Working with Images

[David Creamer]

On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at dennisb at chronometrics.com wrote on 2/5/08 3:18 PM:
> 
> This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
Hmmm... You quote my email and refer to me by name in your self-described
rant. OK...
> 
> I was referring to true image resolution. By resampling to a higher
> pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the image. No
> new detail is revealed that wasn't there before.....
I was not arguing that point--in fact, I stated the same basic thing.
Why make it an issue?
> 
>> I think I said something similar to that.
> I think you're probably right about that.
I'll that that non-committal answer as "you're right".
> 
> No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the image, but
> that is usually detrimental
> to the quality of the image."
> 
> Only the last half of this sentence is correct.
Huh...
One can add extra resolution to an image (regardless if it is good for the
image or not). That is a fact. Therefore, the entire sentence is correct.
How could you say otherwise?

>> I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being
>> captured.
> 
> Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the screen are
> just annoying visual impairments specific to the display technology and not an
> indication of the quality of the image itself.
First, I believe we agree that LCD monitors should always be run at their
native resolution (usually the maximum setting, but not always). However, a
screen capture taken at a non-native resolution will have the same quality
at one taken at the native resolution when viewed at actual size in
Photoshop. The "fuzzy" appearance is on-screen artifacts only and will not
affected the use in a document. Now granted, this is on the systems I have
tested, so your mileage may vary.

>> I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel
>> data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor.
> That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your sentence
> makes no sense.
We are talking about display pixels--1280 pixels is 1280 pixels regardless
of how "big" the pixels are by way of monitor size. This was going back to
my statement that "Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor
resolution counts."
(Just to be sure, I am NOT talking about true monitor pixels, meaning down
to RGB elements.)


David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S.
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
Results-Oriented Training & Consulting for Print & Web since 1990
Over 28 years Publishing, 14 years Web, and 10 years Video experience
Contributing Editor for Layers Magazine
Adobe Certified Trainer and Expert (since 1995)
    Adobe Certified Master;  Print & Web Specialist
    Adobe Certified for InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat,
      FrameMaker, InCopy, PageMaker, GoLive, Dreamweaver, & Premiere
Authorized Quark Training Consultant (since 1988)
         QuarkXPress 6&7 Certified Expert - Print & Web
Authorized Markzware FlightCheck Trainer
Enfocus Certified Trainer (PitStop Pro/Server, Instant PDF)
Authorized Microsoft Publisher Service Provider
Authorized FileMaker Trainer
Apple Consultants Network member (since 1990)
    Apple Certified Help Desk Specialist
Southern CA, Arizona, and at your location