Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Scanning with too much resolution? (was: PS sharpening...)




> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> > I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single
> > downsample, at least in PS.  I've done that for images that are
> > for the web
> > (100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better.
>
> Why are you targeting a certain ppi for the web? I think you should rather
> go for a certain image size rather then ppi.

Hi Robert,

I target a size at a particular PPI and that gives me, say, for a 4x6 at
100, so 400 x 600 pixels.

> > I know you say you leave them at the scanned resolutions, but
> doesn't that
> > put you at the mercy of what ever the browser does, and may degrade your
> > image?  When I have a "large" image in the browser, a lot of times it
> > re-sizes the image, after it's done loading it...
>
> The browser does not care about the ppi. It just displays it
> pixel by pixel.

Right, but why does it matter how I got the number of pixels?  If I simply
take my 4000 x 6000 image, and resize it in PS to 4 x 6, I still get a 4000
x 6000 image...  Something besides the image size has to change, and would
be the resolution.

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.