RobinTheHood Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 I'd venture the monitor sets the bar anymore. I've not seen anything but the lowest of low end cards that wouldn't provide plenty of resolution. Yeah, I think you are right. My wife and I have the same displays but very different video adapters. Hers has the exact same 96/120/custom dpi settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Maybe I'm confused, but isn't the maximum resolution on a computer monitor 72-96 DPI anyway? In which case an image that is 3240 x 2430 at 300 DPI will be very wide (way outside the browser window) but not necessarily "look" any better. Well in theory your correct but when you force the size down to normal monitor output resolution you should end up with a finer crisper looking image. More information per pixel... Good example watch a video that is encoded at 320 X 240 and zoom it to full screen or double 620X240 and notice how pixilated it is. Now take a video encoded at 620 X240 and watch it at half the size 320 X240 and look at how nice the picture looks... I know this to be true of video and I imagine it is essentially the same for photos and graphics More useless knowledge.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Something like that. Or maybe something else. I think magazine photos are like 72 DPI, and newspaper somewhat less. Most magazines have a res. of between 300 and 400dpi. Some, Fine Art journals for instance, are even higher. 350 seems to be the norm. As has been said; typical screen res means that images need be no bigger than 72dpi. There is no point in posting anything finer unless it's so that someone can download and print the image. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S t e v e Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 Resize buddy! :) yea i get that but can do without the hassle, my point is why have image scale on if it dosen't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S t e v e Posted December 2, 2010 Author Share Posted December 2, 2010 This is a website, not some 36-inch, wide format, roll-fed poster printer. And BTW, this server cost more than your friggin camera. ` i was talking about the avater upload option...had a bad day have ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinTheHood Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 i was talking about the avater upload option... Doh! Try converting it to a .gif. The avatar uploader is particularity picky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 yea i get that but can do without the hassle, my point is why have image scale on if it dosen't work? Well, the high MP pics are meant to be used only when you are going to print on larger paper...so you don't have to stretch the pic out to get it to an 8x10 size or larger. If you are not printing, you probably only need 5MP or less and a smaller image size. That's my experience anyway... I take all my pics in RAW format and then export to JPG when I want post online...usually works fine..they are still rather large (2.8MB) but not crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.