resolutions help please

In article <c5kds9$ge8$1$
says…

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not

be

displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.
I used Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview to verify the resolutions before I uploaded my jpg to the web.
I now find that Microsoft Photo Editor contradicts these 3 applications

and

shows the resolutions to be 25 dpi.
Why is this? which program shows the correct resolutions. http://arrancoast.co.uk/busimages/image0141.jpg

Your image appears as 72 dpi to me in Photoshop or PaintShop Pro. You could scale it to 21 dpi and then save it as JPG, and it would report 21 dpi then, but it wont matter to anyone for any purpose.

I have to say that the 21 dpi is a silly requirement, it is nonsense without meaning or understanding about digital images. It simply doesnt work that way.
The size of digital images is measured in pixels. Your image is 522×321 pixels in size, which is all that matters for any use.

No dpi value has any meaning on the video screen (like a web page). Dpi is NOT used by video. Video simply shows pixels, and your image will always appear on the video screen as 522×321 pixels, regardless what the dpi value might specify (because that is the size of this image). It doesnt matter what printing dpi it specifies, it will never have any effect on the video screen – it still appear as 522×321 pixels, which is the size of your image.

Your image size of 521×322 pixels will always show as 521×322 pixels on any video screen, regardless of any dpi value. However it will print at:

7.25×4.46 inches at 72 dpi
3.62×2.23 inches at 144 dpi (half size at 2x resolution) 24×15 inches at 21 dpi.

Anyone can scale this image to any other dpi value at will, in the same way you could scale it to 21 dpi (so that is pointless). No way to prevent it. This scaling to a different dpi value only affects the size it will print (above) but it will not affect how it displays on the video screen. You have provided 522×321 pixels which may be used at will for any purpose that 522×321 pixels will serve. The only saving thing is that web images are too small to print very large at high quality.

—
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:15 +0100, "Gulper"
scribbled:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.
I used Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview to verify the resolutions before I uploaded my jpg to the web.
I now find that Microsoft Photo Editor contradicts these 3 applications and shows the resolutions to be 25 dpi.
Why is this? which program shows the correct resolutions. http://arrancoast.co.uk/busimages/image0141.jpg

Its 21 PPI. Not that PPI has ANY effect on the way its displayed on a monitor anyhow,

In article ,
says…

Its 21 PPI. Not that PPI has ANY effect on the way its displayed on a monitor anyhow,

You are right of course, I see 21 dpi if the image is saved to file first. I had simply copied it to the clipboard, which shows as 72 dpi then. The web browser would have no reason to save the 21 dpi value.

Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

—
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:12:43 -0500, Wayne Fulton
scribbled:

Your image appears as 72 dpi to me in Photoshop

In Photoshop it shows as 21 pixels per inch.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0500, Wayne Fulton
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

Its 21 PPI. Not that PPI has ANY effect on the way its displayed on a monitor anyhow,

You are right of course, I see 21 dpi if the image is saved to file first. I had simply copied it to the clipboard, which shows as 72 dpi then. The web browser would have no reason to save the 21 dpi value.
Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

Damn, and I just made a screen cap with the Image Size info highlighted (in a nice shade of red with a drop shadow <G>) in case you thought I was wrong 🙂

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0500, Wayne Fulton
wrote:

Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

Guys, before making blunt statements like that you really should define what you mean by "video screen."

Because when you view the image in PS the ppi value IS used. However, when you plunk that same image in a web browser, THEN its just the number of pixels that matter.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:56:35 GMT, -xiray- scribbled:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0500, Wayne Fulton
wrote:

Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

Guys, before making blunt statements like that you really should define what you mean by "video screen."

Because when you view the image in PS the ppi value IS used. However, when you plunk that same image in a web browser, THEN its just the number of pixels that matter.

PPI/DPI have NOTHING to do with monitor display, at all, whatsoever. They’re for printing and printing only.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:56:35 GMT, -xiray- scribbled:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0500, Wayne Fulton
wrote:

Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

Guys, before making blunt statements like that you really should define what you mean by "video screen."

Because when you view the image in PS the ppi value IS used. However, when you plunk that same image in a web browser, THEN its just the number of pixels that matter.

Addendum:
Here’s two images, one set to 5 PPI the other set to 5000 PPI they both open, display and appear exactly the same in Photoshop, your web browser and any other application that uses the monitor for display:

http://voivod.members.easyspace.com/abstract01a.jpg
http://voivod.members.easyspace.com/abstract01b.jpg

In article ,
says…

Because it is also right that dpi simply has no meaning on the video screen. Image dpi simply does not matter in any way for any purpose on the screen.

Guys, before making blunt statements like that you really should define what you mean by "video screen."

Because when you view the image in PS the ppi value IS used. However, when you plunk that same image in a web browser, THEN its just the number of pixels that matter.

By video screen, I mean the entire computer video system – any video screen on any computer. I am trying to be as blunt and all-inclusive as possible. The number of pixels is all that ever matters for showing any image on any video screen, including Photoshop. Video never uses dpi to show images.

Photoshop will suggest 72 dpi to us, which only leads us down false trails, it simply doesnt work that way. We can never understand that, because it is a wrong concept, and it simply does not give correct answers. The only correct answer on the video screen is that images are shown directly, pixel for pixel (one image pixel is shown at one video board pixel location).

—
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

Gulper wrote:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.
I used Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview to verify the resolutions before I uploaded my jpg to the web.
I now find that Microsoft Photo Editor contradicts these 3 applications and shows the resolutions to be 25 dpi.
Why is this? which program shows the correct resolutions.

It has an X & Y DPI of 21. This can be viewed with Irfanview’s Hex Viewer. To find the values, look for the "JFIF" zero terminated string, in the very beginning of the file header.
It’s the:
5th & 6th bytes = X density
7th & 8th bytes = Y density.
These are after the "JFIF" zero terminated string.

Uni

http://arrancoast.co.uk/busimages/image0141.jpg

Thank you

Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:12:43 -0500, Wayne Fulton
scribbled:

Your image appears as 72 dpi to me in Photoshop

In Photoshop it shows as 21 pixels per inch.

Curious, what would Photoshop show when the X & Y densities (DPI) are different? If I recall correctly, Vue Print (a viewer) will show both values.

Uni

Wayne Fulton wrote:

In article <c5kds9$ge8$1$
says…

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not

be

displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.
I used Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview to verify the resolutions before I uploaded my jpg to the web.
I now find that Microsoft Photo Editor contradicts these 3 applications

and

shows the resolutions to be 25 dpi.
Why is this? which program shows the correct resolutions. http://arrancoast.co.uk/busimages/image0141.jpg

Your image appears as 72 dpi to me in Photoshop or PaintShop Pro. You could scale it to 21 dpi and then save it as JPG, and it would report 21 dpi then, but it wont matter to anyone for any purpose.

Wayne, if you take that image and modify its resolution within Irfanview’s image properties, maybe X=21 x Y=42, then save it, then open it with Vue Print, the image aspect ratio (monitor) will change. This MAY be a glitch with Ed H.’s viewer.

Uni

I have to say that the 21 dpi is a silly requirement, it is nonsense without meaning or understanding about digital images. It simply doesnt work that way.
The size of digital images is measured in pixels. Your image is 522×321 pixels in size, which is all that matters for any use.

No dpi value has any meaning on the video screen (like a web page). Dpi is NOT used by video. Video simply shows pixels, and your image will always appear on the video screen as 522×321 pixels, regardless what the dpi value might specify (because that is the size of this image). It doesnt matter what printing dpi it specifies, it will never have any effect on the video screen – it still appear as 522×321 pixels, which is the size of your image.

Your image size of 521×322 pixels will always show as 521×322 pixels on any video screen, regardless of any dpi value. However it will print at:
7.25×4.46 inches at 72 dpi
3.62×2.23 inches at 144 dpi (half size at 2x resolution) 24×15 inches at 21 dpi.

Anyone can scale this image to any other dpi value at will, in the same way you could scale it to 21 dpi (so that is pointless). No way to prevent it. This scaling to a different dpi value only affects the size it will print (above) but it will not affect how it displays on the video screen. You have provided 522×321 pixels which may be used at will for any purpose that 522×321 pixels will serve. The only saving thing is that web images are too small to print very large at high quality.

Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:12:43 -0500, Wayne Fulton
scribbled:

Your image appears as 72 dpi to me in Photoshop

In Photoshop it shows as 21 pixels per inch.

You shouldn’t define it as DPI, LPI, PPI or whatever, but rather density.

In other words, the image has a resolution density of 21.

Uni

In article ,
says…

Wayne, if you take that image and modify its resolution within Irfanview’s image properties, maybe X=21 x Y=42, then save it, then open it with Vue Print, the image aspect ratio (monitor) will change. This MAY be a glitch with Ed H.’s viewer.

Uni

And you cant understand that it was you that changed the aspect ratio?

I dont know your point, but declaring the pixels to be non-square, so that the height of pixels is half of the width of pixels, is a drastic change of aspect ratio. Are you complaining that VuePrint believed you?

I’m sure that on the screen, any program couldnt care less if it says 21 or 42 dpi, or any other value, since image dpi value is simply ignored by any video system. The value only matters if printing. But a well behaved program probably should care about the ratio (not the values, but only the ratio of the two values) in order to resample one dimension by that ratio to be able to show a non-square pixel image correctly with the specified aspect ratio on a square pixel system.

Fax and DVD systems use non-square pixels, and they are well known situations, but it is otherwise of little concern to us – normally the two values are always the same on our images used on computer systems. Our pixels should be square since our systems are square pixel systems.
—
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

Wayne Fulton wrote:

In article ,
says…

Wayne, if you take that image and modify its resolution within Irfanview’s image properties, maybe X=21 x Y=42, then save it, then open it with Vue Print, the image aspect ratio (monitor) will change. This MAY be a glitch with Ed H.’s viewer.

Uni

And you cant understand that it was you that changed the aspect ratio?
I dont know your point, but declaring the pixels to be non-square, so that the height of pixels is half of the width of pixels, is a drastic change of aspect ratio. Are you complaining that VuePrint believed you?

I’m not complaining, just stating facts. If there was no good reason to have two (2) independent X & Y resolution densities, they wouldn’t have included them in the JFIF/JPEG standard.

Most, not all, image viewers will read only the X or Y density, while other viewers will read both, such as Vue Print and Irfanview. A video system is nothing without software. The software determines what will be displayed. Vue Print apparently will display whatever you tell it to. If the X & Y densities are different, that’s what it will display.

Also, the reason why I mentioned not to refer to resolution in DPI, is due to the the fact that the resolution figure(s) (1 byte) can be in inches or centimeters. You can also set this one byte to zero and have the X & Y specify the pixel aspect ratio.

Uni

I’m sure that on the screen, any program couldnt care less if it says 21 or 42 dpi, or any other value, since image dpi value is simply ignored by any video system. The value only matters if printing. But a well behaved program probably should care about the ratio (not the values, but only the ratio of the two values) in order to resample one dimension by that ratio to be able to show a non-square pixel image correctly with the specified aspect ratio on a square pixel system.

Fax and DVD systems use non-square pixels, and they are well known situations, but it is otherwise of little concern to us – normally the two values are always the same on our images used on computer systems. Our pixels should be square since our systems are square pixel systems.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:18:05 GMT, Voivod wrote:

Here’s two images, one set to 5 PPI the other set to 5000 PPI they both open, display and appear exactly the same in Photoshop, your web browser and any other application that uses the monitor for display:

http://voivod.members.easyspace.com/abstract01a.jpg
http://voivod.members.easyspace.com/abstract01b.jpg

Yeah, you posted those before. However, though they display at the same SCREEN size in PS, they are actually different. Albeit there’s just one difference — the linear dimension. You have your ruler turned on?

That’s a particularly confusing idea to some new people. You know what’s going on, but try explaining it to a first-time user who asks why their 100% view of an image seems to stretch the ruler on screen to 5 inches or why their 36 inch poster is measures only 5 inches at 100%

And, I know we’ve had this discussion before, but understanding how the linear dimension of an image interacts with the display size percentage (in PS), and the actual number of pixels is very helpful when creating montages.

It frustrates newbies when the head from one pic is small/larger when placed into another pic. They don’t know what’s happening. I’m sure you’ve seen the posts in this group in that regard.

In article ,
says…

Yeah, you posted those before. However, though they display at the same SCREEN size in PS, they are actually different. Albeit there’s just one difference — the linear dimension. You have your ruler turned on?

That’s a particularly confusing idea to some new people. You know what’s going on, but try explaining it to a first-time user who asks why their 100% view of an image seems to stretch the ruler on screen to 5 inches or why their 36 inch poster is measures only 5 inches at 100%

And, I know we’ve had this discussion before, but understanding how the linear dimension of an image interacts with the display size percentage (in PS), and the actual number of pixels is very helpful when creating montages.

It frustrates newbies when the head from one pic is small/larger when placed into another pic. They don’t know what’s happening. I’m sure you’ve seen the posts in this group in that regard.

