Re: Resolution of graphics for printed docs

Subject: Re: Resolution of graphics for printed docs
From: "Fred Ridder" <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:39:12 -0400

I think what everybody is arguing about are the different
definitions of the word "resolution". Any of us who have
been around long enough to have dealt with printing screens
or film-base photography tend to think of resolution with
units like lines per inch (print screens), lines per millimeter
(film or lens resolution), or dots per inch (resolution of laser
printers). But these darned computer designers mean
something very different when they say "resolution". In
the computer domain, resolution is expressed as the
*number* of pixels, not their pitch or spacing. For example,
the most commonly used screen resolution is 1024 x 768
pixels, and that resolution is the same whether you are
viewing it on a 13" laptop screen or a 17" desktop LCD
or a 21" CRT. The resolution of a screen image is the
number of pixels and not the dot pitch (pixels per inch).

If you adhere to this standard computer usage of resolution,
it's obvious that statements about "increasing the resolution
without increasing the file size" are not meaningful. The
only way the resolution (number of pixels) of a screen
image can be increased is to increase the number of
pixels, and hence the file size.

My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel.
Fred Ridder
Parsippany, NJ

From: "Chris Christner" <cchris -at- toptechwriter -dot- us>

I stand by what I've written and recommend that you check out the links I
posted if you have any doubts. The suggested methods for increasing image
resolution without increasing file size by making the image smaller,
whether or not you're using resampling, give equally good results. I won't
argue this because I've compared printed example images and they're
identical. The distortion Bill mentions does occurs if you use resampling
to enlarge an image, but that's not what we're doing.

Once again, there's no image distortion if you use any of the methods I
recommend, and the resulting images are good for print and online use,
which was the original poster's request. So I guess we'll disagree on this
one Bill, although I'll be willing to change my mind if you can give me
specific examples I can test out that show why these tips are wrong.


> For the benefit of the list, the information you have been posting is
> incorrect. It might look OK to you, but it is in fact incorrect and is
> suggesting that distorting images in a graphic-editing tool is the
> ideal way of increasing image clarity, which couldn't be further from
> the truth. Once you start adding or deleting pixels in your image, you
> have distorted it, and there's no way to revert back to the original,
> best clarity without reverting to a saved original copy of the image
> before it was tweaked.

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security.


Try WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word today! Smooth migration of legacy
RoboHelp content into your new Help systems. EContent Magazine Decision-
maker review (October 2005) is here:

Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: RE: Structured authoring - more than just XML/SGML?
Next by Author: RE: Asking The Billing Rate?
Previous by Thread: Re: Resolution of graphics for printed docs
Next by Thread: Re: Resolution of graphics for printed docs

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads