Bird
Rest in Peace
I'm running Windows 98, Second Edition, so my MSPaint doesn't offer the JPEG option either.
Bird
Bird
Little help please
- Thread starter kubmech
- Start date
- Views: 2703
Harv
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 3,346
- Tractor
- Kubota L2500DT Standard Transmission
Okay, Muhammad -- I agree and disagree with you on this one. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Although I used Photoshop to set the dpi to 400, the raw .gif file format does not maintain that information. I thought it did, but it turns out the "resolution" field in .gif files refers to the bits per pixel, which to me is the color depth. Photoshop apparently stashes the dpi information somewhere other then the data portion of the file, because it remembers it when you re-open that file. Oh well.
.jpg files, however, do have a resolution field which does refer to the dpi. This information is available to any software reading the file, if it needs or chooses to, but browsers, as far as I know, ignore it. Unless otherwise specified in the HTML, they will simply interpret the image size by its overall dimensions, using whatever "resolution" is native to the display device.
I tend to scan stuff at high resolution (simple setting in my scanning software) and then monkey it down to whatever suits me later. That's just me.
So, although I agree with all your resolution math, I still think it's probably safest and most predictable to pick an image size, in pixels, for your final output.
I've attached a .jpg version of my doodle file, Muhammad. When I download it back from the server, Photoshop still knows the resolution is 400 dpi. If I'm putting 2 plus 2 together and coming up with 5, I would appreciate any clarification you can provide. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Although I used Photoshop to set the dpi to 400, the raw .gif file format does not maintain that information. I thought it did, but it turns out the "resolution" field in .gif files refers to the bits per pixel, which to me is the color depth. Photoshop apparently stashes the dpi information somewhere other then the data portion of the file, because it remembers it when you re-open that file. Oh well.
.jpg files, however, do have a resolution field which does refer to the dpi. This information is available to any software reading the file, if it needs or chooses to, but browsers, as far as I know, ignore it. Unless otherwise specified in the HTML, they will simply interpret the image size by its overall dimensions, using whatever "resolution" is native to the display device.
I tend to scan stuff at high resolution (simple setting in my scanning software) and then monkey it down to whatever suits me later. That's just me.
So, although I agree with all your resolution math, I still think it's probably safest and most predictable to pick an image size, in pixels, for your final output.
I've attached a .jpg version of my doodle file, Muhammad. When I download it back from the server, Photoshop still knows the resolution is 400 dpi. If I'm putting 2 plus 2 together and coming up with 5, I would appreciate any clarification you can provide. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Attachments
Harv,
Right. We can probably keep saying similar things back and forth, and wind up with the same conclusions. I think we kind of went into this another time, also. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Right. We can probably keep saying similar things back and forth, and wind up with the same conclusions. I think we kind of went into this another time, also. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Harv
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 3,346
- Tractor
- Kubota L2500DT Standard Transmission
Muhammad -
Deep down, I think we're actually in violent agreement about the whole thing, just coming at it from different perspectives.
Kubmech originally asked for a "little help". I think I've provided about as little as anyone. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif
Deep down, I think we're actually in violent agreement about the whole thing, just coming at it from different perspectives.
Kubmech originally asked for a "little help". I think I've provided about as little as anyone. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif
Harv
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 3,346
- Tractor
- Kubota L2500DT Standard Transmission
<font color=blue>I know this "slugfest" is really between you & Muhammad,</font color=blue>
YIKES! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif I hope that's not what it looks like, Bob!
I thought we were just having an overly technicical discussion which Muhammad was wise enough to nip in the bud, seeing as how we've been there before. As near as I can tell, we are all (including you) in agreement on the techno-aspects of the thing, with perhaps a difference of opinion on the best way to approach the problem.
I have no problem whatsoever agreeing to disagree (that's what makes these forums interesting, isn't it?), I would probably recommend that the general populace pay the most attention to what Muhammad says. I think the only time I ever caught him making a mistake is when he once said he made a mistake. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
YIKES! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif I hope that's not what it looks like, Bob!
I thought we were just having an overly technicical discussion which Muhammad was wise enough to nip in the bud, seeing as how we've been there before. As near as I can tell, we are all (including you) in agreement on the techno-aspects of the thing, with perhaps a difference of opinion on the best way to approach the problem.
I have no problem whatsoever agreeing to disagree (that's what makes these forums interesting, isn't it?), I would probably recommend that the general populace pay the most attention to what Muhammad says. I think the only time I ever caught him making a mistake is when he once said he made a mistake. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