Those newbies will understand vastly better after it is explained to them that dpi has no meaning on the screen, but instead only the image size in pixels is all-important. One head that is 100 pixels wide will be exactly the same size as another head that is 100 pixels wide, and this is the only principle that works. Said a different way, two images that appear the same size side by side both at 100% size are the same size (pixels), regardless of any different dpi values. Dpi doesnt matter on the screen, only pixels matter. Images are dimensioned in pixels, screens are diminsioned in pixels, and screens show pixels directly, one for one. Period. Video is only about pixels.

The ruler is simply confusing you. Yes, Photoshop does try to show a ruler in inches on the screen (where there is no concept of inches). That ruler has no meaning relating to the screen. It is only about printed image size on paper. The ruler shows the same numbers for printed size as all the other menus show for printed size. But the inches on the ruler are not real inches on the screen. The screen ruler size (in inches measured on the screen) is simply inaccurate, sometimes quite inaccurate on the screen, depending on your video setup.

For example, aside from the conceptual inaccuracy, if you simply show the SAME image at 100% size, 50% size and 25% size, the ruler units drastically change (but not the resulting printed size). It is obvious that the ruler is NOT about the screen. It is attempting to visually show printed size (on paper where there are inches) of that image, which is accurate on paper, but it is inaccurate on the screen because there is no concept of inches on the screen to help it.

The one image ruler says it is 160 inches wide, but I doubt your screen is 160 inches wide. It is NOT about the screen.

Yes, those two images show different inches on the ruler because they are scaled to print different sizes on paper. The point here however was that the images will and do appear the same on the screen. Screens simply dont know or care about dpi. Printers do.

So in that way, Photoshop does use the image dpi to draw the ruler around the image (as it relates to printed size on paper), but it does not use the dpi to draw the image on the screen. The ruler is NOT about the screen. The ruler inches relate only to paper, print it and it will match then.

The image size is in pixels. The screen size is in pixels. The screen is only about pixels. Look at what you can see actually happens.

There is an extended discussion of this at
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html that covers all the bases.

—
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

Many thanks to all of you who relied to my query, I
am now confident that the image is 21 dpi
Apparently Microsoft Photo Editor does not
recognize anything lower than 25 dpi hence the
confusion.
The Hydrographics Office who own the copyright will only allow us to publish the image on the web at 21 dpi or lower. this is so the image can’t be used for navigation.

Regards to all
"Gulper" wrote in message

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

Thank you

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:54:29 -0500, Wayne Fulton
wrote:

In article ,
says…

I agree with all you said.

I just don’t think that it is beneficial to avoid knowing how all the tools that PS provides interact with each other.

That’s really the only point I’m trying to make.

Wayne Fulton wrote:

Those newbies will understand vastly better after it is explained to them that dpi has no meaning on the screen, but instead only the image size in pixels is all-important.

Not true, Wayne. It affects Vue Print, period, and nothing you say will change that fact.

Maybe Ed Hamrick will shead some light on this topic.

It has an X & Y DPI of 21. This can be viewed with Irfanview’s Hex Viewer. To find the values, look for the "JFIF" zero terminated string, in the very beginning of the file header.
It’s the:
5th & 6th bytes = X density
7th & 8th bytes = Y density.
These are after the "JFIF" zero terminated string.
Uni

Wayne, if you take that image and modify its resolution within Irfanview’s image properties, maybe X=21 x Y=42, then save it, then open it with Vue Print, the image aspect ratio (monitor) will change. This MAY be a glitch with Ed H.’s viewer.

Uni

Regards,
Uni

One head that is 100 pixels wide will

be exactly the same size as another head that is 100 pixels wide, and this is the only principle that works. Said a different way, two images that appear the same size side by side both at 100% size are the same size (pixels), regardless of any different dpi values. Dpi doesnt matter on the screen, only pixels matter. Images are dimensioned in pixels, screens are diminsioned in pixels, and screens show pixels directly, one for one. Period. Video is only about pixels.
The ruler is simply confusing you. Yes, Photoshop does try to show a ruler in inches on the screen (where there is no concept of inches). That ruler has no meaning relating to the screen. It is only about printed image size on paper. The ruler shows the same numbers for printed size as all the other menus show for printed size. But the inches on the ruler are not real inches on the screen. The screen ruler size (in inches measured on the screen) is simply inaccurate, sometimes quite inaccurate on the screen, depending on your video setup.
For example, aside from the conceptual inaccuracy, if you simply show the SAME image at 100% size, 50% size and 25% size, the ruler units drastically change (but not the resulting printed size). It is obvious that the ruler is NOT about the screen. It is attempting to visually show printed size (on paper where there are inches) of that image, which is accurate on paper, but it is inaccurate on the screen because there is no concept of inches on the screen to help it.

