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: Genuine fractals?????

> Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have
> resolution
> and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
> file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering
> instructions which
> tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a
> certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print.
> This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or
> print in terms of its rendered output size.  It also is what
> determines what
> the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given
> resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size
> resolution
> box prior to any changing of the file by the user.

Nobody pays attention to the ppi values in an image file. When you view an
image on the screen, you either get one pixel per pixel, or an image that is
somehow fit to the window--the ppi value plays no role. When you load an
image into Photoshop, and open the Print With Preview dialog, the ppi value
is used as a starting point for the print size, but no one blindly prints at
that size, one always overrides it to get the desired print size.

This question keeps coming up. It would have been better had the inventors
of image file formats not included any ppi fields.


Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.