Thanks Garth. After reading your response a second time it becomes very
clear. I'm running a 32meg ATI Rage Fury video card, 356 megs of RAM and a
Viewsonic Prof PS790, 19" monitor set at true color. I'll go back to
scanning at full input DPI, saving the file then manipulating it as
directed. Thanks to Joel and yourself for very helpful information. Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Garth Wood
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 5:37 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Scanning Res for Web
At 03:17 PM 11/28/99 -0500, Ron Spolarich wrote:
>Having returned the Olympus ES-10 and opted for the Nikon LS-30, I note an
>immediate improvement in scan quality. Perhaps this is from better
software
>or hardware or both. In any event, I initially scanned my images at 1350
>DPI only to have Adobe Photoshop balk when I attempt to use the "Save for
>the Web" feature. The "Save for Web" feature optimizes JPEGs for the web.
>I arbitrarily chose a DPI of 110 and had no further problems. I suspect
>Photoshop couldn't digest an enormous file for web optimization.
>
>What I'd like to hear from the group is your initial scan DPI setting, size
>of image and optimization settings for JPEG web images.
Output or target DPI is meaningless, unless you're outputting to a printer.
Just aim to have your entire image fit standard screen dimensions, such as
640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1280 x 1024, etc. (And no, it doesn't
matter whether the image is exactly those dimensions, just aim to fit it
within those dimensions.)
*Input* DPI, on the other hand, should be as high as possible (you can
always do dimensional reduction of the image later). This gives you more
raw information to work with for any other operations such as image
cropping, sharpening, unsharp masking, etc. Then reduce to target screen
size as a last step. When reducing your image dimensions, always use
bi-cubic resampling (it's the best quality overall). Remember that, if
people are going to be viewing your work in a Web browser, you have to
subtract some pixels from each dimension (you'll have to figure out what
you're comfortable with), since the browser's window is not the same aspect
ratio as any of the standard screen dimensions.
As for optimization settings for JPEGs, sorry. You'll find that each and
every image you scan can tolerate a different level of compression before
noticeable image degradation starts to set in. You're simply going to have
to experiment -- no single setting will work properly for all images.
Remember too that the output device you view the image on, as well as (in
the case of RGB monitors) the video card your computer has, affects what you
see. Images viewed at 32 bits per pixel (bpp), all other things being
equal, look smoother and more "real" than the exact same image file viewed
at 24bpp. Same goes for 24bpp vs. 16bpp, etc.
Garth
"A bad day doing photography is better
than a good day doing just about
anything else."
The Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery at:
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|