Re: 72 dpi graphics appearing at roughly 50 dpi

[Allen Schaaf <soundbyte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:28 PM 3/5/02, Thomas Michanek wrote:

[snip]

>Others may disagree, but I claim that a bitmap graphic has no native DPI
>of itself. A bitmap graphic is a certain number of pixels in width and height.
>One may argue that the "native" screen resolution of a Macintosh or 
>Windows screen image is 72 or 96 dpi, but in reality a bitmap image 
>doesn't have a resolution expressed in "dots per inch" until it's 
>physically realized, on either a particular monitor or a particular 
>printer. (An "inch" is by definition a physical measurement in the real world.)

I absolutely agree.  In fact the size a graphic renders on a screen or 
printer depends on several factors.  What is the resolution of the screen 
for one. 1024X768 on a 17" monitor is not the same physical size as 
1024X768 on a 21" monitor but a 300X400 pixel image still occupies 300X400 
pixels.

I use Snagit for screen captures and it allows you to set the "resolution" 
in the file header but that is only for other program's purposes.  It makes 
it easy to import into FM and reframe/resize larger, if I need it. You 
change it in Snagit and the displayed size in Photoshop changes but it is 
still 300X400 pixels to use the prior example.

BTW, my screen at home displays at 87 dpi (approx.) and at work at 81 dpi 
(approx.)! Both windoze boxes but one is a 17" and the other is a 19".  The 
same is true of Mac displays. The 72 and 96 numbers are myths.


Allen Schaaf
Sr. Tech Writer
Fourelle Systems, Inc.

Who says bad manuals aren't a risk to your life?  Just ask the passengers 
of the jet where the engine caught fire because the company's maintenance 
manual was wrong about how to install one key bolt.  (NTSB Report on GE CF6 
engine fire, American Airlines flight 574, July 9, 1998. 
<http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAB9903.htm>)


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **