also working with images
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 Windows GDI when >> creating >> Postscript. CMYK graphics are converted to RGB in the process and >> colors may >> change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains >> original colors. > > Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this > as well No. Adobe's "modern" apps (the CS stuff) use Adobe's own engines for graphics, type, and color. PDFs are produced directly, bypassing OS idiosyncrasies. That and the fact that Adobe Bridge (another CS app) does a lot of the work of Windows Explorer and Mac Finder, makes you wonder why they don't just build their own OS using Flex. Adobe OS! Now there's a thought ;-) Paul
also working with images
> 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 to RGB in the process and colors >> may >> change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains original >> colors. > > Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this as well? > It's not an issue with InDesign. It avoids the Windows GDI. So your CMYK will remain unchanged and there is no need to convert to EPS. Mike Wickham
Re: also working with images
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 graphics through the Windows GDI when >> creating >> Postscript. CMYK graphics are converted to RGB in the process and >> colors may >> change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains >> original colors. > > Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this > as well No. Adobe's "modern" apps (the CS stuff) use Adobe's own engines for graphics, type, and color. PDFs are produced directly, bypassing OS idiosyncrasies. That and the fact that Adobe Bridge (another CS app) does a lot of the work of Windows Explorer and Mac Finder, makes you wonder why they don't just build their own OS using Flex. Adobe OS! Now there's a thought ;-) Paul ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: also working with images
> 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 graphics are converted to RGB in the process and colors >> may >> change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains original >> colors. > > Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this as well? > It's not an issue with InDesign. It avoids the Windows GDI. So your CMYK will remain unchanged and there is no need to convert to EPS. Mike Wickham ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
also working with images
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 to RGB in the process and colors may > change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains original colors. Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this as well? Thanks. -- Milan Davidovic http://altmilan.blogspot.com http://stctorcomp.blogspot.com
Re: also working with images
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 graphics are converted to RGB in the process and colors may > change. EPS is passed around the Windows GDI and maintains original colors. Slightly OT, but for comparison purposes -- does InDesign do this as well? Thanks. -- Milan Davidovic http://altmilan.blogspot.com http://stctorcomp.blogspot.com ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
No problem sir, we are all human. Thank you for being a gentleman and replying
to my post.
Rick
_
From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer [mailto:dennisb at chronometrics.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:11 PM
To: TEI Melanson, Richard; framers at 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 the
whole rant at him. This was not the case, of course, but I can see his point.
in the meantime, he and I have called a truce, as we both have better things to
do.
Dude...
**
At 06:26 AM 2/6/2008, richard.melanson at us.tel.com wrote:
Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied
in your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little respect for
everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in an attempt to help they
believed to be accurate and helpful. To say and I quote you "Well, I've had
enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to understand what you are
talking about when it" is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep
breath and enjoy!!
Rick
-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com [
mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com <mailto:framers-bounces at
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 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 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...meaningful
detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while
my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native
resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot
see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution
than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than
the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium
resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium
resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on
paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size
4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor
like
mine, you will
not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be
able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot.
Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you
can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot.
A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original
size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is,
assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to
produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel
CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image
over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor.
That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is
a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels
in the Y direction.
Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of
screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons
and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I
set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi.
At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed
without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16.
[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't
match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as
crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a
topic for a different thread.]
Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for
display devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the
physical size of a digital
RE: Working with Images
No problem sir, we are all human. Thank you for being a gentleman and replying
to my post.
Rick
_
From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:11 PM
To: TEI Melanson, Richard; framers@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 the
whole rant at him. This was not the case, of course, but I can see his point.
in the meantime, he and I have called a truce, as we both have better things to
do.
Dude...
**
At 06:26 AM 2/6/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied
in your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little respect for
everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in an attempt to help they
believed to be accurate and helpful. To say and I quote you "Well, I've had
enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to understand what you are
talking about when it" is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep
breath and enjoy!!
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Dennis Brunnenmeyer
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
screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed to vector
or llne art.
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...meaningful
detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while
my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native
resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot
see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution
than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than
the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium
resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium
resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on
paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size
4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor
like
mine, you will
not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be
able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot.
Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you
can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot.
A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original
size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is,
assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to
produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel
CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image
over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor.
That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is
a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels
in the Y direction.
Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of
screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons
and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I
set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi.
At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed
without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16.
[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't
match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as
crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a
topic for a different thread.]
Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for
display devices to ppi when descr
RE: Working with Images
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. (Whether one should do this for screen captures is another issue and not the point.) The confusion among some is whether this is adding "real" pixel data, therefore enhancing the detail of the image. It is not. Detail, or real pixel data, can only come at the time of initial capture. Some quasi-experts were claiming that resolution cannot be added at all, but what they were really referring to is detail by means of original pixel data. Note: Adding resolution is not the same as re-assigning the ppi but keeping the same X/Y pixel amounts. To repeat my original advice: 1] Do not use JPEG format, but PNG, TIFF, or possibly GIF. 2] Do not add resolution, but use as is. IF--and only IF--additional resolution is necessary for prepress purposes, use nearest-neighbor interpolation, not bicubic. 3] Monitor display setting (aka monitor resolution) is only important when capturing entire screen layouts, not for individual dialog boxes. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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. (Whether one should do this for screen captures is another issue and not the point.) The confusion among some is whether this is adding "real" pixel data, therefore enhancing the detail of the image. It is not. Detail, or real pixel data, can only come at the time of initial capture. Some quasi-experts were claiming that resolution cannot be added at all, but what they were really referring to is detail by means of original pixel data. Note: Adding resolution is not the same as re-assigning the ppi but keeping the same X/Y pixel amounts. To repeat my original advice: 1] Do not use JPEG format, but PNG, TIFF, or possibly GIF. 2] Do not add resolution, but use as is. IF--and only IF--additional resolution is necessary for prepress purposes, use nearest-neighbor interpolation, not bicubic. 3] Monitor display setting (aka monitor resolution) is only important when capturing entire screen layouts, not for individual dialog boxes. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Working with Images
