TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Jennifer <jrondeau -at- OREGON -dot- UOREGON -dot- EDU> wrote:
<snip>
> I've played around w/ different graphics formats and w/ different
> SnagIt resolutions, but I'm still not happy w/ my output. So far what
seems
> to work best is a GIF file at (I'm still fiddling w/ it) around 150 dpi in
> SnagIt, but it's still not very good, and on principle I'm not a fan of
the
> GIF format. Any other variables I should try tweaking? Other ways of
> scaling?
I've been very pleased with the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format. It
doesn't have the 256-color (8-bit) limit of GIF (or the licensing
uncertainties...), and a 24-bit PNG is barely larger than the equivalent
8-bit GIF.
<snip>
> One thing that has me puzzled is that SnagIt's resolution setting doesn't
seem
> to affect what I think of as resolution at all -- it simply makes output
> (depending on the application) a different size. This variable does seem
to
> be dependent also on file format, but I still haven't figured out entirely
> how.
A screen capture is a fixed number of pixels/dots wide and tall. The only
way to change that is for the software to discard some of the pixels it
captured or insert additional ones (interpolating from what's there). For
screen shots, neither is a good idea.
For instance, if your monitor is set to 1024x768 and you capture a window
half the width of your monitor, the screen shot will be 512 pixels wide. To
make the math simple, let's assume that your monitor's display area (not the
diagonal tube size) is about 13.6 inches wide; then, it displays about 75
dpi (dots per inch) (512 pixels/13.6 inches = 75 dpi). The window you
captured will be 6.8 inches wide when displayed or printed at 100%, and, of
course, it has the same resolution as your screen (75 dpi).
When you tell the software "I want 150 dpi," it adjusts the image so that
the same 512 dots take up half as much space (512 pixels/150 dpi = 3.4
inches). On screen, of course, you only see half of them (unless you zoom in
to 200%) because your monitor can only display 75 dpi. But in print, you'll
get a 150 dpi image that's 3.4 inches wide -- half the width and twice the
resolution of the original. That's just how bitmapped images work -- you're
stuck with the original number of dots. All you can do is decide how widely
or narrowly to space them, which determines the size.
HTH!
Richard
------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Voyant Technologies, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT voyanttechDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT freeDASHmarketDOTnet
303-777-0436
------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
