Re: Default dpi

On 03/03/08, Henry G Belot wrote:

> Don:
>;
>>; ...I think the point is that there already is a default dpi but the
>> traditional figure of 72 (monitor resolution) is no longer suitable.
>>
>
> Hmm. If so, I think it has less to do with what print shops expect
> than what our monitors expect.

It's the images. Typical images are several times as big as they were a
decade ago.

> I believe there have always been
>; differences between operating systems in that regard, and the
> prevalence of new display technologies has added to the confusion. In
> any case, I'm not sure that changing it would be all that helpful
> given the variabilities in incoming file sizes these days.
> Nonetheless, I suppose it would provide the ultimate in convenience
> for those who need that.
>

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox%40enterprise.net">doncoxenterprise.net

Messages in this topic (13) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

>>> ...I think the point is that there already is a default dpi but the
>>> traditional figure of 72 (monitor resolution) is no longer suitable.
>>>
>>;>
>>; Hmm. If so, I think it has less to do with what print shops expect
>> than what our monitors expect.
>>;
>
> It's the images. Typical images are several times as big as they were a
> decade ago.
>;
>
This entire discussion centers around images which have faulty dpi
information. You would think apps would write the correct information!

Maybe the right thing to do is make the default dpi a choice of two. One
for images less than say 1200x800, and another for images greater in
size than that.

--
Deron Kazmaier - support%40pagestream.org">supportpagestream.org
Grasshopper LLC Publishing - http://www.pagestream.org
PageStream DTP for Amiga, Linux, Macintosh, and Windows

Messages in this topic (14) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Deron:

> ...This entire discussion centers around images which have faulty dpi
> information. You would think apps would write the correct information!
>

Uh, I find that comment a bit cryptic. Just what are talking about?

For reference purposes...

I just opened a picture from my Minolta in Paint Shop Pro. According to
that application, the image is 2560 pixels wide (35.556 inches) and 1920
pixels tall (26.667 inches) at a resolution of 72 dpi. The full image
automatically displays within the available screen space adjusted to 38%
of the available resolution. These numbers agree with the EXIF
information reported for this image.

StudioLine 3 reports the same information but uses a thumbnail of
641x481 for display and editing purposes. (Default thumbnail sizes are a
user preference.)

How is any of that "faulty dpi" information? The only difference I can
see is that PSP displays the image _by default_ at the maximum usable
screen space and the other, using a thumbnail and the "viewer" feature
happens to display it at something like 25% of its full size.
PageStream, with the Center Image preference turned off, displays it at
any size you choose to click and drag it to; or with Center Image turned
on or by double clicking "Place" it will let the image overfill the
screen to 36x27 inches in this case. It's this last that has caused
confusion for those of us who've forgotten or never knew about
click-and-drag.

It seems to me that the entire discussion centers around a
misunderstanding of the "Place Image"; option. Personally, I don't much
care. If, by default, PageStream loaded the image at a size that fits
the editing window, that would be nice and eliminate the confusion. But
the ability to size the image on the fly is an excellent feature and
ideal for layout work. I don't understand what the connection is to
"faulty dpi information." The feedback from the two applications I've
cited indicates, to me at least, that the applications "know" full-well
what the dpi is and pass it on in the files they create. They just use
it differently than PageStream does within their respective interfaces.

If I were to "improve" the interface, I would offer a preference to
"Size image to screen" and, perhaps beef up the Object Information
dialog to show actual image size before and after resizing and a tab for
EXIF data where available.

HB

Messages in this topic (15) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

>> ...This entire discussion centers around images which have faulty dpi
>>; information. You would think apps would write the correct information!
>>
>>;
>
> Uh, I find that comment a bit cryptic. Just what are talking about?
>

I've long since deleted the original post and don't have time to go find
it but the original request was for a different default dpi for images
that didn't set the dpi. That discussion has taken a few turns along the
way. Just trying to actually address the original problem.

> For reference purposes...
>
> I just opened a picture from my Minolta in Paint Shop Pro. According to
> that application, the image is 2560 pixels wide (35.556 inches) and 1920
> pixels tall (26.667 inches) at a resolution of 72 dpi. The full image
> automatically displays within the available screen space adjusted to 38%
> of the available resolution. These numbers agree with the EXIF
> information reported for this image.
>

Well if your image actually _sets_ the resolution to 72dpi, then
changing the default dpi for a picture won't help you one bit. The
picture is saying it is 36 inches x 26 inches. What else could
PageStream do? In this case, my suggestions are worthless. A different
set of controls is needed in this case!

