At 14:33 6/19/2000, Tom Myers wrote:
Question for those of you who are web techies: What
scanning resolution is a good compromise to get good (enlargable
images) that will fill a normal computer screen when enlarged and
Er...normal? Would that be 640x480 (basic), 800x600 (common), 1024x768 (getting common)? My general advice would be shoot for the 800x600 user --
the 640x480 folks are too far behind the curve now and will have to put up with scrolling around if necessary. But it's not clear to me that you'd ordinarily want to actually fill a screen, even enlarged. Or at any rate, bear in mind the costs.
still get a reasonable resolution and download screen??
The web will show it at 72 dpi. So if you have a shot that is
720pixels across, it will be 10 inches wide on a computer screen
(it's not really that simple). Most of the shots on my site are 270
A couple of data points: Running 1152x812 on a 17" monitor, I measure 98 dpi. Running 800x600 on the same monitor, I measure 67 dpi. The actual displayed size of a picture depends on the interaction between the display resolution and how physically large the monitor displays that image. Monitors of the same inch size will typically display images in similar (but not identical) sizes. I rather suspect that the 72 dpi convention came from 640x480 displays on 14" monitors, but I haven't done the math. The older monitors size-for-size had much smaller images that didn't fill the physical screen.
If you're talking about putting pix on a web page, when you put the image in the page you should specify the width and height you want -- that way there will be a placeholder of the right size, and the rest of the page can continue loading without waiting for the image to finish. *BUT* -- having done that, go fix your image so it's the same size that you've specified. You can have a 1200x1600 image display as 60x80, but it's still going to take your lunch hour to load.
Oh dear -- one could go on for a looong time, I'm afraid. As with most things, there's more to this than instantly meets the eye.
david
David Beierl - dbeierl@... <<-- Note new address
