What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
67 Comments
- fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47This article takes ~3 pages of text to say this:
In photoshop, to change an image's PPI (effective print size) without actually altering the pixel data, uncheck "resample image" in the image size dialog.
To be fair though, it originally took me a little while to figure this out. Photoshop is counterintuitive on this one. - rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30He is getting dugg down for hi-jacking the first post.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Everyone hi-jacks the first post.
- Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20How did it make it up to the front page? Quite simple. Zaibatsu is one of the big Digg gamers. He and his cronies digg eachother's submissions. You'll usually find more than one Zaibatsu per 20 front page stories.
- RecoDesign, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Jesus! This is phothoshop 101. I like how he says "That is until now" like this is some new feature in photoshop. How did this bs make it up here. I thought I was gonna learn a new trick. Well at least I dont fall into the category of "brilliant designers that didnt know that". If your a designer, and you didnt already know this, then you should stop calling yourself a designer and go to school.
- DonPMitchell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Not particularly informative. As the inventor of the so-called "Mitchell" filter, I guess I have to be in favor of well-designed bicubic filters, but nonlinear algorithms in products like _Genuine Fractals_ are intriguing. The nonlinear methods try to extrapolate information, like edges and texture. But they can be fooled by noise or just "invent" something that was never there.
To make an image smaller, I know of nothing better than a high-quality filter like Lanczos Sinc or better. Lesser filters (like bicubic) will result in an image that is not as sharp and may contain moire patterns and jaggies (aliasing).
To make an image larger, you are essentially inventing new pixels. Modest enlargment (like 500 pixls -> 600 pixels) seems to look best with a high-quality filter like Lanczos. Aggressively enlarging an image can introduce ringing artifacts, which was why I developed the smooth bicubic filter sometimes called "Mitchell filter". - SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Not all Digg users do much image editing. I did not know this and have been a digg user for a long time. I found this helpful, so quit bitching and look at another article.
- buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@Recodesign
The guy explains what pixels are. Of course this is Photoshop 101. I'm pretty adept at handling PS, but some people who are just hobbyists find this helpful, that's why this is frontpage material (or the whole Zaibatsu-Digg mafia thing). The world does not revolve around you! I've always hate comments like: "Topic X is of no interest to me, therefore it does not belong here." You see a lot of comments like that when people don't like Youtube frontpage videos too. - StantheBat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I look forward to future posts which will help me find the 'any' key.
- prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7DPI only matters when you print.
- sciencebase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Resolution schmesolution. There is only PIXEL WIDTH BY DEPTH that matters. You can call a picture 300dpi or 700000000 dpi but if it's only 900 pixels wide it will print decent at a max of 3 inches at 300 dots per inch screen.
Of course even some software doesn't understand this. - simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Unless you're new, you should know by now we're all a bunch of cynical and sarcastic smart ass INTJ(or P)'s, he must have been one of the ENTJ(P)'s.
I guess.... happy holidays anyway. : ] - LeberMac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can't increase the amount of pixels in an image without introducing errors and artifacts. Man Law!
Granted, some of Photoshop's Bicubic algorithms work pretty well, and I am impressed with Genuine Fractal's ability to extrapolate "missing" pixels up to a point. The "enlarge by steps" is an old trick which produces somewhat better results than the "enlarge to final pixel dimensions" all at once, but NOTHING's better than a high-resolution original. Once you've downsampled, you can't go back.
If you would take Snider's pretty pictures of daylilies, downsample it to 313 x 235 pixels, and then use these "techniques" to somehow upsample it & work your way back to 3,136 X 2,352 pixels, your image would be crap. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Anyone besides me think Pixel Mush would be a great name for a punk band?
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it does have the effect of increasing resolution if you let the printer scale it down. Not sure about that because I've always set the DPI from the start. I guess you'll just have to make a few test prints.
In general, you don't have to worry about scaling down, it's scaling up that's the problem. - jmettee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Good info for the novice looking to improve simple skills. As I play with my digital camera & post-editing more & more, info like this helps the learning process.
- cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not surprised at all. I am a designer, I work with designers, most of them have little to no concept of finished quality, or have no idea what the words they are saying actually mean.
They say they need a digital image that is 300dpi, but don't offer a final printed size, I can give you a 300dpi image that is 10x10pixels, it will print really small, but it is 300dpi. - sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm a bit tired of this notion that 'dpi doesn't matter until you print'.
DPI is an integral part of an image's quality. There are three parts to an image's quality in this regard. DPI, pixel dimensions and physical (or print) dimensions. If you know two you get the third. You can only cast off dpi as being totaly irrelevant until the print stage if you hold both the pixel dimensions and the physical dimensions in high regard. I work in advertising, the technical end of it, and I have to deal with salespeople who procure media for advertisements all day long. I push DPI as being important because many of our people scan pictures for the advertisements they sell. Explaining that you need to start out with a decent sized image (not, say, a logo or portrait from a business card, but bigger in almost all situations) and scan it at least 300dpi is MUCH simpler than trying to bring pixel dimensions into the fray. If you hold out dpi as being important, you can create some pretty simple rules of thumb for people to follow:
Big picture- scan at 300 dpi.