> It seems to me that the entire discussion centers around a
> misunderstanding of the "Place Image"; option. Personally, I don't much
> care. If, by default, PageStream loaded the image at a size that fits
> the editing window, that would be nice and eliminate the confusion.
I am agreeable to such a solution, which works better for me. Is this
only for pictures being imported/pasted? So paste on center also resizes
proportionally to fit to screen.
> But
> the ability to size the image on the fly is an excellent feature and
> ideal for layout work. I don't understand what the connection is to
> "faulty dpi information." The feedback from the two applications I've
> cited indicates, to me at least, that the applications "know" full-well
> what the dpi is and pass it on in the files they create. They just use
> it differently than PageStream does within their respective interfaces.
>
In the case of your camera, it is setting a dpi that is simply used as a
pixel ratio. Ie, the pixels are square. 72dpi is an arbitrary choice on
their part, and I dare say much too low.

Deron

--
Deron Kazmaier - support%40pagestream.org">supportpagestream.org
Grasshopper LLC Publishing - http://www.pagestream.org
PageStream DTP for Amiga, Linux, Macintosh, and Windows

Messages in this topic (16) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Deron:

> ...the original request was for a different default dpi for images
> that didn't set the dpi. That discussion has taken a few turns along the
> way. Just trying to actually address the original problem.
>

I don't have the original post handy either, but I'm not sure that
"didn't set the dpi" was anticipated in the comment. Again, I don't
think that many of the early posters realized that they could just click
and drag an image to any size they wanted during import. At least one
poster said as much after it was pointed out. That's why I'm not sure
how much of a problem this really is. Maybe we need a poll, or something.

> Well if your image actually _sets_ the resolution to 72dpi, then
> changing the default dpi for a picture won't help you one bit. The
> picture is saying it is 36 inches x 26 inches. What else could
> PageStream do?

This is the fly in the ointment. I just checked a number of images
including both my cameras, the internet, my scanner, and some old photos
from a film processing outfit that sends photos on disc. They all have
the dpi set in the file. The only images I ran across that did not were
from old editing applications that stripped that information out (which
goes back to the "didn't set the dpi" point above). I, of course,
control that setting when I use my scanner, but I've no control over the
images from the internet or the local drugstore. If the web designers
know what they're doing, it's likely to be a logical choice. But there
seem to be plenty of images out there that are passing through the dpi
of the original files. I'm not savvy enough to understand what the
consequences would be of PageStream resetting those values in the files,
_if_ that's implicit in any of this, therefore _that_ idea makes me nervous.

> In this case, my suggestions are worthless. A different
> set of controls is needed in this case!...
>

Perhaps, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. All these
suggestions seem like taking the local bus, when we already have an
express bus in front of us at the same price.

> In the case of your camera, it is setting a dpi that is simply used as a
> pixel ratio. Ie, the pixels are square. 72dpi is an arbitrary choice on
> their part, and I dare say much too low.
>;

Perhaps it's arbitrary and certainly it's square, but both of my cameras
do it. Some photos from a professional photographer who uses a Nikon
were set at 300 dpi, but that's one of those cameras that create
18-tetrapixel images. They're still bigger than a letter-size page
in PageStream.

HB

Messages in this topic (24) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Henry G Belot wrote:
>
>
> Deron:
>
> > ...the original request was for a different default dpi for images
> > that didn't set the dpi. That discussion has taken a few turns along the
> > way. Just trying to actually address the original problem.
> >
>;
> I don't have the original post handy either, but I'm not sure that
>; "didn't set the dpi" was anticipated in the comment. Again, I don't
> think that many of the early posters realized that they could just click
> and drag an image to any size they wanted during import. At least one
> poster said as much after it was pointed out. That's why I'm not sure
>; how much of a problem this really is. Maybe we need a poll, or something.
>
> > Well if your image actually _sets_ the resolution to 72dpi, then
>; > changing the default dpi for a picture won't help you one bit. The
> > picture is saying it is 36 inches x 26 inches. What else could
> > PageStream do?
>
> This is the fly in the ointment. I just checked a number of images
> including both my cameras, the internet, my scanner, and some old photos
> from a film processing outfit that sends photos on disc. They all have
>; the dpi set in the file. The only images I ran across that did not were
>; from old editing applications that stripped that information out (which
> goes back to the "didn't set the dpi" point above). I, of course,
> control that setting when I use my scanner, but I've no control over the
> images from the internet or the local drugstore. If the web designers
> know what they're doing, it's likely to be a logical choice. But there
> seem to be plenty of images out there that are passing through the dpi
> of the original files. I'm not savvy enough to understand what the
> consequences would be of PageStream resetting those values in the files,
> _if_ that's implicit in any of this, therefore _that_ idea makes me nervous.
>
> > In this case, my suggestions are worthless. A different
> > set of controls is needed in this case!...
> >
>;
> Perhaps, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. All these
> suggestions seem like taking the local bus, when we already have an
> express bus in front of us at the same price.
>
> > In the case of your camera, it is setting a dpi that is simply used as a
> > pixel ratio. Ie, the pixels are square. 72dpi is an arbitrary choice on
> > their part, and I dare say much too low.
>; >
>;
> Perhaps it's arbitrary and certainly it's square, but both of my cameras
> do it. Some photos from a professional photographer who uses a Nikon
> were set at 300 dpi, but that's one of those cameras that create
> 18-tetrapixel images. They're still bigger than a letter-size page
>; in PageStream.

