Re: Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- From: "Ed" <ed_millis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:56:11 -0700
Thanks for adding to my understanding, though I'd like to get some
additional clarification, if you've got the time.
> Based on your original post, my impression is that print quality is not as
> much a concern as file size
Correct. Most of our docs, while they will be printed out at some point,
are stored on servers and emailed everywhere. I've seen hand-drawn diagrams
scanned on a full-page flat bed scanner, saved at 600 dpi, then inserted
into a document and cropped and resized at leisure. And everyone wonders
why their hard drives are sagging!
> What Jezebel is referring to is the resolution at which Word _stores_ the
> graphic for print purposes. It is always _displayed_ at 72/96 ppi (not
dpi,
> which is a printer measurement which _does not_ correlate on a 1:1 basis)
> because that is all the monitors are capable of - 72 ppi on Mac, 96 ppi on
> Windows. If you copy & paste, you are copying the displayed (low res)
image,
> not the stored image whose res may be higher.
So then the metadata (?? - may be the wrong term) in a document does store
two different sets of information for each graphic - the original size and
resolution, and the displayed size and resolution?
> Cropping & Resizing in Word don't change anything about an image, itself.
> The first essentially 'masks' the peripheral part of the image which the
> user doesn't want to display or print, but doesn't _remove_ any of the
image
> content - you can stretch it back again with the Cropping Tool to display
> the whole image any time you want. Likewise, 'resizing' would be more
> accurately termed 'scaling' as it also simply determines what amount of
> display space the image is allowed to occupy in the doc. It doesn't change
> the size of the image, either.
But you have also just added more information Word needs to store, right?
Whereas if the graphic had been resized from 6 x 4 at 600 ppi to fit the
space in the document at a lower resolution before Inserting, Word would
have much less info to save, resulting in a smaller doc size, yes?
> >>> A Test Director will take a 6 inch wide by 4 inch high
> >>> digital photo at 600 dpi, making the image 3600 pixels wide by 2400
> >>> pixels high.
> Digital Cameras don't set the print dimensions as a part of the image
> format, they simply capture a certain number of pixels (. . . . )
> >>> When imported into Word, which defaults to either 72 or 92 dpi, that
> >>> photo (at 72 dpi) is still 3600 by 2400 pixels, but is now 50 inches
> >>> wide by 33 inches high!
> A per above, the number of pixels remain the same, but the print
dimensions
> aren't influenced in any way
I was referring to the displayed size of the photo when Inserted into a
document, because that's what will cause them to reach for the crop tool and
the resizing handles. When talking about the display, is my reasoning
correct (because the number of pixels are the same, but the display
resolution is much smaller, the displayed size of the photo will grow
proportionately)? If not, then what causes the display bloat?
> >> Never put a
> >> picture
> >> into Word by copy-and-paste from another application.
I am often given reference documents and told to use the graphics in it for
my report. Is that when you use the "Save As Web Page" trick? Will that
yield the image at the original size and resolution, versus the displayed
image captured by Copy?
Thanks so much for helping!
Ed
"CyberTaz" <onlygeneraltaz1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C0052F5C.D576%onlygeneraltaz1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Ed -
>
> Just some further annotation to your annotation;
>
> >> A couple of tidbits to throw in:
> >>
> >> 1. Word's default resolution for imported pictures is accessible on
Tools
> >>
> >> Options > General : Web options. (For later versions of Word. Prior to
> > ?2000
> >> it was fixed at 96 dpi.)
> > I checked mine (Word 2000) - it's actually 120 dpi. But if I copy a
graphic
> > and paste it into a graphics program, the new graphic is usually 72 or
96
> > dpi.
>
> What Jezebel is referring to is the resolution at which Word _stores_ the
> graphic for print purposes. It is always _displayed_ at 72/96 ppi (not
dpi,
> which is a printer measurement which _does not_ correlate on a 1:1 basis)
> because that is all the monitors are capable of - 72 ppi on Mac, 96 ppi on
> Windows. If you copy & paste, you are copying the displayed (low res)
image,
> not the stored image whose res may be higher.
