Long time No See...?? about resolution

Hello all, It seems that you have all been surviving just fine without me.
No surprises there I suppose. =-) Im developing a new site and came across a
question (Imagine THAT). Im making a graphic for the page title at the top and
was wondering what resolution I should go with. Is there an accepted answer
for how much res. is to much and where a good compromise is achieved? In other
words, would 200 DPI be to high so that resolution is lost in the monitor
anyway, or are monitors to the point that I should make it 300 DPI and shrug at
the page file size? Hope that makes sense. Matt

72 DPI is the norm for the net,

regards

twocan's




"A.H.O." <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

Hello all, It seems that you have all been surviving just fine without
me.
No surprises there I suppose. =-) Im developing a new site and came
across a
question (Imagine THAT). Im making a graphic for the page title at the
top and
was wondering what resolution I should go with. Is there an accepted
answer
for how much res. is to much and where a good compromise is achieved? In
other
words, would 200 DPI be to high so that resolution is lost in the monitor
anyway, or are monitors to the point that I should make it 300 DPI and
shrug at
the page file size? Hope that makes sense. Matt

Hello all, It seems that you have all been surviving just fine without
me.
No surprises there I suppose. =-) Im developing a new site and came
across a
question (Imagine THAT). Im making a graphic for the page title at the
top and
was wondering what resolution I should go with. Is there an accepted
answer
for how much res. is to much and where a good compromise is achieved?

Resolution (in terms of DPI) is completely irrelevant on screen. The only
thing that matters is the pixel dimensions.

-Darrel

72 DPI is the norm for the net,

Actually, DPI has nothing to do with the net, though most image editing apps
will use 72dpi as the default 'actual size/100%' view in the application so
that one-pixel of image = one-pixel of actual monitor resolution.

-Darrel

what ever,

but when I create graphics i always create them in 72 dpi and set my height
and weight as what i want it to be. any i know of does the same. but if you
want to complicate things go ahead.

twocan's



"Darrel" <notreal (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

Hello all, It seems that you have all been surviving just fine without
me.
No surprises there I suppose. =-) Im developing a new site and came
across a
question (Imagine THAT). Im making a graphic for the page title at the
top and
was wondering what resolution I should go with. Is there an accepted
answer
for how much res. is to much and where a good compromise is achieved?

Resolution (in terms of DPI) is completely irrelevant on screen. The only
thing that matters is the pixel dimensions.

-Darrel

twocan's wrote:

but when I create graphics i always create them in 72 dpi and set my height
and weight as what i want it to be. any i know of does the same. but if you
want to complicate things go ahead.

The point is that it makes absolutely NO difference what dpi you use. A
200px by 200px image will be exactly the same on screen whether it's at
72dpi, or 7200dpi. The only difference is when an image is printed on
its own and not as a part of a larger document.


Gary

but when I create graphics i always create them in 72 dpi and set my
height
and weight as what i want it to be. any i know of does the same. but if
you
want to complicate things go ahead.

twocans:

That isn't advice. It's just made up misinformation.

I'm not complicating anything. DPI is a print term and has nothing to do
with on-screen graphics. Bringing DPI into the concept of on-screen graphics
is what complicates things.

-Darrel

Agreed. It doesn't get much simpler than "The only thing that matters
is the pixel dimensions."


David
stiller (at) quip (dot) net
"Luck is the residue of good design."

If you actually calculate it, you'll find that 85 ppi is what "is" on most monitors. For instance,
on a VERY typical screen, 12" wide / 1024 pixels = 85 ppi. (the screens are really 306 mm...)
One mistake that people make is that the so-called "resolutions" "specified" in winders and macs are
PRINTING resolutions. When you print out a web page on paper, you get 96 PIXELS per inch on the
paper.

I have links to measurement pages if you're interested.

One VERY clever way to scan things is to scan at an even 3 or 4 times the screen resolution, and
then resize the scan to 1/3 or 1/4 the size (33% or 25%) and then you get a REAL SIZE image on the
screen, with enough data.

All this is analogous with sampling rates in digital audio... it's MUCH better to scan with MORE
data and then resize (not the same as compression!!!) the image than to scan at the desired
resolution to start. In other words, don't scan at 85 PPI to present an image on a screen; scan at
3,4, or 5 times that, resize, and then resharpen.

I have literally tens of thousands of experiments done on this, with everything from 8 x10 prints to
6 x 7 cm transparencies scanned at insane resolutions, and everything in between.

There are a lso very distinct issues with scanning or even just presenting font info, where
(a) almost everyone antialiases wrong, and therefore the end result looks awful -and-
(b) issues with NOT antialiasing, when you can get the font to "fit" on the screen pixel mapping.

Happy Holidays... !
Capt. Purple


"Darrel" <notreal (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

Hello all, It seems that you have all been surviving just fine without
me.
No surprises there I suppose. =-) Im developing a new site and came
across a
question (Imagine THAT). Im making a graphic for the page title at the
top and
was wondering what resolution I should go with. Is there an accepted
answer
for how much res. is to much and where a good compromise is achieved?

Resolution (in terms of DPI) is completely irrelevant on screen. The only
thing that matters is the pixel dimensions.

-Darrel