I have a cheap(ish) Coolpix 2500 Nikon. It has a selection of 4 image sizes:
___________________________________
1600 1,600x1,200 pixels - Suited to print sizes ranging from large photo
album through to A5 (roughly 8" x 6")

1280 1,280x960 pixels - Suited to postcard-size prints

1024 1,024x768 pixels - Suited to printing at smaller sizes (for
example, as an illustration in a letter or report) or to display on
monitors 17" or larger

640 640x480 pixels - Can be displayed full screen on 13" monitor. Suited
to distribution by e-mail or on the web

Print sizes assume a printer resolution of approximately 200 dpi
___________________________________

72 dpi pictures will not load into some image processors. They usually
require at least 75 dpi.

--
DAVID L. STEVENS -- TEAM AMIGA --Chapter Chat Publisher
Windows XP user (:^(> on Acer Aspire 9810 2.16 GHz Notebook
2 GB RAM; 2 120-GB Hard Drives; CanoScan LIDE 20
Canon i860 & Brother HL-5050 PageStream v5.0.2.10Pro
<http://davestevens.home.insightbb.com>;

Wench: What you use to turn the head of a dolt.

Messages in this topic (26) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

David:

> I have a cheap(ish) Coolpix 2500 Nikon. It has a selection of 4 image sizes:
&gt;

Do the dpi settings in the EXIF data step up with the image sizes? As
noted, the Nikon pix I have _are_ 300 dpi. Perhaps that will be the case
with my next camera, not that I need larger images than I have right
now. I need the larger chips (for less noise) and, likely,
interchangeable lenses.

> 72 dpi pictures will not load into some image processors.

What's an "image processor?" Usually, a paint program will let you
change the dpi. Not that upping it is likely to improve anything if the
original is 72, I suppose. DPI's of monitors do seem to be climbing a
bit, so perhaps we'll see camera defaults following suit even in the
economy models.

HB

Messages in this topic (27) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Henry G Belot wrote:
&gt;
>
> David:
&gt;
> > I have a cheap(ish) Coolpix 2500 Nikon. It has a selection of 4 image
> sizes:
&gt; >
>;
> Do the dpi settings in the EXIF data step up with the image sizes? As
> noted, the Nikon pix I have _are_ 300 dpi. Perhaps that will be the case
>; with my next camera, not that I need larger images than I have right
&gt; now. I need the larger chips (for less noise) and, likely,
> interchangeable lenses.
>
> > 72 dpi pictures will not load into some image processors.
>
> What's an "image processor?" Usually, a paint program will let you
> change the dpi. Not that upping it is likely to improve anything if the
> original is 72, I suppose. DPI's of monitors do seem to be climbing a
> bit, so perhaps we'll see camera defaults following suit even in the
> economy models.

Sorry. My bad. It's Omnipage SE OCR that won't open images less than 75
or over 600 dpi.

--
DAVID L. STEVENS -- TEAM AMIGA --Chapter Chat Publisher
Windows XP user (:^(> on Acer Aspire 9810 2.16 GHz Notebook
2 GB RAM; 2 120-GB Hard Drives; CanoScan LIDE 20
Canon i860 & Brother HL-5050 PageStream v5.0.2.10Pro
<http://davestevens.home.insightbb.com>;

Dilbert's Words of Wisdom: My Reality Check bounced.

Messages in this topic (28) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

David:

> Sorry. My bad. It's Omnipage SE OCR that won't open images less than 75
> or over 600 dpi

Ah, that makes sense. Although 75 vs. 72 is a bit arbitrary, Omnipage
couldn't really do much with less than 75 dpi or really take advantage
of resolution above 600 dpi. The way it works is sort of like a jigsaw
puzzle. It looks for openings that fit the pieces (characters) it gets
from the scan. The resolution of the openings is more-or-less fixed.
There has to be enough resolution coming in to make a reasonable match,
but beyond a certain point greater resolution doesn't really help.
That's why the best and most expensive "professional&quot; OCR programs use
algorithms that look at the strokes and glyphs that characterize letters
and can cover a much broader range of fonts, sizes, and languages at one
time with fewer errors.

(Just had to go off on that tangent. It's much terser and clearer (to
me) than back when we were actually discussing OCR software. A moment of
boring inspiration.)

HB

Messages in this topic (29) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.