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 > capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme > example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and > white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi > and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, > all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If > you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or > if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new > hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, > the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution > image can help to compensate. > > This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) > generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. > Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then > export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it > lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it > hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they > look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in > the hi-res. Hi John, Sorry, but that's not how it works! All that happens in a screen capture is that the capturing software copies the contents of all or part of the graphics card RAM to a file. "Resolution" is irrelevant at that stage, because you are only copying a fixed number of pixels. Those pixels are displayed by your monitor according to the graphics card resolution setting, which determines the image dimensions *on your particular screen*, and they are (later) sent to a printer driver with an instruction on how closely to space the corresponding ink dots. But none of that changes the number of pixels in either the graphics card RAM or the resulting file. Also, your test doesn't apply to screen captures. Illustrator is a vector program, not a raster program. When you export the vector drawings to tiff, they get rasterized (converted from mathematical formulas with no associated quantity of pixels to files containing a finite number of pixels). If you export at low resolution, then Illustrator will create a file with fewer pixels than if you export at higher resolution. This export operation is completely different from a screen capture, which is a raster image with a fixed number of pixels. "Jaggies" are unavoidable when rectangular pixels are used to create angled lines. They're just less visible with higher-res files, though they are still there. HTH! -- Stuart Rogers Technical Communicator Phoenix Geophysics Limited Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 491-7340 x 325 srogers phoenix-geophysics com If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
Working with Images
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, your workflow is appropriate, but you're not quite correct on why. You are not capturing the image "at other resolutions," or really at any resolution. You are capturing a specific number of pixels. At the time of capture, they are *displayed* at your screen resolution (pixels per inch, ppi; not dpi). Put that captured image on another screen with different graphics card resolution, and the identical number of pixels will be displayed on that screen, with different physical dimensions because that screen positions the pixels closer or farther apart (different number of ppi). None of that matters when it comes to putting the image in FM. When you tell SnagIt or FM or Photoshop or any other program that an image is xxx dpi, you are simply giving it an instruction to pass along to the print device that it should place the dots 1/xxx inch apart. If you tell SnagIt you want the image to be 200 dpi, it tells FM the same thing; when you import "at 200dpi", you're telling FM the same thing. FM renders an approximation of that on screen, as well as passing the instruction on to the print driver. The image that you captured, unless manipulated by some sort of interpolation, can only contain the number of pixels that formed the original object on screen. Telling SnagIt 200dpi or 50dpi does not change the number of pixels or the size of the file; it only changes the distance between dots when printed (and the size of FM's on-screen approximation). Best regards, -- Stuart Rogers Technical Communicator Phoenix Geophysics Limited Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 491-7340 x 325 srogers phoenix-geophysics com If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
Re: Working with Images
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 > capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme > example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and > white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi > and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, > all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If > you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or > if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new > hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, > the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution > image can help to compensate. > > This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) > generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. > Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then > export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it > lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it > hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they > look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in > the hi-res. Hi John, Sorry, but that's not how it works! All that happens in a screen capture is that the capturing software copies the contents of all or part of the graphics card RAM to a file. "Resolution" is irrelevant at that stage, because you are only copying a fixed number of pixels. Those pixels are displayed by your monitor according to the graphics card resolution setting, which determines the image dimensions *on your particular screen*, and they are (later) sent to a printer driver with an instruction on how closely to space the corresponding ink dots. But none of that changes the number of pixels in either the graphics card RAM or the resulting file. Also, your test doesn't apply to screen captures. Illustrator is a vector program, not a raster program. When you export the vector drawings to tiff, they get rasterized (converted from mathematical formulas with no associated quantity of pixels to files containing a finite number of pixels). If you export at low resolution, then Illustrator will create a file with fewer pixels than if you export at higher resolution. This export operation is completely different from a screen capture, which is a raster image with a fixed number of pixels. "Jaggies" are unavoidable when rectangular pixels are used to create angled lines. They're just less visible with higher-res files, though they are still there. HTH! -- Stuart Rogers Technical Communicator Phoenix Geophysics Limited Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 491-7340 x 325 srogers phoenix-geophysics com If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican? ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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, screen-pixel size doesn't affect a printed image. However, screen-pixel size does affect the appearance of the size of the original image, and of a PDF of that image. Isn't it as important to standardize on the screen-pixel size of monitors in a work flow, just as it is to employ standard screen calibration, and standard lighting for viewing printed output? (No rants were harmed during the creation of this question.) Regards, Peter ___ Peter Gold KnowHow ProServices
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 the whole rant at him. This was not the case, of course, but I can see his point. in the meantime, he and I have called a truce, as we both have better things to do. Dude... ** At 06:26 AM 2/6/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in >your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little >respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in >an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say >and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. >None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it" >is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!! >Rick > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Brunnenmeyer >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 screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as >opposed to vector or llne art. > >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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer >can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 >dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is >exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything >and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the >display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution >than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to >a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the >image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put >all of that information on paper. If you take an very high >resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 >megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will >not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to >capture all of the detail in a screenshot. > >Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can >improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. > >A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of >the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That >is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the >ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG >file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant >improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. >That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a >function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number >of pixels in the Y direction. > >Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, >because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons >and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the >monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. >At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without >loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match >the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not >as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, >but that's a topic for a different thread.] > >Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display >devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the >physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and >should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or >print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for >lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency >to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. > >Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, >the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 >ppi, regardless of whether I c