Small picture- scan at higher dpi (usually I say 600 or 1200).
If we didn't do this we would be getting wallet prints scanned at 72dpi (most scanner apps default) which would be roughly 140x200 px. Tell them 300dpi or greater and you'll see a picture thats at least about 500x600 and much more useful. - mediamanbkk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We are not all designers! I learnt something new.
- collinong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i'm going to save this link. i don't know how much of my life has been wasted trying to explain the relationship between pixels, dpi and printed size to friends, relatives, coworkers, etc. if anything, this article doesn't go basic enough to get the point across to total newbs.
- bairy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm confused about something.
Basically the article says that if you change the ppi/dpi/whatever, then the print size goes from 43.5 x 32.5 inches to 10.5 x 7.5 inches but the number of pixels stays the same.
Okay, fine.
But when you hit print and your photo programme resizes that 43 inch print down to A4/letter sheet size, doesn't it pack the dots more tightly automatically, or does it print in the original 72 until you actually set the ppi/dpi? - cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have a 14" monitor and a 42" monitor, both are 1024x768. tell me DPI is relevent to the design process for both and you're lying.
- cresquin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My 800 pixels take up less space than your 800 pixels, pixels are not an exact size like inches, relating them to screen size is a bad comparison. an inch of paper here is the same size as an inch of paper where you are.
- Antialias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly. I hate that people see the dpi as "the" measurement of how much data an image contains. I look at dpi sort of like a "zoom" value for an image that just changes the scale when printed. I especially hate web designers that talk about dpi with respect to digital images that are not going to be used in a print job.
- gmallard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@blastura
DPI is sure as hell not something that only concerns printers.
If you are in the OCR business (scan document images for particular words/phrases) your code cares about DPI, document dimensions, and other image meta data.
I could care less about printing or Photoshop type crap.
But my code needs to know what the image really is supposed to look like. - elmimmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But you are cheating with your argument, because you imply a certain physical size and talk about DPI from that on. Talking about DPI means nothing, because I am sure you will agree that scanning both an ID photo and a 1 foot poster at 600 DPI will not get you the same "600 DPI" quality.
At the end of the day, pixels and output dimensions are what count, and only THEN you can think of DPI, and not the other way around. - dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh -- another technique that has assisted me in the past when enlarging images: ADD NOISE!!! (This is one I rarely see mentioned...)
After enlarging, but before smoothing, use an Add Noise function. This is especially relevant for jpeg compressed images, which can contain block-artifacts from the compression process. Add noise serves as a block filter, assisting in removing some of the block artifacts.
Sometimes it helps, sometimes not. Just something to add to your toolkit.
Steve - defylogik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1are you kidding me. seriously what graphic designer doesnt know how to do this??? this is first year design school sh*t. more crappy stories on digg as usual. oh yeah and what they dont mention is that if you uncheck resampling you still get the same file size image. DURRRRRRr.
MAYBE it would have been more helpful to go into greater depth on what the resample box ACTUALLY does and the options that it gives you. hrrrm - buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, snap! Your THE Mitchell. I love Lightwave, and the renderer named for you. Sometimes Lanczos is better for me because it really brings out some texture detail (sometimes too saturated, though), but Mitchell is best for all-around usage, IMHO.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Try the Photozoom Pro program mentioned in the article, or any other program that does S-Spline resizing. PS only does bicubic resizing at best, which creates those blocks, S-Spline resizing is much better for photos.
- eliezerlp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone like the Genuine Fractals program they mentioned? I Love it!
Most anything is suitable to print on my Epson 7600 with it. - Paul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1someone should send this link to the marketing departments at the company i work for.
ugggg. Why can the IT people produce better stuff the the "designers"? - elmimmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A pixel is NOT a dot. A "dot" refers to each dot an inkjet printer spits. You could print 1 single pixel at 10 ppi (which would output a printed square 1/10th of an inch wide) at 300 dpi (which would mean that the inkjet would be using 30 dots of ink wide to print it). spi, dpi, lpi and ppi at completely diferent things (well, most of the times spi and ppi are not, but still depends).
- dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you read between the lines on this one you can see echoes of the recent Apple scalable GUI patent application... It dealt with managing images of various resolutions and interpolation (resizing)... Not a great stretch.
-Steve - blastura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Okay - your print shop/graphics designer/magazine has asked for a digital photo at 300 DPI. What do they really mean by this?
What they are really asking for is a photo that will print at a certain paper dimension in inches at 300 pixels per inch (PPI). If you remember from the Myth of DPI, the term DPI is a holdover from when this setting in a digital photo would set the paper output quality (resolution) of a printed image (number of printer dots per inch). This is no longer the case, but people still confuse DPI with PPI."
from http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/printshop.html - sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. To befit total newbs, though, it would be good if it was mentioned somewhere that "just because the picture 'looks fine on your screen' doesn't mean it will print well". We've got people who download a company logo from their webiste, maybe it's 150-200 px wide, and they want it to appear in a printed advertisement at well over double it's displayed size.
