On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 22:22 -0500, anne-ology wrote:
> ah, yes; and photography is such fun.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, les <hlhow...@pacbell.net> 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 <dav...@union.edu>
> > > >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> > > >> 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 <dav...@union.edu>
> > > >>>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> > > >>>> 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 <dav...@union.edu>
> > 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 <dav...@union.edu>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
OOPS mispoke,
JPEG is very lossy. I sometimes use TIFF, but most often for critical
work, I use raw bitmaps is what I meant to say. Mind and fingers in
constant conflict, and generally the bit that causes watery eyes and
confused brain takes over :0
Regards,
Les H
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
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