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 the whole rant at him. This was not the case, of course, but I can see his point. in the meantime, he and I have called a truce, as we both have better things to do. Dude... ** At 06:26 AM 2/6/2008, richard.melanson at us.tel.com wrote: >Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in >your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little >respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in >an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say >and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. >None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it" >is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!! >Rick > >-Original Message- >From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com >[mailto:framers-bounces at 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 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 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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer >can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 >dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is >exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything >and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the >display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution >than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to >a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the >image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put >all of that information on paper. If you take an very high >resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 >megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will >not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to >capture all of the detail in a screenshot. > >Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can >improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. > >A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of >the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That >is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the >ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG >file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant >improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. >That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a >function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number >of pixels in the Y direction. > >Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, >because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons >and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the >monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. >At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without >loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match >the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not >as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, >but that's a topic for a different thread.] > >Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display >devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the >physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and >should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or >print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for >lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency >to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. > >Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, >the maximum resolution of any image I captu
Re: Working with Images
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, screen-pixel size doesn't affect a printed image. However, screen-pixel size does affect the appearance of the size of the original image, and of a PDF of that image. Isn't it as important to standardize on the screen-pixel size of monitors in a work flow, just as it is to employ standard screen calibration, and standard lighting for viewing printed output? (No rants were harmed during the creation of this question.) Regards, Peter ___ Peter Gold KnowHow ProServices ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Working with Images
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, your workflow is appropriate, but you're not quite correct on why. You are not capturing the image "at other resolutions," or really at any resolution. You are capturing a specific number of pixels. At the time of capture, they are *displayed* at your screen resolution (pixels per inch, ppi; not dpi). Put that captured image on another screen with different graphics card resolution, and the identical number of pixels will be displayed on that screen, with different physical dimensions because that screen positions the pixels closer or farther apart (different number of ppi). None of that matters when it comes to putting the image in FM. When you tell SnagIt or FM or Photoshop or any other program that an image is xxx dpi, you are simply giving it an instruction to pass along to the print device that it should place the dots 1/xxx inch apart. If you tell SnagIt you want the image to be 200 dpi, it tells FM the same thing; when you import "at 200dpi", you're telling FM the same thing. FM renders an approximation of that on screen, as well as passing the instruction on to the print driver. The image that you captured, unless manipulated by some sort of interpolation, can only contain the number of pixels that formed the original object on screen. Telling SnagIt 200dpi or 50dpi does not change the number of pixels or the size of the file; it only changes the distance between dots when printed (and the size of FM's on-screen approximation). Best regards, -- Stuart Rogers Technical Communicator Phoenix Geophysics Limited Toronto, ON, Canada +1 (416) 491-7340 x 325 srogers phoenix-geophysics com If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican? ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working with Images
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... > > > > > > 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...meaningful detail. > The best my > > aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD > > monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native > resolution on an > > LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." >You are totally ignoring line screen (aka LPI) when printing. Using the >formula will determine the quality of the output on a black-only laser >printer: >(Output Resolution/Screen Frequency)^2 [squared] +1 = total number of gray >levels available to the printer. >So a 600dpi printer at 100 LPI gives you only 37 levels of gray. For photos, >you need around 200 levels of gray to look natural. > >For commercial offset printing, one should use the following guideline: >PPI= LPI x 1.5. (Some use LPI x 2, but 1.5 is normally enough.) I was referring to true image resolution. By resampling to a higher pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the image. No new detail is revealed that wasn't there before. However, I will grant that you may *enhance* the appearance when printing in this manner by falsifying the image to a degree. > > You cannot see nor capture > > anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution > than the display > > device.. >I think I said something similar to that. I think you're probably right about that. However, several people have implied, that capturing a screen image at, say, 160 ppi gives more detail. This cannot be if the display resolution is set to 80 or 100 dpi. The end result is that the same number of pixels are captured but with a higher ppi value, meaning as you have pointed out that the image is "physically" smaller. > > > > Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve > > resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. >I think I said something similar to that. No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but that is usually detrimental to the quality of the image." Only the last half of this sentence is correct. > > > > A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size > of the image > > in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. >I think I said something similar to that. No reasonable person could disagree with that, and I think you are reasonable enough to have said that. Of course, in the case of color images, color depth counts too. > >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't > > match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen > picture is not as > > crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, > but that's a > > topic for a different thread.] >I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being >captured. Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the screen are just annoying visual impairments specific to the display technology and not an indication of the quality of the image itself. > > > > > >. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the > > image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the > screen, BUT IT WILL > > HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be > improved, as > > no more detail has been added. >I think I said something similar to that. Yes, you did and you are correct. > > > > No new detail nor > > image improvement can be added by interpolation. >I think I said something similar to that. >However, I suspect you have not used nearest neighbor interpolation too >much. "Improvement" in the sense that I meant it was intended to convey an improvement in actual accuracy. As you pointed out above, you can "enhance" some images this way by interpolating in new gray-scale or color values to yield a prettier but partially-false result. But you would NOT want to interpolate using any methodology in order to "enhance" a screen shot of a Windows dialog box. For the same reason, one should not save those kinds of screen shots as JPEG images. > > > > I have no idea what David meant by this statement: "Again, referring to my > > last post, monitor resolution only counts if > > capturing an entire screen." >I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel >data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your sentence makes no sense. > > > > Flame away... >I try not to flame or rant as I think it dilutes t
Working with Images
Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it" is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!! Rick -Original Message- From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com [mailto: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 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 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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot. Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels in the Y direction. Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. [Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a topic for a different thread.] Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program (Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no more detail has been added. Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling (a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses
RE: Working with Images
Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it" is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!! Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Brunnenmeyer 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 screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed to vector or llne art. 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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot. Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels in the Y direction. Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. [Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a topic for a different thread.] Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program (Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no more detail has been added. Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling (a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses at what shoud be there at that point in th
Re: Working with Images
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 higher > pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the image. No > new detail is revealed that wasn't there before. I was not arguing that point--in fact, I stated the same basic thing. Why make it an issue? > >> I think I said something similar to that. > I think you're probably right about that. I'll that that non-committal answer as "you're right". > > No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but > that is usually detrimental > to the quality of the image." > > Only the last half of this sentence is correct. Huh... One can add extra resolution to an image (regardless if it is good for the image or not). That is a fact. Therefore, the entire sentence is correct. How could you say otherwise? >> I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being >> captured. > > Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the screen are > just annoying visual impairments specific to the display technology and not an > indication of the quality of the image itself. First, I believe we agree that LCD monitors should always be run at their native resolution (usually the maximum setting, but not always). However, a screen capture taken at a non-native resolution will have the same quality at one taken at the native resolution when viewed at actual size in Photoshop. The "fuzzy" appearance is on-screen artifacts only and will not affected the use in a document. Now granted, this is on the systems I have tested, so your mileage may vary. >> I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel >> data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. > That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your sentence > makes no sense. We are talking about display pixels--1280 pixels is 1280 pixels regardless of how "big" the pixels are by way of monitor size. This was going back to my statement that "Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts." (Just to be sure, I am NOT talking about true monitor pixels, meaning down to RGB elements.) David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. http://www.IDEAStraining.com Results-Oriented Training & Consulting for Print & Web since 1990 Over 28 years Publishing, 14 years Web, and 10 years Video experience Contributing Editor for Layers Magazine Adobe Certified Trainer and Expert (since 1995) Adobe Certified Master; Print & Web Specialist Adobe Certified for InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, FrameMaker, InCopy, PageMaker, GoLive, Dreamweaver, & Premiere Authorized Quark Training Consultant (since 1988) QuarkXPress 6&7 Certified Expert - Print & Web Authorized Markzware FlightCheck Trainer Enfocus Certified Trainer (PitStop Pro/Server, Instant PDF) Authorized Microsoft Publisher Service Provider Authorized FileMaker Trainer Apple Consultants Network member (since 1990) Apple Certified Help Desk Specialist Southern CA, Arizona, and at your location ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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 resampling to a higher > pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the image. No > new detail is revealed that wasn't there before. I was not arguing that point--in fact, I stated the same basic thing. Why make it an issue? > >> I think I said something similar to that. > I think you're probably right about that. I'll that that non-committal answer as "you're right". > > No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but > that is usually detrimental > to the quality of the image." > > Only the last half of this sentence is correct. Huh... One can add extra resolution to an image (regardless if it is good for the image or not). That is a fact. Therefore, the entire sentence is correct. How could you say otherwise? >> I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being >> captured. > > Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the screen are > just annoying visual impairments specific to the display technology and not an > indication of the quality of the image itself. First, I believe we agree that LCD monitors should always be run at their native resolution (usually the maximum setting, but not always). However, a screen capture taken at a non-native resolution will have the same quality at one taken at the native resolution when viewed at actual size in Photoshop. The "fuzzy" appearance is on-screen artifacts only and will not affected the use in a document. Now granted, this is on the systems I have tested, so your mileage may vary. >> I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel >> data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. > That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your sentence > makes no sense. We are talking about display pixels--1280 pixels is 1280 pixels regardless of how "big" the pixels are by way of monitor size. This was going back to my statement that "Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts." (Just to be sure, I am NOT talking about true monitor pixels, meaning down to RGB elements.) David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. http://www.IDEAStraining.com Results-Oriented Training & Consulting for Print & Web since 1990 Over 28 years Publishing, 14 years Web, and 10 years Video experience Contributing Editor for Layers Magazine Adobe Certified Trainer and Expert (since 1995) Adobe Certified Master; Print & Web Specialist Adobe Certified for InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, FrameMaker, InCopy, PageMaker, GoLive, Dreamweaver, & Premiere Authorized Quark Training Consultant (since 1988) QuarkXPress 6&7 Certified Expert - Print & Web Authorized Markzware FlightCheck Trainer Enfocus Certified Trainer (PitStop Pro/Server, Instant PDF) Authorized Microsoft Publisher Service Provider Authorized FileMaker Trainer Apple Consultants Network member (since 1990) Apple Certified Help Desk Specialist Southern CA, Arizona, and at your location
Working with Images
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 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...meaningful detail. > The best my > > aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD > > monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native > resolution on an > > LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." >You are totally ignoring line screen (aka LPI) when printing. Using the >formula will determine the quality of the output on a black-only laser >printer: >(Output Resolution/Screen Frequency)^2 [squared] +1 = total number of gray >levels available to the printer. >So a 600dpi printer at 100 LPI gives you only 37 levels of gray. For photos, >you need around 200 levels of gray to look natural. > >For commercial offset printing, one should use the following guideline: >PPI= LPI x 1.5. (Some use LPI x 2, but 1.5 is normally enough.) I was referring to true image resolution. By resampling to a higher pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the image. No new detail is revealed that wasn't there before. However, I will grant that you may *enhance* the appearance when printing in this manner by falsifying the image to a degree. > > You cannot see nor capture > > anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution > than the display > > device.. >I think I said something similar to that. I think you're probably right about that. However, several people have implied, that capturing a screen image at, say, 160 ppi gives more detail. This cannot be if the display resolution is set to 80 or 100 dpi. The end result is that the same number of pixels are captured but with a higher ppi value, meaning as you have pointed out that the image is "physically" smaller. > > > > Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve > > resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. >I think I said something similar to that. No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but that is usually detrimental to the quality of the image." Only the last half of this sentence is correct. > > > > A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size > of the image > > in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. >I think I said something similar to that. No reasonable person could disagree with that, and I think you are reasonable enough to have said that. Of course, in the case of color images, color depth counts too. > >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't > > match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen > picture is not as > > crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, > but that's a > > topic for a different thread.] >I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being >captured. Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the screen are just annoying visual impairments specific to the display technology and not an indication of the quality of the image itself. > > > > > >. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the > > image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the > screen, BUT IT WILL > > HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be > improved, as > > no more detail has been added. >I think I said something similar to that. Yes, you did and you are correct. > > > > No new detail nor > > image improvement can be added by interpolation. >I think I said something similar to that. >However, I suspect you have not used nearest neighbor interpolation too >much. "Improvement" in the sense that I meant it was intended to convey an improvement in actual accuracy. As you pointed out above, you can "enhance" some images this way by interpolating in new gray-scale or color values to yield a prettier but partially-false result. But you would NOT want to interpolate using any methodology in order to "enhance" a screen shot of a Windows dialog box. For the same reason, one should not save those kinds of screen shots as JPEG images. > > > > I have no idea what David meant by this statement: "Again, referring to my > > last post, monitor resolution only counts if > > capturing an entire screen." >I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel >data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your sentence makes no sense. > > > > Flame away... >I try not to flame or rant as I think i
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 raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed to vector or llne art. 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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot. Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels in the Y direction. Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. [Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a topic for a different thread.] Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program (Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no more detail has been added. Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling (a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses at what shoud be there at that point in the image, and not real information that wasn't there before. No new detail nor image improvement can be added by interpolation. Now, however, you can re-scale an image in programs like Photoshop by keeping the same number of pixels (do not interpolate) and altering the size of the image in the X and Y directions equally. For example, if I took the 160 ppi screenshot described in the previous paragraph and re-scaled it in Photoshop without resampling the image, and if I prescribed a new size of 80 ppi, the resulting image would grow back to 100% in size and have still have exactly the same number of pixels as before. The resolving power of the image has not changed, and no more detail has been provided. This is a correct way to get an image to the size you want it in your document. Another way is to
RE: Working with Images