The one image ruler says it is 160 inches wide, but I doubt your screen is 160 inches wide. It is NOT about the screen.

Yes, those two images show different inches on the ruler because they are scaled to print different sizes on paper. The point here however was that the images will and do appear the same on the screen. Screens simply dont know or care about dpi. Printers do.

So in that way, Photoshop does use the image dpi to draw the ruler around the image (as it relates to printed size on paper), but it does not use the dpi to draw the image on the screen. The ruler is NOT about the screen. The ruler inches relate only to paper, print it and it will match then.

The image size is in pixels. The screen size is in pixels. The screen is only about pixels. Look at what you can see actually happens.
There is an extended discussion of this at
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html that covers all the bases.

"Gulper" wrote in message

Many thanks to all of you who relied to my query, I
am now confident that the image is 21 dpi
Apparently Microsoft Photo Editor does not
recognize anything lower than 25 dpi hence the
confusion.
The Hydrographics Office who own the copyright will only allow us to publish the image on the web at 21 dpi or lower. this is so the image can’t be used for navigation.

Regards to all
"Gulper" wrote in message

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not

be

displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

Thank you

Ok, Gulper that’s it! While the experts argue on what degree it’s necessary to explain things, you’ve missed the point of the whole discussion altogether. Put down the mouse, slowly and step away from the keyboard. If I catch you or the Hydrographics gang around these parts again I’m going to have to strap you to the post and make you actually read it. ~Doc Holiday
(rides again, heh heh)

Ok, Gulper that’s it! While the experts argue on what degree it’s

necessary

to explain things, you’ve missed the point of the whole discussion altogether. Put down the mouse, slowly and step away from the keyboard. If

I

catch you or the Hydrographics gang around these parts again I’m going to have to strap you to the post and make you actually read it. ~Doc Holiday
(rides again, heh heh)

Hi Doc, I got the message, PPI for display, DPI for printer.

I am still reading the posts hoping it will all make sense to me one day. I will just lurk a while if I may, I just love the way you guys are so passionate about your pixels and dots.

Regards

"Gulper" wrote in message

Ok, Gulper that’s it! While the experts argue on what degree it’s

necessary

to explain things, you’ve missed the point of the whole discussion altogether. Put down the mouse, slowly and step away from the keyboard.

If

I

catch you or the Hydrographics gang around these parts again I’m going

to

have to strap you to the post and make you actually read it. ~Doc Holiday
(rides again, heh heh)

Hi Doc, I got the message, PPI for display, DPI for printer.
I am still reading the posts hoping it will all make sense to me one day. I will just lurk a while if I may, I just love the way you guys are so passionate about your pixels and dots.

Regards

Gulper,
Think of it this way. You take a party balloon, half blown up, and draw a picture on it. The ink on the balloon is a constant, no matter how much air is in the balloon there is always the same amount of ink on it. If you blow the balloon all the way up it will be twice as big but it will only look half as good. Computer graphics work a little different but the principle is the same. The number of pixels in an image can be compared to the amount of ink on the balloon. When the Hydrographics guy suggests a dpi setting for an image it is the equivilant of suggesting the amount of air in the balloon. What he should be concerned about is the amount of ink, or in computer terms the actual (length x width) pixel count. As for your software "contradictions", perhaps Microsoft Photo Editor blows up balloons at a different default pressure than Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview. Does this help to make sense of it?
~Doc

Gulper,
Think of it this way. You take a party balloon, half blown up, and

draw

a picture on it. The ink on the balloon is a constant, no matter how much air is in the balloon there is always the same amount of ink on it. If you blow the balloon all the way up it will be twice as big but it will only look half as good. Computer graphics work a little different but the principle is the same. The number of pixels in an image can be compared to the amount of ink on the balloon. When the Hydrographics guy suggests a

dpi

setting for an image it is the equivilant of suggesting the amount of air

in

the balloon. What he should be concerned about is the amount of ink, or in computer terms the actual (length x width) pixel count. As for your

software

"contradictions", perhaps Microsoft Photo Editor blows up balloons at a different default pressure than Paint shop Pro 8, Photo Impact SE and Irfanview. Does this help to make sense of it?
~Doc

Hi Doc,

that is an excellent and very understandable description of what has been quite a mystery to me. Anything I do with graphics is usually just enough to getting it to look respectable on a web page with not too big a download time. When limitations where put on how I displayed the image I panicked, hence my intrusion into your NG. I promise I will now pay more attention to what I do and try to understand why I’m doing it.
The powers that be have now accepted that my image meets "their DPI" requirements, but have now concluded that it must have been scanned at more than 100% of the original and that’s not allowed. (It is too legible).
Oh well back to the drawing board.

