Professional Web Applications Themes

smoothing, email ,etc. - Adobe Photoshop Elements

Can someone please help me help Ernie here. I have not been able to explain things so that he's getting what I say. Here's my last email from him: Resampling is BAD -- the reason it is bad is that pixels are lost and quality goes down. You NEVER want to do this with a photo file version you are going to print, as you have pointed out. But pixels are data points, and to get the file size down for e-mailing some pixels have to go. This is resampling as I understand resampling. Some algorithm must choose which pixels ...

  1. #1

    Default smoothing, email ,etc.

    Can someone please help me help Ernie here. I have not been able to explain things so that he's getting what I say. Here's my last email from him:

    Resampling is BAD -- the reason it is bad is that pixels are lost and
    quality goes down. You NEVER want to do this with a photo file version
    you are going to print, as you have pointed out. But pixels are data points,
    and to get the file size down for e-mailing some pixels have to go. This
    is resampling as I understand resampling. Some algorithm must choose which
    pixels are saved, and which pixels are lost, or new points must be created
    that is some sort of average in the matrix. This is smoothing, I think.
    The algorithms can differ, from one program to another for this smoothing.





    Does this make sense? Everything I have read leads me to this conclusion.
    I have seen this discussed by the "all knowing" F Shippey (or is it "know
    it all"?). When you raise the resolution, and do no resampling, the image
    size is reduced to more printable size, but no pixels are lost -- in other
    words the grid is more densely populated by data points). If you, on the
    other hand, were to change the dimension from say 27 inches by 36 inches
    (as seen on many digital cameras) to 8 inches by 10.667 inches (same proportions)
    and allowed resampling to take place, then pixels (and quality) would
    be lost.




    Thanks
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: smoothing, email ,etc.

    Barb, the value judgment of resampling being 'bad' has been debated
    regularly, as you know, and I've always been one of those who felt that any
    upsampling (adding pixels) is bad and should be avoided. However, our
    expert professional photographer, Leen Koper, has reported on the great
    success he has achieved in making megaprints by a highly rigorous upsampling
    regimen. So I guess it's a matter of what you're starting with and what
    your endpoint is. The computer sees nothing but pixels, so the inches are
    just a reference for printing. If I have an image that's 3000 pixels by
    2000 pixels (starting point) and I need to wind up with an image that will
    fit on by screen that's, say 800 pixels by 533 pixels (endpoint), I've got
    to ditch a bunch of pixels - that's resampling/downsampling; no choice,
    gotta do it. If, on the other hand I have a 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels
    image (starting point) and I need to make a print that's 200 pixels per inch
    and 30 inches by 20 inches (endpoint), I'm going to have to add pixels
    because I need 6000 pixels by 4000 pixels to give me that 200 ppi resolution
    that's my minimum for printing (could have used 300 ppi, but the math is
    tougher...!) - that would be resampling/upsampling. Ideally, I would print
    that 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels as a 15 inch by 10 inch at 200 ppi; that
    would involve no resampling.

    The key is to think in terms of pixel dimensions, then switch to linear
    dimensions only when faced with printing.

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: smoothing, email ,etc.

    Barbara and Chuck,

    I am reluctant to write as I view both of you my mentors, but when communication problems exist, sometimes another view can clarify things. If I understand Ernie's problem, I believe he is objecting in any reduction in file size and /or pixel numbers as he will lose data. I think he is right!

    I would discourage him from using the term "smoothing" as that is not an accepted term with a fairly uniform definition. Coining of new words and phrases should be left to the experts for new situations. Beginners need to learn the accepted language.

    So there he is. If he is a purist and will not give up any info, let him deal with those problems. I can relate as I have had my stubborn spells of ideological purity until practical reality beats my head in. When the problems of long transmission times and pixel numbers too large to view without scrolling become too much, he will seek the solutions of which we know "save for web" works so well. He can save a PSD of the original for print work or enlarging, and learn that a monitor pixel gives much more information than a pixel of print.

    This may be totally off base. Please let us know how it goes.

    Carl
    carl sutherland Guest

Similar Threads

  1. 3D Object Smoothing
    By macrobob in forum Macromedia Director 3D
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 25th, 07:49 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 16th, 07:48 PM
  3. smoothing images
    By stylelabs in forum Macromedia Flash Sitedesign
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 10th, 04:09 PM
  4. smoothing out my transitions
    By spesh webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Director Basics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 1st, 12:13 AM
  5. OT - Image Smoothing = Anti aliasing?
    By Lloydie in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 30th, 04:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139