RE: Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again

Subject: RE: Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again
From: "Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>
To: 'Nancy Allison' <maker -at- verizon -dot- net>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:59:11 -0800

Nancy Allison wrote:

> My graphic is a screen shot and has these attributes:
> ---96 dpi resolution
> ---1141 px wide
> ---In inches, it is 11.885 inches wide
> I want to import it into a FrameMaker document with a 5" wide text
> column. I tried it two different ways:
> 1. I resized it when importing it into Frame by choosing a custom dpi
> of 235 dpi. Printed result is very high-resolution.

Good. That's the right way to do it. You should have stopped right there. :-)

> 2. In Microsoft Office Picture Manager, I resized it to 42% of its
> original width, which gives me a picture 479 pixels wide, which at 96
> dpi is just about 5 inches wide. I saved the file and imported it into
> FrameMaker at 96 dpi. Printed result is jaggy and crude.

You discarded 58% of the pixels. Bad idea, and guaranteed to reduce the quality.

> In both cases the figure that is being imported is at 96 dpi, which is
> a crude resolution to start with. Why would resizing it in Office
> Pciture Manager give such a lousy result, while importing it into
> FrameMaker gives a good-quality result?

It's that "96 dpi resolution" thing that confused you (and many other people). That's just a "hint" -- an approximation of what your display resolution was when the image was captured. It has no bearing on the resolution in your output.

When you import the image into FM at 235 dpi, then those 1141 pixels of width are squeezed into your 5" space. But they're all still there, so the resolution is 235 dpi.

When you resize the image so it's only 479 pixels wide (throwing away the rest), and then spread those 479 pixels across the same 5" space, now your resolution is 479/5, or about 96 dpi. It's not surprising that when you print a 235 dpi image, it looks better than a 96 dpi image.

Let FM squeeze those pixels together for you.

Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom


Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:

Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again: From: Nancy Allison

Previous by Author: RE: Customer-friendly word for "landline"
Next by Author: RE: Re: Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again
Previous by Thread: Re: Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again
Next by Thread: Re: Re: Graphics Resolution Confusion Once Again

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

Sponsored Ads