Many Thanks
Gulper

Hi Doc,

that is an excellent and very understandable description of what has been quite a mystery to me. Anything I do with graphics is usually just enough to getting it to look respectable on a web page with not too big a download time. When limitations where put on how I displayed the image I panicked, hence my intrusion into your NG. I promise I will now pay more attention to what I do and try to understand why I’m doing it.
The powers that be have now accepted that my image meets "their DPI" requirements, but have now concluded that it must have been scanned at more than 100% of the original and that’s not allowed. (It is too legible).
Oh well back to the drawing board.

Many Thanks
Gulper

Ok,
To clarify… it’s not my newsgroup, or anyone else’s for that matter. Anyway it sounds to me like your "powers that be" don’t have a clue. Suggest you save their images as highly compressed jpegs after you’ve finished (editing, sizing etc.) with them. If they complain that they’re still too "legible" then open them up in a photoeditor and save them as jpegs again (and again and again if that’s what it takes) as this recompression will degrade the image quality. Take note that this advise is the polar opposite of any I’ve offered here, heh heh…
….wish you luck,
~Doc

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:41:59 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote (with possible editing):

….snip

The powers that be have now accepted that my image meets "their DPI" requirements, but have now concluded that it must have been scanned at more than 100% of the original and that’s not allowed. (It is too legible).
Oh well back to the drawing board.

Many Thanks
Gulper

I just HAVE to ask – which organization is this? Since all nautical charts that I know of are produced by governments using taxpayer monies, I’m just curious which one is abusing you!
—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

"L. M. Rappaport" wrote in message

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:41:59 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote (with possible editing):

…snip

The powers that be have now accepted that my image meets "their DPI" requirements, but have now concluded that it must have been scanned at more than 100% of the original and that’s not allowed. (It is too legible).
Oh well back to the drawing board.

Many Thanks
Gulper

I just HAVE to ask – which organization is this? Since all nautical charts that I know of are produced by governments using taxpayer monies, I’m just curious which one is abusing you!
—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

It’s the UK Hydrographics Office. I wouldn’t quite
say they were abusing me, (making life difficult maybe)
they have these regulations to prevent anyone using the images for navigational purposes. It’s quite possible the regulations where written before computer grahics were thought of.
which must be met in order to prevent

"~Doc" wrote in message

Ok,
To clarify… it’s not my newsgroup, or anyone else’s for that matter. Anyway it sounds to me like your "powers that be" don’t have a clue.

Suggest

you save their images as highly compressed jpegs after you’ve finished (editing, sizing etc.) with them. If they complain that they’re still too "legible" then open them up in a photoeditor and save them as jpegs again (and again and again if that’s what it takes) as this recompression will degrade the image quality. Take note that this advise is the polar

opposite

of any I’ve offered here, heh heh…
…wish you luck,
~Doc

That would do the trick, possibly.
I could also just draw the chart by myself
with crayons and sign it:
johnny (aged 5) 🙂

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:15 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

This may help your general understanding of resolution etc:

http://www.ransen.com/articles/megapixels/default.htm

Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com

O Ransen wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:15 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

This may help your general understanding of resolution etc:
http://www.ransen.com/articles/megapixels/default.htm

That’s fine and dandy. However, it still doesn’t address why there are separate X and Y density/resolution entries/values in the JPEG/JFIF standard.

Uni

Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:11:22 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

O Ransen wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:15 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

This may help your general understanding of resolution etc:
http://www.ransen.com/articles/megapixels/default.htm

That’s fine and dandy. However, it still doesn’t address why there are separate X and Y density/resolution entries/values in the JPEG/JFIF standard.

They give pedantic assholes like you something to whine about.

Voivod wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:11:22 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

O Ransen wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:27:15 +0100, "Gulper"
wrote:

I have an jpg.image on the internet which for copyright reasons may not be displayed at higher
than 21 dpi.

This may help your general understanding of resolution etc:
http://www.ransen.com/articles/megapixels/default.htm

That’s fine and dandy. However, it still doesn’t address why there are separate X and Y density/resolution entries/values in the JPEG/JFIF standard.

They give us pedantic assholes something to whine about.

I see.

🙂

Uni