I used the 1400 x 1050 px size as that is what is required by my photo
club's projector. I just picked the 72ppi as that question is commonly asked.
Projector doesn't care what the ppi is as long as you uncheck the resampling
button. The resolution ppi only tells how large the print would be if
the file was printed.
The funny thing about the projector is that it doesn't accept the original
bmp format, only accepts jpegs and tiffs.
Roy
In a message dated 12/23/2012 11:11:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
1400 x
1050 px is a good size. Use 72ppi and then squash them with jpeg
>
compression. I have downloaded a few pic I posted to
Craig's list and
> they
> come out like 37 kb and still
look decent. I can't figure out how they do
> it.
>
Roy
>
They and many other sites simply use a compression
level around 80%
A bitmap and a jpeg at 100% are the same size in Mb
give or take a bit here
or there - which is no surprise since a jpeg is
just a compressed bitmap,
akin to a zip file but with more smarts allowing
you to decide which colours
are 'near enough' to run them
together.
A bitmap or a jpeg at 1000 ppi and the same bitmap or jpeg at
1 ppi (or
even no pixels per inch) will be the same size.. and they
will also display
at the same size in nearly every browser since ppi (dpi)
means nothing to a
browser, it's a function of printing - browsers just
display the pixels
present.. if it's 1000 x 10 that's what you get to see
and your monitor
resolution decides how big it looks to you viewing
it.
Specifying a restricted limit on size is still a good thing as
: A. not all
the world has fast interwebs; B. it
encoiurages people to think about how
size actually works; C.
it stops people from viewing an image in Photoshop
that's 3x4" on their
screen and sending it in as-is thinking 'there, that
should look nice!'
(while the guy on the receiving end has hysterics when
the 34,000 x 45,333
at 10,000 dpi image comes down the pipe and the 4 Tb
image eats their
drives)
