Jump to content
RobinL

Primary image size and properties

Recommended Posts

When creating images for use as Primary Person Exhibits in TMG, these images have 2 important properties that will influence how they are output. These are DPI (dots per inch) and Pixels (number of pixels horizontally and vertically).

 

The DPI is used sometimes to set the size of the printed form of the image when outputting an item in a TMG report or chart. The number of pixels determines the quality of the output image (too few causes grainy "salt and pepper" images, while too many can be a waste of storage and processing for no visible gain).

 

Some TMG reports resize the image to fit a specific width (e.g. VCF charts, or FGS to screen), while output of the same image to a Wordprocessor file can show a very large or very small image.

 

I had a large number of images that had come from hi-res scans of photos and from digital cameras. I decided to crop them and re-sample them so that the retained piece was 300 pixels across by about 450 pixels high for passport like pictures for FGS, Individual Detail and VCF charts. I did not look at the DPI on each image. <=== WRONG

 

It seems as if Microsoft Word assumes a printing space at 300 DPI, therefore the same 300W * 450H image set at

- 300 DPI will be output as 1"W * 1.5"H,

- 75 DPI will be output as 4"W * 6"H,

- 1200 DPI will be output as 0.25" * 0.375"

 

So I have learnt that if you are attaching Primary Person Exhibit images not only do you want them to be a comparable number of pixels in each direction, BUT a constant DPI so that they come out the same size when they are output.

 

I am now re-editing the images just to change their DPI setting all to 300 DPI from the settings currently in use of 75,150, 300, 600, and 1200. (NOTE Always keep your unadjusted original in a separate folder as an archive!!)

 

What I have said above says nothing about the format of the image JPG, TIF, BMP, etc or the problems on compression artifacts,etc on the quality of the image.

 

I hope others will find this observation useful when saving copies of images for use in particular types of TMG reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

I don't use Open Office Writer.

 

Could you please share in more detail what are the implications of particular DPI and pixel values to to the size of an inserted image in OOW?

 

Robin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

 

I don't use Open Office Writer.

 

Could you please share in more detail what are the implications of particular DPI and pixel values to to the size of an inserted image in OOW?

 

Robin

Robin-

Ooo is freely available for download. It speaks for itself. Sun stock was up substantially at noon today in the USA.

Regards.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And then there is the default square size used by OpenOffice.org Writer.

 

I just began using OOo and also just scanned and attached my first image to TMG, so this is of interest. The photo was scanned at 96dpi at a size of 232 x 309 pixels, then reduced to 150 x 200 for use in TMG.

 

When I opened a test report (Ind Narr) with exhibits in OOo v2, the image was square and deformed (1.56in). I then double-clicked on the image and on the Type tab selected "Keep ratio" then clicked on "Original Size." The photo corrected itself to the proper dimensions (1.56 x 2.08in).

 

Thanks for this thread, Robin -- what wonderful timing!

 

Kathleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments, Kathleen.

 

I take it then that you have visit each and every image and manual make these two adjustments, what a PAIN!

 

If you produce an Individual Detail for a whole series of persons in one output, this is just as bad as (or actually worse than) Microsoft Word.

 

Is there any Preference/Option setting where these 2 settings can be made the default?

 

Life with computer was supposed to reduce the work not increase it :angry:

 

Robin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the comments, Kathleen.

 

I take it then that you have visit each and every image and manual make these two adjustments, what a PAIN!

 

If you produce an Individual Detail for a whole series of persons in one output, this is just as bad as (or actually worse than) Microsoft Word.

 

Is there any Preference/Option setting where these 2 settings can be made the default?

 

Life with computer was supposed to reduce the work not increase it :angry:

 

Robin

Robin-

Buried in rather lengthy forum thread in which I recently participated, I posted the following impressions MSWord and OpenOffice regarding image linking.

 

http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...?showtopic=4744

 

(quote)

Dick-

Well, it is possible to crash both MSWord 2002 and OpenOffice Writer 2.0 with these experiments. Word does seem to get a little flakier - flakier perhaps than OOo - when exhibit linking to original source paths is exported from TMG.

 

Word seems to default to clipping images with large pixel counts at the paper width, minus margin settings (8.5in -0.5 in -0.5 in = 7.5 in. in width). Word maintains the picture aspect ratio.

 

OOo Writer seems to default to square images of approximately 1.58 inch square size and does not initially display the correct aspect ratio unless the original was square. OOo expands thumbnails and shrinks large pixel count images to obtain this default 1.58 in. square size.

 

If OOo is in control of the file, and not in "read only" mode because the file is also open in Word, a couple of mouse clicks on EACH and EVERY individual image will fix the aspect ratio, and perhaps the size. I found no global override yet.

 

And, yes, Dick I did experiment with breaking paths by renaming folders containing "some" of the source graphics files. Results were predictably unpredictable. i.e. Maybe you get a link in Word right off the bat; maybe you don't. Doesn't matter if the link is broken or not if you select "footnote" export, it seems flaky.

 

It became apparent that TMG may try to save your bacon by maintaining a thumbnail image of the former external link until thumbnails are regenerated. This could cause a little confusion, however well meaning the procedure - but TMG does warn immediately that external exhibit links are broken.

 

In my limited experiments, it seemed that TMG was exporting more or less as advertised. However, at this point, I would be reluctant to blame either TMG or OOo Writer for linking experiments that do not go exactly as as perceived in MS Word on the Win XP platform.

Over and out,

John

(unqote)

 

I would also suggest the following caveat, or warning. If any image linking tests are performed on any Text Editor apps, including OOoWriter and MS Word, be sure to have only one application open at a time and close down all applications between tests.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the comments, Kathleen.

 

I take it then that you have visit each and every image and manual make these two adjustments, what a PAIN!

 

If you produce an Individual Detail for a whole series of persons in one output, this is just as bad as (or actually worse than) Microsoft Word.

 

Is there any Preference/Option setting where these 2 settings can be made the default?

 

Life with computer was supposed to reduce the work not increase it :angry: 

 

Robin

 

:angry: is right, Robin! I'm glad I am at least forewarned about possible problems -- it will save a lot of frustration. I do not have many images, but enough that this will be a bigger job than I thought.

 

Thanks to John for his info about OOo -- as I said, I only just started using the program, so all info is helpful.

 

BTW, what format do you use for your photos in TMG? I usually scan to TIFF for archive, then create JPGs to work with. I am terrible with all the numbers involved, and your little chart will be a handy reminder.

 

 

Kathleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, what format do you use for your photos in TMG? I usually scan to TIFF for archive, then create JPGs to work with. I am terrible with all the numbers involved, and your little chart will be a handy reminder.

 

 

I scan and archive as TIF also. For digital camera JPGs, I save with no compression (if possible) only rotating the original to make it easy to look through the thumbnails. The difficult images to use are the ones that are scanned from old newspapers with their screening or images that have too few pixels. Both of these create outcomes that look second rate when they are enlarged at all.

 

For TMG, I am mostly concerned with photos that are "passport-like" cropped shots and hence their size/properties. I have not tried to work with Event images or larger illustrations for books which have their problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very well (and I too scan and archive TIFs), but I'd say a big problem is the fact that many people would like to have images that are good for both Web and printing, and with current technology, that means double copies. So if a person usually outputs to Second Site and posts to the Web, they are probably making small, rather low-res copies, but then suppose the same person wants to print a nice chart with primary images for a reunion? Or does a printed book?

 

I've yet to hear that anyone has come up with a good solution to this, so if anyone has one, do post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karla,

 

Second Site's "Alternate Image Folder" feature seems like a good solution to me: you leave your TMG exhibit as a high-res image suitable for printing, and specify an alternate version for SS to use on your web site. Yes, it's two copies of the image, but TMG Utility can help you make the low-res version as can Irfanview and other image editors.

 

The SS feature allows you to change the image format as well as the resolution. So, for example, your TMG exhibit can be a TIFF but the alternate for SS can be a JPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karla,

 

Second Site's "Alternate Image Folder" feature seems like a good solution to me: you leave your TMG exhibit as a high-res image suitable for printing, and specify an alternate version for SS to use on your web site. Yes, it's two copies of the image, but TMG Utility can help you make the low-res version as can Irfanview and other image editors.

 

The SS feature allows you to change the image format as well as the resolution. So, for example, your TMG exhibit can be a TIFF but the alternate for SS can be a JPG.

 

Well, that's a thought. I had considered the SS feature awhile back but was not sure I wanted to go that way. It's true that Second Site is currently my primary output. I also was avoiding having a lot of big files in a directory that is copied onto my laptop, although now that I have a 100GB harddrive on the laptop, that's less of a concern.

 

Whether I go ahead and do this, it seems like it's worth recommending to others who haven't done quite as much with their images yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[snip]The difficult images to use are the ones that are scanned from old newspapers with their screening or images that have too few pixels. Both of these create outcomes that look second rate when they are enlarged at all.

 

Take a look at http://www.rgcle.com/stories/LeRoy's%20Monroe.PDF. The picture is from a newspaper; I used the "blur" feature of one of the editors (I forget which, I use both irfanview and LView). It can make an otherwise distracting picture usable.

 

Dick

 

BTW I use JPG for archiving. My experiments show that even with 75% compression factor I get fully acceptable fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×