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...meaningful detail. The best my > aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD > monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an > LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You are totally ignoring line screen (aka LPI) when printing. Using the formula will determine the quality of the output on a black-only laser printer: (Output Resolution/Screen Frequency)^2 [squared] +1 = total number of gray levels available to the printer. So a 600dpi printer at 100 LPI gives you only 37 levels of gray. For photos, you need around 200 levels of gray to look natural. For commercial offset printing, one should use the following guideline: PPI= LPI x 1.5. (Some use LPI x 2, but 1.5 is normally enough.) > You cannot see nor capture > anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display > device.. I think I said something similar to that. > > Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve > resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. I think I said something similar to that. > > A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image > in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. I think I said something similar to that. . >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't > match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as > crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a > topic for a different thread.] I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being captured. > > >. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the > image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL > HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as > no more detail has been added. I think I said something similar to that. > > No new detail nor > image improvement can be added by interpolation. I think I said something similar to that. However, I suspect you have not used nearest neighbor interpolation too much. > > I have no idea what David meant by this statement: "Again, referring to my > last post, monitor resolution only counts if > capturing an entire screen." I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. > > Flame away... I try not to flame or rant as I think it dilutes the message and reflects poorly on the messenger David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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 measure of...meaningful detail. The best my > aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD > monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an > LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You are totally ignoring line screen (aka LPI) when printing. Using the formula will determine the quality of the output on a black-only laser printer: (Output Resolution/Screen Frequency)^2 [squared] +1 = total number of gray levels available to the printer. So a 600dpi printer at 100 LPI gives you only 37 levels of gray. For photos, you need around 200 levels of gray to look natural. For commercial offset printing, one should use the following guideline: PPI= LPI x 1.5. (Some use LPI x 2, but 1.5 is normally enough.) > You cannot see nor capture > anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display > device.. I think I said something similar to that. > > Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve > resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. I think I said something similar to that. > > A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image > in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. I think I said something similar to that. . >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't > match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as > crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a > topic for a different thread.] I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being captured. > > >. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the > image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL > HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as > no more detail has been added. I think I said something similar to that. > > No new detail nor > image improvement can be added by interpolation. I think I said something similar to that. However, I suspect you have not used nearest neighbor interpolation too much. > > I have no idea what David meant by this statement: "Again, referring to my > last post, monitor resolution only counts if > capturing an entire screen." I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor. > > Flame away... I try not to flame or rant as I think it dilutes the message and reflects poorly on the messenger David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
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 raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as opposed to vector or llne art. 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...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall." You cannot see nor capture anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put all of that information on paper. If you take an very high resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to capture all of the detail in a screenshot. Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot. A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor. That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number of pixels in the Y direction. Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi. At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16. [Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, but that's a topic for a different thread.] Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing. Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program (Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no more detail has been added. Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling (a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses at what shoud be there at that point in the image, and not real information that wasn't there before. No new detail nor image improvement can be added by interpolation. Now, however, you can re-scale an image in programs like Photoshop by keeping the same number of pixels (do not interpolate) and altering the size of the image in the X and Y directions equally. For example, if I took the 160 ppi screenshot described in the previous paragraph and re-scaled it in Photoshop without resampling the image, and if I prescribed a new size of 80 ppi, the resulting image would grow back to 100% in size and have still have exactly the same number of pixels as before. The resolving power of the image has not changed, and no more detail has been provided. This is a correct way to get an image to the size you want it in your document. Another way is to
RE: Working with Images
> 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 resolution only counts if capturing an entire screen. A 1280x1024 image at 96ppi is 13.3x10.6 inches; at 200ppi it is 6.4x5.12 inches. As you can see, a full-screen capture is usually more than adequate for most publications. Dialog boxes, however, are another story. If a dialog box is only 400x300 pixels, it would only be 2x1.5 inches at 200ppi. Generally, it is better to run the image at the default resolution (96ppi in this case). One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but that is usually detrimental to the quality of the image. If I had to add extra resolution, I would avoid bicubic interpolations and using nearest neighbor. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
> 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 resolution only counts if capturing an entire screen. A 1280x1024 image at 96ppi is 13.3x10.6 inches; at 200ppi it is 6.4x5.12 inches. As you can see, a full-screen capture is usually more than adequate for most publications. Dialog boxes, however, are another story. If a dialog box is only 400x300 pixels, it would only be 2x1.5 inches at 200ppi. Generally, it is better to run the image at the default resolution (96ppi in this case). One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but that is usually detrimental to the quality of the image. If I had to add extra resolution, I would avoid bicubic interpolations and using nearest neighbor. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Working with Images: saving as HTML
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 save a file as html, if the referenced images are gifs, then in the generated html files the img sources are to the my original gif images. If, however, the referenced images in the Frame file are pngs, then in the generated html files the img sources are gif copies of the pngs that Frame has generated. Is there a way to change this behavior and force Frame to use the referenced image in the generated html files? Or is the whole Save as html thing a "deprecated" capability that was never really worked out all the way? Thanks in advance, Paul - Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
RE: Working with Images
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 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 capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to compensate. This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the screen). I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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 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 set to? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you get 200 DPI out of that? Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Sgammato 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 smaller by increasing the resolution. ... 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 ___ 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/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
Excellent explanation John. I'll definitely save your message. Thanks lots, Diane -Original Message- From: John Sgammato [mailto:jsgamm...@imprivata.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 6:17 AM To: Diane Gaskill; framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: Working with Images 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 capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to compensate. This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the screen). I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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: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? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you get 200 DPI out of that? Diane -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces 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 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 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as dgcaller at earthlink.net. Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working with Images: saving as HTML
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 save a file as html, if the referenced images are gifs, then in the generated html files the img sources are to the my original gif images. If, however, the referenced images in the Frame file are pngs, then in the generated html files the img sources are gif copies of the pngs that Frame has generated. Is there a way to change this behavior and force Frame to use the referenced image in the generated html files? Or is the whole Save as html thing a "deprecated" capability that was never really worked out all the way? Thanks in advance, Paul - Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
Hi Pete, I would strongly concur and reiterate what others have said about NOT using JPG for screen captures. It is considered a "lossy" format and introduces all kinds of artifacts into the image. GIF is a good choice if you have a limited color palette, that is, fewer than 256 colors. It produces the smallest file size, so if that is really an issue, this might be your best bet. PNG is my favorite format, though. It uses a color palette and produces a file size similar to JPGs (that is, reasonably small), but is not lossy like JPG. PNGs tend to be very clean and efficient files. BMPs are pigs, producing quite large files, though they handle color well and produce very clean images. But, as someone else has pointed out, they are also Windows proprietary (if that is an issue). Others have dealt well with the resolution issue, so I'll not add any noise there. 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 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. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing 2. A printed manual An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be acceptable? TIA Pete Rourke Chandler, AZ
Re: Working with Images
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 an entire screen and you adjust your overall monitor resolution. I would leave them as the default resolution--adding more is not generally going to improve the image and may even soften the edges of the type. If I need more resolution, say for preflight reasons, I would use nearest neighbor. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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 an entire screen and you adjust your overall monitor resolution. I would leave them as the default resolution--adding more is not generally going to improve the image and may even soften the edges of the type. If I need more resolution, say for preflight reasons, I would use nearest neighbor. David Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
RE: Working with Images
Hi Pete, I would strongly concur and reiterate what others have said about NOT using JPG for screen captures. It is considered a "lossy" format and introduces all kinds of artifacts into the image. GIF is a good choice if you have a limited color palette, that is, fewer than 256 colors. It produces the smallest file size, so if that is really an issue, this might be your best bet. PNG is my favorite format, though. It uses a color palette and produces a file size similar to JPGs (that is, reasonably small), but is not lossy like JPG. PNGs tend to be very clean and efficient files. BMPs are pigs, producing quite large files, though they handle color well and produce very clean images. But, as someone else has pointed out, they are also Windows proprietary (if that is an issue). Others have dealt well with the resolution issue, so I'll not add any noise there. 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 .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. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing 2. A printed manual An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be acceptable? TIA Pete Rourke Chandler, AZ ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
also working with images
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 using the .ai and .psd files directly? -- Milan Davidovic http://altmilan.blogspot.com http://stctorcomp.blogspot.com
Working with Images
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. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > > 2. A printed manual No problems here. Choose any of the four non-lossy raster image formats. > An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > > Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > > So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) What's the issue? 8MB is nothing, these days. On a hard disk, that much storage costs less than $0.01 (with disk prices currently running between $.20 and $1.00 per Gigabyte). And archiving to CD or DVD only costs another penny. And when you're working with your document, referenced images (as opposed to pasted-in images) are only loaded when you view a page, so the amount of data to be loaded for images shouldn't be an issue unless you're working on a *REALLY* slow network. The *number* of screenshots is more of a concern in this circumstance than the overall space occupied by the files, because each file has to be accessed separately; but that's something that you, as author, control completely. > So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? JPEG is the worst choice for screen shots. Don't use it for that purpose. The "P" in JPEG stands for "photographic", and continuous-tone photographs is what it was designed for. The compression technique the format uses is area-based and lossy, and relies on two important characteristics of photographic images to reduce the visibility of the artifacts and image degradation the compression inevitably produces. JPEG inevitably produces artifacts (a kind of "smudginess" near abrupt transitions between different colors, but this is OK because photos have relatively few of these and because the objects in the photos generally have anough surface texture to mask the artifacts. But screen shots are all about hard edges and abrupt transtions (that describes text characters, for example), and has *no* texture to mask the artifacts. My preferred file formats for screenshots (in order) are: GIF: very compact thanks to run-length encoding and indexed color, but produces posterized results on graduated color areas or photos. Can be used directly one the web and cross-platform. PNG: a modern superset of GIF supporting full color depth. Can be used directly on the web, but some browsers have issues displaying some "flavors" (color formats) of PNG. TIFF: good platform portability (usable on Windows, Mac, Unix) but large filer size than PNG or GIF. Not directly usable on the web. BMP: poor portability (Windows-only); large file size; not web-compatible > During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? No, but if you're really concerned about file size, this is one place you can make some improvement. Saving screenshots at 150 dpi rather than 96 results in image files that are 2.44 times as large. simply because there are that many more pixels to store. > I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be > acceptable? Dropping below 96 dpi loses a lot of quality and doesn't save much file space (assuming that this really is a legitimate issue). _ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/
also working with images
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 using the .ai and .psd files directly? -- Milan Davidovic http://altmilan.blogspot.com http://stctorcomp.blogspot.com ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
Or in other words, increasing the print resolution uses interpolation to add pixels where there were none before. This can be of benefit for images with screen text and so on. Cheers Alan On 3/02/2008, at 3:17 AM, 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 > capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme > example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and > white elements along a line at 10 dpi. > Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many > 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, > and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or > manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause > the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more > forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited > by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to > compensate. > > This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) > generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. > Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then > export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo- > res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. > Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo- > res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. > > Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make > the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, > maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the > screen). > > I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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 > 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? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. > How do you > get 200 DPI out of that? > > Diane > > -Original Message- > From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com > [mailto:framers-bounces 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 > 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 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 > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as dgcaller at earthlink.net. > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com > or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dgcaller%40earthlink.net > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. > > > > ___ > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as alan at alphabyte.co.nz. > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com > or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/alan%40alphabyte.co.nz > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. -- Alan Litchfield GradDipBus, MBus(Hons), CTT, MNZCS AlphaByte PO Box 1941, Auckland, NZ. 1140
RE: Working with Images
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. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > > 2. A printed manual No problems here. Choose any of the four non-lossy raster image formats. > An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > > Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > > So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) What's the issue? 8MB is nothing, these days. On a hard disk, that much storage costs less than $0.01 (with disk prices currently running between $.20 and $1.00 per Gigabyte). And archiving to CD or DVD only costs another penny. And when you're working with your document, referenced images (as opposed to pasted-in images) are only loaded when you view a page, so the amount of data to be loaded for images shouldn't be an issue unless you're working on a *REALLY* slow network. The *number* of screenshots is more of a concern in this circumstance than the overall space occupied by the files, because each file has to be accessed separately; but that's something that you, as author, control completely. > So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? JPEG is the worst choice for screen shots. Don't use it for that purpose. The "P" in JPEG stands for "photographic", and continuous-tone photographs is what it was designed for. The compression technique the format uses is area-based and lossy, and relies on two important characteristics of photographic images to reduce the visibility of the artifacts and image degradation the compression inevitably produces. JPEG inevitably produces artifacts (a kind of "smudginess" near abrupt transitions between different colors, but this is OK because photos have relatively few of these and because the objects in the photos generally have anough surface texture to mask the artifacts. But screen shots are all about hard edges and abrupt transtions (that describes text characters, for example), and has *no* texture to mask the artifacts. My preferred file formats for screenshots (in order) are: GIF: very compact thanks to run-length encoding and indexed color, but produces posterized results on graduated color areas or photos. Can be used directly one the web and cross-platform. PNG: a modern superset of GIF supporting full color depth. Can be used directly on the web, but some browsers have issues displaying some "flavors" (color formats) of PNG. TIFF: good platform portability (usable on Windows, Mac, Unix) but large filer size than PNG or GIF. Not directly usable on the web. BMP: poor portability (Windows-only); large file size; not web-compatible > During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? No, but if you're really concerned about file size, this is one place you can make some improvement. Saving screenshots at 150 dpi rather than 96 results in image files that are 2.44 times as large. simply because there are that many more pixels to store. > I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be > acceptable? Dropping below 96 dpi loses a lot of quality and doesn't save much file space (assuming that this really is a legitimate issue). _ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working with Images
