ah, yes; and photography is such fun.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, les <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 11:08 -0700, Girvin Herr wrote: > > Tom, > > +5 > > Don't get me started on this subject! > > I use 640x480 (300K) on my photos, which are reasonable file sizes to > > attach to messages and they look good enough to me at 4x5 photo paper > > sizes. I have no intention of blowing my photos up to 8x10 or larger. > > That blowup is where the larger pixel count is good, but who does that > > regularly? I keep getting photos from relatives of their grandson, etc. > > that are so detailed I can see the pores on the kid's face, but I can't > > see the entire picture on the screen at once! It is frustrating to > > scroll around the photo on my screen to get some idea of what the photo > > is about. Sometimes I just don't bother. Life is too short. > > > > One thing that is enabling this megapixel bloat is the increasing size > > of the memory cards. For example, my camera, at 640x480 (300K), is > > showing 9999 photos available with a few shots already on it and with an > > 8GB card. At 4608x3456 (16M), it is down to 1877 photos. Yes, it is a > > 16 megapixel camera. > > Girvin > > > > > > On 04/16/2013 04:03 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > > > Hi :) > > > They do and it does. :D > > > > > > This "mega pixel" malarky is hilarious. Everyone else is racing to > get more and more mega-pixels (is 12 or 16 mega-pixels the standard issue > now?) so that they can have more noise and distortions and file-sizes like > a herd of elephants trying to stampeded down my phone-line. One company is > trying to market a 4 Mega-pixels camera that gives a better quality image > by not adding in random fuzziness. However everyone is going to say "this > 16 megapixels MUST be better than 4 right? 4 is old isn't it?". meanwhile > we getting stunning photos of Mars done on 'old' 2 megapixels cameras. It > wouldn't be quite so bad if "mega-pixel" really meant anything. It clearly > does NOT mean 1,000 pixels (or 1,024 in computers) > > > Regards from > > > Tom :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ________________________________ > > >> From: Felmon Davis <[email protected]> > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 2:45 > > >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Importing PDF problem > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Tom Davies wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi :) > > >>> Most on-line dictionaries (in the top 10 according to a google > search) agree that > > >>> "A neologism is a newly coined term, word, or > > >>> phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has > not > > >>> yet been accepted into mainstream" > > >>> but my fav is Mirriam-Webster's bucking the trend amusingly > > >>> "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic." > > >>> > > >>> Even though it is not apt it's still quietly amusing, to me at > > >>> least, sorry Felmon bud! :) > > >> no problem but seriously, if the people in the telly were constantly > > >> sending _you_ neologisms, don't pretend it wouldn't unsettle you a bit > > >> too. > > >> > > >> F. > > >> > > >>> Regards from Tom :) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> From: Felmon Davis <[email protected]> > > >>>> To: [email protected] > > >>>> Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013, 21:59 > > >>>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Importing PDF problem > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, anne-ology wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> very interesting, yes indeed ;-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> well, the more I read this list, 'the more I seem to > learn, yet the > > >>>>> stupider I feel' ;-) > > >>>>> (the glorified typewriter has so surpassed me) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I note you've used a 'new' word; acronymonious seems to > fit well in > > >>>>> this saga - > > >>>>> yet I hope you didn't mis-type acrimonious ;-) > > >>>>> (oh, surely not) > > >>>> I did not mistype. I went neologistic on you. > > >>>> > > >>>> F. > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Felmon Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, anne-ology wrote: > > >>>>>> yikes, sounds as if I need further information - > > >>>>>>> or need to keep studying ... ... ... ;-) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> not sure how the further discussion would be relevant to you if > you just > > >>>>>> want to use the tool. the link I gave you explains the things > pdftk can do. > > >>>>>> you can then decide if it might be useful. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> the next step is to determine if you find it convenient to use. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> of course, if you are also interested in how the tool is built, > then > > >>>>>> that's a different matter. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Please update re. this / these tks whenever; I'll stay > tuned ;-) > > >>>>>>> Ah, acronyms ;-) > > >>>>>>> tk := http://www.acronymfinder.com/**TK.html< > http://www.acronymfinder.com/TK.html> > > >>>>>>> (well, while waiting to understand all this, my mind > tends to wander > > >>>>>>> - puns are so much fun :-) ) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> don't mean to be acronymonious about it but all disciplines and > > >>>>>> occupations use abbreviations and have specialist dictionaries - > > >>>>>> general-purpose dictionaries won't do. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> F. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Felmon Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Girvin Herr wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Felmon, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Looks like pdftk is written in Java. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****Pdftk< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Pdftk> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.**org/wiki/Pdftk< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdftk> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> So the gui (Graphical User Interface) is whatever the Java > Runtime > > >>>>>>>>> Environment (JRE) interfaces with. From my experience, it > isn't pretty, > > >>>>>>>>> but functional. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I noticed there are some other source files and some 3rd-party > code in > > >>>>>>>>> the package that I did not take time to investigate, and it > takes Gcc to > > >>>>>>>>> build it. But one of the big ideas of Java is that it > contains its own > > >>>>>>>>> gui > > >>>>>>>>> code, so the programmer's effort is greatly reduced. I would > be > > >>>>>>>>> surprised > > >>>>>>>>> if pdftk does not use the standard Java gui. > > >>>>>>>>> Girvin Herr > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> good to know, especially about the '3rd-party code'. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> makes sense the gui would be in java so it can run on various > platforms. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I don't however foresee myself invoking the gui unless I'm > working off of > > >>>>>>>> Windows or something. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'll look but I bet there's a command-line version for Windows > too. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> F. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 04/13/2013 11:24 PM, Felmon Davis wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Tom Davies wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> <snip> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I'm only familiar with pdftk as a command-line tool; thus I > was > > >>>>>>>>>> confused > > >>>>>>>>>> by the discussion of desktop environments. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> it does have a gui interface (or several?) and then there are > the > > >>>>>>>>>> Windows and Mac versions. I don't know what is used to make > the gui > > >>>>>>>>>> interface on Linux. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Felmon > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> <snip> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > I do lots of graphics in simulations, schematic layout and other areas > of my work. 640x480 works for photos, but not for high end graphics. > > I routinely send my co-workers schematics encoded at 1920x1280 because > the small lines, some text and often critical details vanish at larger > pixel sizes or become unreadable. > > I do not use PDF, but often PNG or JPEG as the exported file format > because they retain more data. > > When one works with highly technical data and graphics, more detail is > warranted for publishing. IF it is to go into print, the added detail > allows the printing service to edit the pictures because they can see > all the content and you can tell them if any or all aspects are crucial > to understanding the document. > > Many people do not understand the relationship between screen resolution > and sensor resolution and image quality. You still see many "home made" > videos even from large companies that do not recognize that screen > reproduction requires some rendering software to ensure no loss of > context or vital information. > > A resolution of 640x480, even at 5x7 actually presents data that is > fuzzy to look at in the details. It is Minecraft 2.0 graphics at best. > > Another example is when 640x480 information is in a slide > presentation > which is then projected onto a screen that is say 6'x4', and each pixel > becomes about 0.1" in size. If you are say 5 feet from the screen, not > uncommon in most conference rooms, the data looks fuzzy at best. > > For a technical person this is hardly a testament to their skills > at > using technology. > > Regards, > Les H > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
