> From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jan wrote:
>> Simply opening it and closing it without re-saving does no harm.
>> Otherwise, pictures on websites that are repeatedly viewed (which is
>> "opening and closing" them) would rapidly degrade.
>
> Ah, but there is a difference here. Viewing an image doesn't
> degrade it.
> However printing does. The printing process depletes each pixel of
> a bit of
> the density. Displaying an image on a monitor is using "additive"
> colors
> whereas printing is "subtractive". If you print an image enough
> times, you
> will have subtracted all the bits out of the image.
>
> Good grief, and I have to EXPLAIN all this to you guys?
I'm sorry, Ken. I didn't realize we were discussing subtractive
printing, and had forgotten about the phenomenon called "bit rot," so
named because you can also get it from ROTating an image too many
times, which makes the pixels dizzy, and they begin to pass out.
But I'm surprised you brought this up without mentioning that if you
shine a flashlight inside your computer while printing, the extra
light makes up for the subtractive printing process. This is yet
another reason why Macs are superior to PCs, because they have tiny,
highly efficient LED lamps over each memory chip that automatically
come on while printing, while the PCs still, after all these years,
require the well-known, time-tested "flashlight in the cabinet trick."
(Note: if you use a powerful halogen bulb of at least 50 watts, you
can sometimes get by with merely shining it in the slot where the
computer's cup holder pops out.)
:::: Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that,
but not with all those flies and death and stuff. -- Mariah Carey ::::
:::: Jan Steinman, http://www.EcoReality.org ::::
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|