Thanks Dennis, I am importing by reference, I remember now setting that at the beginning of the project. The 8MB is the size of the images in the folders total. (the Snagit images) There are 23 files in the book, including TOC, LOF, List of Tables, Index, Glossary, the largest of which is 87kb (most are less than 55kb) Most of the work is on a Laptop, and sometimes I use a desktop with LCD. Both screen resolutions are 1600 x 1200 VGA. I've thought of assembling a Tech Pubs system with dual DVI 23" 2560 x 1600, but this will have to come later. I am not a professional technical pubs documentation person, but a operations type in a very small company. This project is my idea based upon the huge volume of support calls on the very simple elements of the application, so maybe there are 10 out of the 200 are not essential, but may save an hour tech support phone call. Previous to this all of the documentation was either in MS Word (gag) or Publisher, neither of which satisfies the need for very clear indexing, cross-references, and other strenghts of FM, which I was introduced to when I used it on Sun Microsystems in early 1990s. I truly appreciate 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 NOT do that. When you open the import menu, look at the bottom. There are two "radio buttons" to determine whether you import by reference or copy into the document. Start with good quality *.bmp files and import them at 150 dpi. You'll see the difference. I don't use Snag-it, so I don't know what options it offers when you go to save the screen shot. But don't start with a crummy image. And don't worry about the original size of the screenshot. When you import it at 150 dpi, the impact on the PDF file is the same regardless of the size of the original file. After all, 150 dpi is 150 dpi. Some are just crisper than others. There's a subtle distinction that not many people understand. Printers (laser, inkjet, etc.) print in dpi (dots per physical inch of paer). Images are represented in pixels per inch (PPI). Dots per inch is a statement about how good a printer is at putting ink or toner on paper. Study this topic and the subject of bit maps versus vector graphics until you're blue in the face. Now, see remarks below: Dennis... ** At 08:55 PM 2/1/2008, you wrote: Thanks Dennis, I think that I can redo them pretty easily, and take your advice to use .bmp. I have a images folder set within the Frame file folder. I am not sure if I am importing by reference, but what I do is open an anchored frame, and then file>import the image file name. The actual .fm documents themselves are small like 40-60K so I think I'm doing by reference. Wait a minute...what file is 8MB? Is this the total of all of the files in the book, or is it the size of the PDF file you're creating? Don't let any single FM file get that large! How many files make up your book? I assume from the comment in the next sentence that you're referring to the size of the PDF file. Well, 200 images conveys a lot of information. Do you need them all? The answer is probably "Yes!" Well, what's wrong with an 13MB file if it's informative and well-designed so that it's useful? That's why dictionaries are so thick...there's a lot of stuff in them. I just finished a 120 page manual with, say, 35 images in it and it's 3.8MB as a PDF. It's a work of art, though, for an instruction manual. But then the product it represents costs $475,000. When I print the book to Adobe PDF with all of the images, it gets pretty monsterous, but I haven't had any trouble building the PDF book. One thing I find strange is that when viewing the image in FM onscreen, it doesn't seem as clear as it does when the book is printed to PDF and viewed onscreen. This is part of the reason I thought it necessary to move to 150 from 96. I will do some trials on this. Are you using an LCD monitor? Is the graphics card resolution the same as the native resolution of the display? Is the cable interface VGA or DVI? My real concern is that the PDF book is approaching 13MB (and I'm not done yet :) ) Thanks for your suggestions. Cheers Pete Original Message Subject: Re: Working with Images From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, February 01, 2008 8:34 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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
Working with Images
Thanks Dennis, I am importing by reference, I remember now setting that at the beginning of the project. The 8MB is the size of the images in the folders total. (the Snagit images) There are 23 files in the book, including TOC, LOF, List of Tables, Index, Glossary, the largest of which is 87kb (most are less than 55kb) Most of the work is on a Laptop, and sometimes I use a desktop with LCD. Both screen resolutions are 1600 x 1200 VGA. I've thought of assembling a Tech Pubs system with dual DVI 23" 2560 x 1600, but this will have to come later. I am not a professional technical pubs documentation person, but a operations type in a very small company. This project is my idea based upon the huge volume of support calls on the very simple elements of the application, so maybe there are 10 out of the 200 are not essential, but may save an hour tech support phone call. Previous to this all of the documentation was either in MS Word (gag) or Publisher, neither of which satisfies the need for very clear indexing, cross-references, and other strenghts of FM, which I was introduced to when I used it on Sun Microsystems in early 1990s. I truly appreciate 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 directly. DO NOT do that. When you open the import menu, look at the bottom. There are two "radio buttons" to determine whether you import by reference or copy into the document. Start with good quality *.bmp files and import them at 150 dpi. You'll see the difference. I don't use Snag-it, so I don't know what options it offers when you go to save the screen shot. But don't start with a crummy image. And don't worry about the original size of the screenshot. When you import it at 150 dpi, the impact on the PDF file is the same regardless of the size of the original file. After all, 150 dpi is 150 dpi. Some are just crisper than others. There's a subtle distinction that not many people understand. Printers (laser, inkjet, etc.) print in dpi (dots per physical inch of paer). Images are represented in pixels per inch (PPI). Dots per inch is a statement about how good a printer is at putting ink or toner on paper. Study this topic and the subject of bit maps versus vector graphics until you're blue in the face. Now, see remarks below: Dennis... ** At 08:55 PM 2/1/2008, you wrote: Thanks Dennis, I think that I can redo them pretty easily, and take your advice to use .bmp. I have a images folder set within the Frame file folder. I am not sure if I am importing by reference, but what I do is open an anchored frame, and then file>import the image file name. The actual .fm documents themselves are small like 40-60K so I think I'm doing by reference. Wait a minute...what file is 8MB? Is this the total of all of the files in the book, or is it the size of the PDF file you're creating? Don't let any single FM file get that large! How many files make up your book? I assume from the comment in the next sentence that you're referring to the size of the PDF file. Well, 200 images conveys a lot of information. Do you need them all? The answer is probably "Yes!" Well, what's wrong with an 13MB file if it's informative and well-designed so that it's useful? That's why dictionaries are so thick...there's a lot of stuff in them. I just finished a 120 page manual with, say, 35 images in it and it's 3.8MB as a PDF. It's a work of art, though, for an instruction manual. But then the product it represents costs $475,000. When I print the book to Adobe PDF with all of the images, it gets pretty monsterous, but I haven't had any trouble building the PDF book. One thing I find strange is that when viewing the image in FM onscreen, it doesn't seem as clear as it does when the book is printed to PDF and viewed onscreen. This is part of the reason I thought it necessary to move to 150 from 96. I will do some trials on this. Are you using an LCD monitor? Is the graphics card resolution the same as the native resolution of the display? Is the cable interface VGA or DVI? My real concern is that the PDF book is approaching 13MB (and I'm not done yet :) ) Thanks for your suggestions. Cheers Pete Original Message Subject: Re: Working with Images From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer Date: Fri, February 01, 2008 8:34 pm To: pete.rourke at reefpt.com, 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. JPE
Re: Working with Images
> 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 Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
> 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 Creamer I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training http://www.IDEAStraining.com Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995) Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988) Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Working with Images
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 > visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc. > > There are 2 outputs intended: > > 1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > > 2. A printed manual > > An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > > Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > > So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) > That is not too bad. FM will handle very large files without problems, provided your computer can handle it (sufficient memory, etc.). I have recently completed a job that was in excess of 2.5Gb of file data over 1500 pages - took a while to pdf but did it without any issues. > > > So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest > picture? JPG is fine for both PDF and print versions although I usually use eps or pdf. > > 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. I would suggest that if you need to resize the pictures for print purposes use an image editing program like Photoshop and set the correct resolution and image size there. Normally 300dpi is used for print and when you come to make the pdf version Distiller can down sample the image to the appropriate resolution to make a smaller file size (usually 72dpi). When you output the file for print use the Press Quality setting in Distiller and Standard or Smallest File Size for the pdf version if it is to be downloaded from the web. Note that you might lose any bookmarks if you use the latter. > > > I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be > acceptable? > See above. HIH Alan -- Alan Litchfield GradDipBus, MBus(Hons), CTT, MNZCS AlphaByte PO Box 1941, Auckland, NZ. 1140
***DHSPAM*** RE: Working with Images]
RE: ***DHSPAM*** RE: Working with Images]