>
> >> 2. The displayed size of an imported picture is the effectively the
> >> picture
> >> size in pixels divided by Word's display resolution (which is sort of
what
> >> you describe). There is no increase in memory involved.
> > Maybe "memory" is the wrong word. I'm talking about when you import a
200k
> > graphic andf your document size balloons up by a few megs! The space
> > required for the document has now increased.
>
> Actually, 'file size' is what you are referring to, and yes, Word does
have
> a tendency to bloat when graphics are inserted. How much will vary based
on
> numerous factors, such as the points made in #1, above. The more Pixels
Per
> Inch, the larger the image file size.
>
> >> 3. Word is lousy at manipulating graphics. By far the best approach to
> >> handling graphics is to prepare them using a graphic editor: make any
> >> display adjustments like contrast and brightness, then set the size and
> >> resolution that you want to end up with in your finished document, then
> >> save
> >> the graphic as a gif or jpg, then import that into Word. Never put a
> >> picture
> >> into Word by copy-and-paste from another application.
> > Actually, that's part of what this is supposed to do - get management to
> > realize that we need a separate graphics program. But while those
wheels
> > slowly turn, at least my coworkes can understand some of what's going on
and
> > what not to do.
>
> Based on your original post, my impression is that print quality is not as
> much a concern as file size, so have them follow Jezebel's advice here -
she
> knows whereof she speaks... JPGs for photographic images which have a wide
> range of tones, GIFs or PNGs for images of mostly solid color areas (as
they
> are limited to 256 colors, JPGs are 'unlimited'). And always use
> Insert>Picture>From File, not Copy & Paste. To extend on my note on point
> #2, at any given res (ppi), more inches means more pixels means larger
> files. If the intended space in the doc will be .75 x .5, supplying an
image
> intended to print as 4" x 6" at the same res is like stuffing the doc at
> Krispy Kreme.
>
>
> >>> A Test Director will take a 6 inch wide by 4 inch high
> >>> digital photo at 600 dpi, making the image 3600 pixels wide by 2400
> >>> pixels high.
>
> Digital Cameras don't set the print dimensions as a part of the image
> format, they simply capture a certain number of pixels based on the
> resolution setting used for the shot. The total number of pixels captured
> determines how large a print can be made without losing detail/quality.
Most
> in-house printing requires no more than 240-300 ppi, commercial output
> considerably higher (600-2400+ ppi), screen display considerably lower
> (72-96 ppi).
>
> >>> When imported into Word, which defaults to either 72 or 92 dpi, that
> >>> photo (at 72 dpi) is still 3600 by 2400 pixels, but is now 50 inches
> >>> wide by 33 inches high!
>
> A per above, the number of pixels remain the same, but the print
dimensions
> aren't influenced in any way.
>
> >>> Word will dutifully increase the memory required by
> >>> the document by enough memory space to contain the full-size photo.
After
> >>> cropping and resizing by the writer, Word has now also saved all the
> >>> metadata required to show the photo at the adjusted size.
>
> Cropping & Resizing in Word don't change anything about an image, itself.
> The first essentially 'masks' the peripheral part of the image which the
> user doesn't want to display or print, but doesn't _remove_ any of the
image
> content - you can stretch it back again with the Cropping Tool to display
> the whole image any time you want. Likewise, 'resizing' would be more
> accurately termed 'scaling' as it also simply determines what amount of
> display space the image is allowed to occupy in the doc. It doesn't change
> the size of the image, either.
>
> Regards |:>)
>
.
- References:
- Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- From: Ed
- Re: Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- From: Jezebel
- Re: Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- From: Ed
- Re: Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- From: CyberTaz
- Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cannot view images / graphics in Word 2002
- Previous by thread: Re: Do I understand how Word deals with graphics?
- Next by thread: Re: Seeing BMP files in Word
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