- twalker294, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Research "stair interpolation." That is the official name for this upsizing method and yes it does work -- better than upsizing in one big step.
- sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CRT based monitors of times past have recomended resolutions so that, say, the same picture viewed on a 15, 17 and 19" monitor, at 100%, will be close to the same size. It's even more true of LCD monitors of today. LCDs have ONE resolution that they display best at and that's where it should be set. Because modern LCDs have tighter pitch typically they are 96dpi rather than the 72dpi of CRTs, but this keeps things a uniform size from one screen to the next.
That being said, you cannot assume that anyone has their display set up properly. There are people out there, that despite the fact that the blurryness will end up causing MORE eyestrain, insist on running their nice 21" widescreen LCD at 800x600 "because things are bigger and easier to see". To these people, everything is going to be "bigger" on screen than it should be so you can't use the representation of the image as a qualifier for it's quality. I generally tell people that if their computer is set up properly, for good print work, pictures should be roughtly three times the desired printed size on screen when viewed at 100% zoom. - sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your displays are not set to their optimum. Especially the 42". Anyone who runs THAT low of a resolution on a display that large either sits fifteen feet from it, or it's at it's default and they don't know how to change it. In either event, no "design" is getting done. Sorry, thanks for trying.
DPI may or may not be relevant to 'design', but it is not irrelevant. If you give a ***** about the printed quality of the finished product, you never put DPI out of your mind, from the beginning of the project onward. - JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Now maybe the author can update his information and stop spreading the 1990's rhetoric of 72 dpi. NEWS FLASH GENIOUS, that's old monitors...new monitors can do around 100 dpi on screen. You have been educated. Stop spreading the same old crap misinformation. Things change!
"Recent LCDs use a hardware resolution between 86dpi and 147dpi, only a few LCDs use a resolution around 204dpi (Toshiba, IBM). "
"dpi, dots per inch, how densely the pixels are packed. Bigger is better. A 1280 x 1024 image on a 17" monitor is only about 100 dpi. A 1600 x 1200 image on a 19" monitor is about 111 dpi.
Learn, evolve...you are wrong with your old outdated 72dpi information..please get a clue. - BlitzPig_Sal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Specifying dpi for an image made more sense back when all of our images came from a scanner. In the digital photography age, the best advice to give to someone who needs to supply you an image for printing, retouching or any other post-produciton is to leave the size/resolution alone. Just stay out of the Image Size dialog altogether. If you try to tell someone you need a 300 dpi image, who knows what nonesense you'll get.
With even the highest res digital cameras, we need as many original pixels as possible. Let someone more professional do the resampling if it's necessary. With large format printing, you can get a surprisingly good print with a fairly low-res image since many large graphics are viewed from a distance anyway. - blastura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3God how I hate dpi, dpi is not dpi when people talk about it, it's ppi, when people say dpi they mean ppi, when photoshop writes dpi it really is ppi, that is the most confusing thing ever. Dpi is a really different thing that only concerns printers not digital material. Morning newspapers are printed at several thousands dpi, that doesn't mean the pictures are good quality prints, cause they are mostly sampled at 170 ppi. When photo-magazines say they need 300 dpi pictures for fine prints they really mean 300 ppi. DPI is confusing and I haven't seen any article to point it out exactly what dpi is without confusing it with ppi.
- deathscythe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0changing pixels per inch does nothing at all to the resolution, its still the same number of pixels in the image.
- blastura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Semantics well, last time I checked a pixel is not a dot, as soon as everyone starts to name what they are writing about what it really is it will get a lot easier to understand, commonly you can translate dpi to ppi which will make it a lot easier to comprehend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch
- JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If your pic has a certain amount of pixels..there is nothing you can do to add more pixels except get a higher quality image. You can't add pixels after the fact, enlarging the image enlarges the pixels giving you the blurryness you see when enlarging something too much.
- infinite411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was reading this article and tought i'd try my hand at upscaling an image for comparison purposes. So I got this image ie. it's a chick wearing a thong. I was doing a report on thongs for my thesis ;)
Ok here is the original image
http://filexoom.com/view/11331/Thong%20Contest.jpg
dimensions: 273 X 347
And after fiddling with in phothoshop for a couple of hours I came up with the following blow up.
http://filexoom.com/files/11331/Blowup.tif - haydenschoen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This article is worthless. I would be shocked only if the number of designers who don't know this is above 0! I thought it would be more about going from small image to big, which IS difficult and should have been addressed by more than the little paragraph at the end.
- justinlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amen.
- valugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is old stuff...
- infinite411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Please excuse the double post. Some info was cut short from my original post.
Ohh if you don't want your computer to hang forever while your browser loads the tiff file above. Right click and save as then open in phothoshop.
The final blow up dimensions are 1067 X 1360 pixels from a measily 273 x 347 image. I don't have a decent printer so if someone would mind printing the tiff and evaluating the results? If your interested in knowing how I achieved the blowup you can email at mydiggusername + gmail.com -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 