___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Working with Images
Or in other words, increasing the print resolution uses interpolation to add pixels where there were none before. This can be of benefit for images with screen text and so on. Cheers Alan On 3/02/2008, at 3:17 AM, 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 > capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme > example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and > white elements along a line at 10 dpi. > Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many > 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, > and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or > manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause > the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more > forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited > by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to > compensate. > > This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) > generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. > Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then > export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo- > res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. > Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo- > res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. > > Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make > the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, > maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the > screen). > > I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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 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 set to? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. > How do you > get 200 DPI out of that? > > Diane > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John > Sgammato > 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 smaller by > increasing the resolution. ... > > 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 > ___ > > > 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/dgcaller%40earthlink.net > > Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. > > > > ___ > > > 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/alan%40alphabyte.co.nz > > Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. -- Alan Litchfield GradDipBus, MBus(Hons), CTT, MNZCS AlphaByte PO Box 1941, Auckland, NZ. 1140 ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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 capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to compensate. This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the screen). I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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: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? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you get 200 DPI out of that? Diane -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces 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 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 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as dgcaller at earthlink.net. Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Working with Images
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. Since you've already taken the screen shots and saved them, you have your choice of redoing them or living with the less-than-optimum results. 2. With that many screen shots, do NOT import the graphics INTO the FrameMaker files. Import them by reference instead. Keep all of your images in a subfolder of the Frame file folder. When you produce the PDF or display the file on your monitor, Frame will know what to do, although I have to tell you that many users are currently having problems with this process in FM8. A fix is expected (promised, actually) in the next 8-9 weeks. 3. No, you are not crazy for importing the images at 150 dpi into anchored frames. If they aren't the right physical size in the document, resize them within the frame and then "shrinkwrap" the frame to fit the graphic. To do this, after resizing the image itself, select the anchored frame and execute this key sequence, one key at a time: Esc, m, p. Cheers... Dennis Brunnenmeyer At 01:53 PM 2/1/2008, 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 >visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc. > >There are 2 outputs intended: > >1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > >2. A printed manual > >An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > >Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > >So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) > > > >So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? > > > >During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? > >I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be >acceptable? > > > >TIA > > > >Pete Rourke > >Chandler, AZ > > > >___ > > >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/dennisb%40chronometrics.com > >Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. Dennis Brunnenmeyer Director of Engineering CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS 15019 Rattlesnake Road Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710 Office: (530) 477-9015 Fax: (530) 477-9085 Mobile: (530) 320-9025 eMail: dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working with Images
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 capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with, all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image, the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution image can help to compensate. This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar) generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond. Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in the hi-res. Again, it won't magically reveal what isn't there, but it does make the image more forgiving, and maybe it printed better (that is, maybe the eye picks up details on paper that it doesn't see on the screen). I don't understand all the mechanics involved; 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 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 set to? A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96 DPI. How do you get 200 DPI out of that? Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Sgammato 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 smaller by increasing the resolution. ... 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 ___ 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/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working with Images
John, 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? Diane -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Sgammato 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 smaller by increasing the resolution. ... 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 ___ 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/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
John, 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? Diane -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces 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 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 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as dgcaller at earthlink.net. Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dgcaller%40earthlink.net Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
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 smaller by increasing the resolution. ... 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
Working with Images
RE: Working with Images
___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
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 smaller by increasing the resolution. ... 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 ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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. Since you've already taken the screen shots and saved them, you have your choice of redoing them or living with the less-than-optimum results. 2. With that many screen shots, do NOT import the graphics INTO the FrameMaker files. Import them by reference instead. Keep all of your images in a subfolder of the Frame file folder. When you produce the PDF or display the file on your monitor, Frame will know what to do, although I have to tell you that many users are currently having problems with this process in FM8. A fix is expected (promised, actually) in the next 8-9 weeks. 3. No, you are not crazy for importing the images at 150 dpi into anchored frames. If they aren't the right physical size in the document, resize them within the frame and then "shrinkwrap" the frame to fit the graphic. To do this, after resizing the image itself, select the anchored frame and execute this key sequence, one key at a time: Esc, m, p. Cheers... Dennis Brunnenmeyer At 01:53 PM 2/1/2008, 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 >visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc. > >There are 2 outputs intended: > >1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > >2. A printed manual > >An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > >Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > >So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) > > > >So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? > > > >During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? > >I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be >acceptable? > > > >TIA > > > >Pete Rourke > >Chandler, AZ > > > >___ > > >You are currently subscribed to Framers as dennisb at chronometrics.com. > >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com >or visit >http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dennisb%40chronometrics.com > >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. Dennis Brunnenmeyer Director of Engineering CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS 15019 Rattlesnake Road Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710 Office: (530) 477-9015 Fax: (530) 477-9085 Mobile: (530) 320-9025 eMail: dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com
Re: Working with Images
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 > visual walkthrough of using a desktop application and a pocket pc. > > There are 2 outputs intended: > > 1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing > > 2. A printed manual > > An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. > > Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K > > So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) > That is not too bad. FM will handle very large files without problems, provided your computer can handle it (sufficient memory, etc.). I have recently completed a job that was in excess of 2.5Gb of file data over 1500 pages - took a while to pdf but did it without any issues. > > > So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest > picture? JPG is fine for both PDF and print versions although I usually use eps or pdf. > > 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. I would suggest that if you need to resize the pictures for print purposes use an image editing program like Photoshop and set the correct resolution and image size there. Normally 300dpi is used for print and when you come to make the pdf version Distiller can down sample the image to the appropriate resolution to make a smaller file size (usually 72dpi). When you output the file for print use the Press Quality setting in Distiller and Standard or Smallest File Size for the pdf version if it is to be downloaded from the web. Note that you might lose any bookmarks if you use the latter. > > > I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be > acceptable? > See above. HIH Alan -- Alan Litchfield GradDipBus, MBus(Hons), CTT, MNZCS AlphaByte PO Box 1941, Auckland, NZ. 1140 ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Working with Images
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 are 2 outputs intended: 1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing 2. A printed manual An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be acceptable? TIA Pete Rourke Chandler, AZ
Working with Images
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 are 2 outputs intended: 1. PDF leveraging all the indexing and cross-referencing 2. A printed manual An issue is the volume of screenshots ~ 200 in a ~ 150 page document. Image files saved as .jpg, average file size = 44K So far the total image in the books is 8MB (gag) So a question is what format, JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF saves the cleanest picture? During import I choose 150 DPI, am I insane? I am not sure what resolution is required. Would less than 96 be acceptable? TIA Pete Rourke Chandler, AZ ___ 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 Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
