM:
> Rant begins...
>
>
> First of all, display devices, whether printers or monitors, have an upper
> limit on their ability to resolve (print or display) image detail, which by
> the way is what "resolution" is a measure of...m
On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at dennisb at chronometrics.com wrote on 2/5/08 11:36
AM:
> Rant begins...
>
>
> First of all, display devices, whether printers or monitors, have an upper
> limit on their ability to resolve (print or display) image detail, which by
> the way is what "resolution" is a mea
Rant begins...
Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to
understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing with
screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed
to vector or llne art.
First of all, display devices, whether printers or
> How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the screen
> is set to? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you
> get 200 DPI out of that?
Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts.
Again, referring to my last post, monitor re
> How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the screen
> is set to? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you
> get 200 DPI out of that?
Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts.
Again, referring to my last post, monitor re
Hi all,
First, thanks for a very informative thread.
I have a question not so much about the best format, but about how Frame
treats images imported by reference when saving Frame files as html (via
Frame's Save as). This is in reference to an unstructured file in Frame
7.2. I find that when I s
Excellent explanation John. I'll definitely save your message.
Thanks lots,
Diane
-Original Message-
From: John Sgammato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 6:17 AM
To: Diane Gaskill; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
to the visible
improvements.
john
From: Diane Gaskill [mailto:dgcal...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sat 2/2/2008 4:55 AM
To: John Sgammato; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
John,
How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the screen
is set to
Hi all,
First, thanks for a very informative thread.
I have a question not so much about the best format, but about how Frame
treats images imported by reference when saving Frame files as html (via
Frame's Save as). This is in reference to an unstructured file in Frame
7.2. I find that when I s
My vote would be with the PNG format.
HTH,
Chuck Beck
Sr. Technical Writer | Infor | Office: 614.523.7302 |
Charles.Beck at infor.com
-Original Message-
Subject: Working with Images
FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and sav
Regarding resolution...
If capturing display boxes, you cannot control how many PPI there are as
they are programs in at X number of pixels by Y number of pixels. Resolution
(ppi) is meaningless as it does not change total number of pixels.
The only time you could control that is when capturing a
Regarding resolution...
If capturing display boxes, you cannot control how many PPI there are as
they are programs in at X number of pixels by Y number of pixels. Resolution
(ppi) is meaningless as it does not change total number of pixels.
The only time you could control that is when capturing a
My vote would be with the PNG format.
HTH,
Chuck Beck
Sr. Technical Writer | Infor | Office: 614.523.7302 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Subject: Working with Images
FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .
I've inherited responsibility for some Frame docs. Almost all of the
images are .eps created in Illustrator and .jpg modified in Photoshop
(there are matching.psd files for the .jpg files). These images are
imported by reference, and the Frame docs only get PDF'd (no Help,
web, etc.).
What about u
Pete Rourke asked several questions:
> I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .jpg) to
> capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
> visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc.
>
> There are 2 outputs intended:
>
> 1.
I've inherited responsibility for some Frame docs. Almost all of the
images are .eps created in Illustrator and .jpg modified in Photoshop
(there are matching.psd files for the .jpg files). These images are
imported by reference, and the Frame docs only get PDF'd (no Help,
web, etc.).
What about u
volved; this is just my best
> attempt at explaining what I can see and what I use every day thanks
> to the visible improvements.
>
> john
>
>
>
> From: Diane Gaskill [mailto:dgcaller at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sat 2/2/2008 4:55 AM
&g
Pete Rourke asked several questions:
> I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .jpg) to
> capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
> visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc.
>
> There are 2 outputs intended:
>
> 1.
ciate your input.
Cheers
Pete
From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ***DHSPAM*** RE: Working with Images
Pete...
>From the sound of things, you're importing the file directly. DO
your input.
Cheers
Pete
From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer [mailto:denn...@chronometrics.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:49 AM
To: pete.rourke at reefpt.com
Subject: Re: ***DHSPAM*** RE: Working with Images
Pete...
>From the sound of things, you're importing the file direct
> So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture?
Personally, I would not use JPEG as it tends to artifact round the type,
making the image harder to read.
PNG or TIFF would be my first choices, GIF as a third choice depending on
the required color depth.
David Cream
> So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture?
Personally, I would not use JPEG as it tends to artifact round the type,
making the image harder to read.
PNG or TIFF would be my first choices, GIF as a third choice depending on
the required color depth.
David Cream
Hi Pete,
On 2/02/2008, at 10:53 AM, Pete Rourke wrote:
> Here is another newbie question.
>
> FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
>
> I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving
> as .jpg) to
> capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
> vis
___
You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com
volved; this is just my best
> attempt at explaining what I can see and what I use every day thanks
> to the visible improvements.
>
> john
>
>
>
> From: Diane Gaskill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat 2/2/2008 4:55 AM
> To: John Sgamma
visible
improvements.
john
From: Diane Gaskill [mailto:dgcal...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sat 2/2/2008 4:55 AM
To: John Sgammato; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
John,
How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the scre
Pete...
Several important rules of thumb here:
1. Never save screen shots as jpg files, especially highly-compressed
ones! They will not look nearly as good as *.bmp files. JPEG
compression will soften the images so that they don't look real, like
they do on the screen when viewed directly. Si
visible
improvements.
john
From: Diane Gaskill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 2/2/2008 4:55 AM
To: John Sgammato; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
John,
How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the screen
is s
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:49 PM
To: Alan Litchfield; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
...
> During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane?
By choosing 150dpi you are reducing the print size of the image. In
other words you are scaling the picture to make it
es at lists.frameusers.com]On Behalf Of John Sgammato
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:49 PM
To: Alan Litchfield; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Working with Images
...
> During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane?
By choosing 150dpi you are reducing the print size of the image. In
oth
...
> During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane?
By choosing 150dpi you are reducing the print size of the image. In
other words you are scaling the picture to make it smaller by
increasing the resolution. ...
Note that with SnagIt you can opt to capture the image at other resolutions, so
yo
___
You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com
...
> During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane?
By choosing 150dpi you are reducing the print size of the image. In
other words you are scaling the picture to make it smaller by
increasing the resolution. ...
Note that with SnagIt you can opt to capture the image at other resolutions, so
y
Pete...
Several important rules of thumb here:
1. Never save screen shots as jpg files, especially highly-compressed
ones! They will not look nearly as good as *.bmp files. JPEG
compression will soften the images so that they don't look real, like
they do on the screen when viewed directly. Si
Hi Pete,
On 2/02/2008, at 10:53 AM, Pete Rourke wrote:
> Here is another newbie question.
>
> FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
>
> I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving
> as .jpg) to
> capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
> vis
Here is another newbie question.
FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .jpg) to
capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc.
There
Here is another newbie question.
FM8 - XP (importing into anchored frames)
I am using Snagit (default image resolution 96dpi, and saving as .jpg) to
capture screenshots for a end user manual which assumes the user needs
visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc.
The
64 matches
Mail list logo
