Can anyone help convert an image to 300dpi...?

[luca brazzi]

I've got a few images taken with a digital camera, that I need converting to 300dpi for printing on to the Surrey Run 4 DVD. They are 72dpi at present, and the test print shows up as too grainy.

Can anyone please, please help. There's a free DVD to the one that can.

LB

[Bodo]

luca brazzi said:

I've got a few images taken with a digital camera, that I need converting to 300dpi for printing on to the Surrey Run 4 DVD. They are 72dpi at present, and the test print shows up as too grainy. Can anyone please, please help. There's a free DVD to the one that can. LB

How many pictures? Are the lot small enough to transfer them by email (ie. <5MB)?

[luca brazzi]

Bodo said:

luca brazzi said: I've got a few images taken with a digital camera, that I need converting to 300dpi for printing on to the Surrey Run 4 DVD. They are 72dpi at present, and the test print shows up as too grainy. Can anyone please, please help. There's a free DVD to the one that can. LB How many pictures? Are the lot small enough to transfer them by email (ie. <5MB)?

4 or 5 pictures, not too big.....

[Bodo]

Luca, YHM

[joust]

Err - 72dpi (if the scale is preserved) is fine for a DVD. The mask that is used to wok out the ink pattern is has a very low lines per inch rate to make the ink droplets much larger so they stick to the surface of the DVD.

Any image taken with a 2 megapixel+ digital camera (note not camcorder) should go easily to the size of an entire DVD without any problem.

So slightly confused.....????

J

[luca brazzi]

joust said:

Err - 72dpi (if the scale is preserved) is fine for a DVD. The mask that is used to wok out the ink pattern is has a very low lines per inch rate to make the ink droplets much larger so they stick to the surface of the DVD. Any image taken with a 2 megapixel+ digital camera (note not camcorder) should go easily to the size of an entire DVD without any problem. So slightly confused.....???? J

My mate just bought round a couple of samples using my material. The background looks stunning, but the pictures are very blocky....he said to get the pics at 300dpi and he'd try again. Just have to wait and see....

Joust, have you mailed the covers, or shall I come and pick them up?

Steve

PS Bodo, they look pretty good so far, so eternal thanks for that...will see how they print.

[joust]

Mailed - with you on Tue.

If they are blocky then there is something funny happening with the application you are using - upscaling to 300dpi would therefore help.

J

[AJLintern]

How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated

[miniman]

AJLintern said:

How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated

Correct. If they are 72dpi then that is the best you can get them.

[dontlift]

However they can be resamples at 300dpi which will remove much of the blockiness

[luca brazzi]

Bodo has kindly resampled using "the Gimp".

I'll use these for the DVD cover. The samples I got today show the .png images as quite blocky, but if that's as good as I can get, it'll be OK. Anything better will be a bonus.

Thanks to Bodo for the DVD image re-sampling and Joust for the box cover printing, its all pretty much complete. Just finished the bonus feature, and its creating the .avi which I will append to the video, and author the DVD. Voila, then off to the duplicator......finally.



LB

[luca brazzi]

Bodo has kindly resampled using "the Gimp".

I'll use these for the DVD cover. The samples I got today show the .png images as quite blocky, but if that's as good as I can get, it'll be OK. Anything better will be a bonus.

Thanks to Bodo for the DVD image re-sampling and Joust for the box cover printing, its all pretty much complete. Just finished the bonus feature, and its creating the .avi which I will append to the video, and author the DVD. Voila, then off to the duplicator......finally.



LB

[joust]

miniman said:

AJLintern said: How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated Correct. If they are 72dpi then that is the best you can get them.

Incorrect.

JoustFact(TM)

All image applications can resize upwards by using many technique to create the missing bits, usually bi-linear interpolation but there are many other wacky schemes out there.

It's a trick used a lot by many many 5 mega-pixel cameras - they actually only have 3 megapixel CCD's and bi-linear interpolate upwards.

It works for almost all images, as it's actually very easy to guess what the missing pixels should be given the surrounding pixels (think about it, if it needs to be a sharp edge, then there will be a step change in the pixels around it, if it needs to be smoot the surrounding pixels will be nearly the same)

See www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/photo_tutorials/21.shtml for a full run down.

J

[Bodo]

miniman said:

AJLintern said: How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated Correct. If they are 72dpi then that is the best you can get them.

A picture (ie. 640 x 480 pixel) will always have the same size on one screen, no matter if the resolution is set to the monitor's resolution (usually between 70...100dpi) or the printer's (usually between 300...1200dpi).

So what is changeing, when I change the image resolution from 100dpi to 300dpi?
a) Only meta information is changed then; no pixel will actually be touched.
b) The printer (printing software) will read that information and order the printer to print it three times smaller, but three times better in quality



Note the differences in the Print Size & Display Unit fields.


>> Edited to add: [advertising a free product] screenshots taken from and with TheGimp www.gimp.org

>> Edited by Bodo on Sunday 3rd August 14:10

[FourWheelDrift]

Bodo said:

miniman said: AJLintern said: How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated Correct. If they are 72dpi then that is the best you can get them. A picture (ie. 640 x 480 pixel) will always have the same size on one screen, no matter if the resolution is set to the monitor's resolution (usually between 70...100dpi) or the printer's (usually between 300...1200dpi). So what is changeing, when I change the image resolution from 100dpi to 300dpi? a) Only meta information is changed then; no pixel will actually be touched. b) The printer (printing software) will read that information and order the printer to print it three times smaller, but three times better in quality Note the differences in the Print Size & Display Unit fields. >> Edited to add: [advertising a free product] screenshots taken from and with TheGimp www.gimp.org >> Edited by Bodo on Sunday 3rd August 14:10

[Bodo]

Cheeky FourWheelDrift said:

says you of all people!

[AJLintern]

Ok - so if I have a desktop image that fills the screen at 800x600 and looks crisp, how would I make it fill the screen at say 1280x1024? After all the screen would be the same size. Is it just a matter of changing the resolution of the image?

[joust]

For that you would need to rescale it as above.

J

[Stig]

joust said:

miniman said: AJLintern said: How can you make the resolution higher? You'd need more information than the image file contains wouldn't you? If you use photoshop to increase the resolution it seems to be exactly the same as zooming to beyond 100% and goes all blocky and pixelated Correct. If they are 72dpi then that is the best you can get them. Incorrect. JoustFact(TM) All image applications can resize upwards by using many technique to create the missing bits, usually bi-linear interpolation but there are many other wacky schemes out there. It's a trick used a lot by many many 5 mega-pixel cameras - they actually only have 3 megapixel CCD's and bi-linear interpolate upwards. It works for almost all images, as it's actually very easy to guess what the missing pixels should be given the surrounding pixels (think about it, if it needs to be a sharp edge, then there will be a step change in the pixels around it, if it needs to be smoot the surrounding pixels will be nearly the same) See www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/photo_tutorials/21.shtml for a full run down. J

Incorrect

All you're doing is giving the 'impression' of a higher resolution image. The result is therefore soft and going from 72 to 300dpi is gonna be VERY soft.

You can't 'add' resolution, all you're doing is upping the SCALE of the image.

[rlk500]

One of the reasons I take all my dig. pics in largest possible size and best quality is that it gives you greater flexibility for any future playing. Think of it this way, if the source is crap then the end product, no matter how good the app., is always going to be compromised.

Another tip, don't play with jpg's. This is a lossy format and pixels are thrown away every time you make a change and re-save the file. If you are using photoshop, do all the mods. in .psd format.