iehsmith wrote:
I can't see that they are 300ppi. They are just 500px x 333px images ;-)

They've been used for a photo galllery and, of course, look OK when
they look even terrible when forced to the smaller size.
As I am notorious for this: images on the web have nothing to do with
dpi, and looking at the images I doubt whether those terrible images are
actually originating from a digital camera.
take this image:

http://www.lamaisonmagnolia.com/imag...3/DSCF4799.JPG

look at the white dots everywhere around the gate, the fences and in the
pond. To me this looks as if someone has color indexed this image at
some point of the process, and some colors where then replaced with,
probably, the background color of the image. Could it be, that the
original images used to be (wrongly) color indexed GIFs or PNGs?
By checking the other images, I think this sounds like an explanation:
you only have those white pixels in the vicinity of darker pixels... So
maybe someone tried color indexing the original image. You could try to
fix this by replacing the white (watch out for the correct white) with a
darker color. But I am afraid that this is too late now, as you can no
longer tell the difference between a replaced color and an original
color value... (I tried it with one image)

or supply an image big enough for printing purposes (such as one in the
range of 1800px x 1600px), as only the pixel dimension counts.

HTH
bernhard


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Bernhard Sturm wrote:
Nevertheless they are defined 300 DPI. Totally unecesaary
for web, the one you linked to is 488 K. Make it 30 DPI and
there is 80K left and just as sharp and horrible.
See how we can get web and printing demands confused here.
This is a web site.

--
Peter

PH wrote:
???
I do this now, just for you alone:
http://www.elsigno.ch/magnolia.jpg

where did you read out the 488kB? There is no such thing like 300dpi for
web images. Just forget your dpi's.

BTW: the image you are just looking at is at 10000DPI. <irony>You can
print it on any printer</irony>

Make it 30 DPI and
or make it 1DPI and it has still the same size:
http://www.elsigno.ch/1dpi.jpg

or make it 10000dpi and it has still the same size:
http://www.elsigno.ch/10000dpi.jpg

and where did you see the 80kB?


I can see that very clear, but I doubt that you see it as well :-)


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Bernhard Sturm wrote:
The DPI setting is purely an indicator for printing, so you could ignore
it even when printing if you wanted. But when it comes to WWW, you are
right, DPI is irrevant. Only physical pixel matter. At least until
Windows Longhorn, when pixels become irrelevant.

SpaceGirl wrote:

Thanks SpaceGirl, the first person here, who understands my point :-) I
started to feel a bit alone *grin*

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

"Bernhard Sturm" <sturmnixspam@datacomm.ch> wrote in message
news:425bef8f$1_2@news.tiscalinet.ch...

lol, here we go again ;-)

"SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpacegirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote
Yes, won't that be nice for us PC users! But what will Mac an Linux owners
do? Microsoft developes its own standards. What a surprise!

How many Microsoft software engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, they just change the standard to darkness.

Fred Doyle wrote:
Hah... this is already part of OSX, so neeeeeeer. Office X and Office
2003 were the first products to be written in a pixel-independant
matter, so that when the new OS's came along we wouldn't be worrying
about pixels at all. Sadly, then Windows Longhorn was massively delayed,
so the feature is not viewable on Windows, and for some reason OSX
doesn't seem to make use of it. Anyway - the way it works is that
basically the UI's for these programs are defined using a flexible
vector scaling thing rather than pixels, so if you hold dont CTRL
(Windows Longhorn) and enlarge the window... the entire contents of the
window gets BIGGER rather than just giving you more work space, and the
UI looks just as clear.

Linux users will always be playing around the in the dark.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

Fred Doyle wrote:
they don't become irrelevant, it's just that longhorn will rely on
vector icons and widgets. But the display of the icons will still be in
monitor pixels, and images will still consist of pixels ;-)

that's not a microsoft standard. vectors is just a mathematical concept.
and yes:mac osx has it already, and linux as well (there is an existing
linux vector desktop project, that looks very promising) Couldn't find
the link, but will post it, if someone is interested in this subject...


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply