TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Resolution of graphics for printed docs From:"T.W. Smith" <techwordsmith -at- gmail -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:59:18 -0400
Hi,
With all due respect, the thread is about producing decent screen captures.
The fact that graphics people define resolution differently than
Microsoft, which uses it to define an area, is largely irrelevant. In
fact, if you really want to press the issue, the definition of
resolution we are discussing can be no other than dots/pixels per inch
because we are not in fact discussing area, we are discussing the
quality of screen captures regardless of area, and this really can
only mean the dpi/ppi resolution hint. Note that the computer industry
has not adopted the area definition for resolution; in its graphics
and DTP software, Adobe uses resolution to mean dpi/ppi and not area,
and other software manufacturers do also.
I do note that there was a side discussion about the quality of some
of the statements in this thread, of which one was increasing dpi/ppi
resolution increases file size. That statement is blatantly false and
needed to be discussed so nobody took the statement at face value.
The relevant point, as I have pointed out and Bill has too, is that
adding or removing pixels from a screen capture is going to degrade
the quality of that image even if you use the best interpolation
algorithm in the universe. Instead, capture the pixels and color
depth, change only the resolution hint to resize the image, and don't
drop that resolution hint below about 100 ppi.
On 10/5/05, Fred Ridder <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com> wrote:
>
> I think what everybody is arguing about are the different
> definitions of the word "resolution".
<snip>
> 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.
======
T.
Remember, this is online. Take everything with a mine of salt and a grin.
