Slynky opened this issue on Jul 17, 2001 ยท 9 posts
Slynky posted Tue, 17 July 2001 at 11:02 PM
nplus posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 3:26 AM
good grief... what a project, can't wait to see it when it is done.
Alpha posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 6:10 AM
Dude This is intense! Got a quick question, and a rather lengthy discourse. Can you post this in a larger size? I would like to be able to see the details more closely, but at my monitor settings this only fills about a third of the screen. When you say this is at 600 dpi I get a little confused about what you are trying to say In Photoshop there are two separate settings. First is the actual image size. This is found under the Image menu, and allows you to set the image resolution to either PPI (Pixels Per Inch), or in PPCM (Pixels Per Centimeter). It is also an option on the new file dialogue box when you create a new file The second is the print resolution. This is referred to as DPI (Dots Per Inch), and is independent of the image resolution. This is merely a way of telling the printer how many dots of ink to produce for each square inch of printing surface. So whats the difference??? Look at the two images in the post below. Both of these would print at the same size. However the one at 72 PPI is going to print large blocky looking pixels no matter what you set the print (DPI) resolution to. The one at 300 PPI is going to print continuous tones with smooth transitions even at a lower print resolution. The bottom line (and I hope you know this already) is that any image you are producing for print should be at 300 Pixels Per Inch unless you are working with an offset printer who gives you different specs. For Desktop (Laser, Inkjet and Dye Sublimation) and Large Format Inkjet printing 300 PPI is the standard. The only advantage to working at 600 PPI is that you and enlarge the file before printing without any visual loss in print quality.
Alpha posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 6:12 AM
Slynky posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 10:42 AM
600 ppi dude. If it were 600ppc, my computer would have melted by now.
Slynky posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 10:48 AM
im re scaling one for you now alpha. Problem is, my modest system is trying to convert something that is infinitely larger than what Im rescaling it to, to something muuuuuuch smaller, and, at 72dpi. My HD light will be spinnning for another 20 minutes. Either way, just to let you know, cause the jpg probably wont do it justice, yup, the negatives are pretty clear when you zoom in on them really close.
starshuffler posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 1:12 PM
That was some pretty clean tiling dude. I wanna see what happens next.
bsteph2069 posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 6:05 PM
Good god. This is neat!!! How'd you think of this one I don't know but from my viewpoint it's well done. It's gotta be HUGE for it to work well though. gonna put it on you web site! Bsteph
Slynky posted Wed, 18 July 2001 at 9:33 PM
I dun have a web site, as I realized how much I truly despised web work about 2 years ago. It's 600 ppi, so I could pretty much enlarge this thing about 2.5x's with no real loss in quality, and even bigger if I'm willing to tolerate some loss. If I recall correctly, its already at 11x8.5 inches. Thanks to some sound advice, I got some good blurring going on to create a better sense of depth, and some contact sheet walls have been erected (penispenispenis!!!!). I prolly won't be putting to many more WIP's up, because the thing takes way too long to resize. It topped the 600 meg mark about 2 hours ago. ry