Hi Geoff, Computer screens are 72dpi...most of the pics I use for web design I sample down to 50k with out much loss of clarity...A 600k files will fill the computer screen as well but most modern computers come loaded with a resampler to discard the run over. If I was making an 8" X 10" PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINT this is were you need the resolution...most labs print at 400dpi for opitical/print resolution...sure you can make a 8" X 10" print from a 100k file but you will see little areas with squares, were there is not enough information...but fine for making a 4X6 print.
If you have a photshop type program...try opening the 600K file there...click on view as actual pixles/size and you will have to scrol accross the pic to find the sides...as the monitor is displaying all the inforation in the file at 72dpi...also look at the actual size under the image file and as you change the size of the picture watch your file size change. What you want is an image that fills the screen....then look at your file size it is back to about 100k. Hope this helps a bit...the learning curve of this stuff is verticle... Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Spenceley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Small-scale live steam discussions" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [SSLiveSteam] SSLiveSteam Digest, Vol 2, Issue 15 > >> Pete, > > > Why is the pic all fuzzy - whoops, I forgot to put on my specs, ah, > that's better. Great photo indeed, came in on full 17" screen. > Even with wind up--I mean dial up, it d/led in less than a minute. > My computer shows it as 616K. What I don't understand is that I have > other photos pulled off the internet and from my own camera that are > equally clear and are all well under 100K and came in much more > quickly. Explain! > > Geoff > >> > I feel that often a pic is worth a 1000 words >> >>Bert, Tony, >> >>No argument from me there - but the problem is that many folk are new to >>digital photography, and some don't have a clue how to reduce a >>photo from 2048 >>x 1536 (which is how it comes out of their camera) to the 640 x 480 which >>is >>reasonable for a pic here among the text. >> >>I've attached the original of that pic I put in my last post - see how >>long >>it takes to download and how big it is on your screen. >> >>I'll take either option - just expressing a personal preference. >> >>Pete >> >>-------------- next part -------------- >>A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>Name: P1010009.JPG >>Type: image/jpeg >>Size: 629592 bytes >>Desc: not available >>Url : >>http://postfix.45mm.com/pipermail/sslivesteam/attachments/20051027/515ab6e6/P1010009.jpe >>_______________________________________________ >>SSLiveSteam mailing list >>Send messages: [email protected] >>Cancel subscription: http://postfix.45mm.com/mailman/listinfo/sslivesteam >>Rules: http://www.45mm.com/sslivesteam_guide.html > > _______________________________________________ > SSLiveSteam mailing list > Send messages: [email protected] > Cancel subscription: http://postfix.45mm.com/mailman/listinfo/sslivesteam > Rules: http://www.45mm.com/sslivesteam_guide.html > > _______________________________________________ SSLiveSteam mailing list Send messages: [email protected] Cancel subscription: http://postfix.45mm.com/mailman/listinfo/sslivesteam Rules: http://www.45mm.com/sslivesteam_guide.html
