images

[menu boy]

Why is it when I put a bmp image on my site, it prints out
smaller than the actual size? How do I fix it so it prints
the size it's supposed to? I used the width and height
commands and put in the exact size it was supposed to
be, but it still printed too small.

 

[Dylan Parry]

Why is it when I put a bmp image on my site,

First of all, don't use bitmap images on your pages. See:
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk/main/html_image_format

it prints out smaller than the actual size?

How do you mean? If you mean, "how come when I print a bitmap image it
looks smaller on paper than it does on screen?" Then the answer is because
your screen resolution is something like 72dpi but your printer is using
300dpi, so the image will look around 4 times smaller on paper than on
screen.

If that isn't the question, then I don't understand what you mean.

How do I fix it so it prints the size it's supposed to? I used the
width and height commands and put in the exact size it was supposed to
be, but it still printed too small.

You cannot force anything upon the visitor, but if it is the above
question that you were asking, then you need to have the image a hell of a
lot bigger than it was originally to print out at a decent size at 300dpi.

 

[menu boy]

First of all, don't use bitmap images on your pages. See:
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk/main/html_image_format

I'm using a bmp for my own uses, not for people browsing.

How do you mean? If you mean, "how come when I print a bitmap image it
looks smaller on paper than it does on screen?" Then the answer is because
your screen resolution is something like 72dpi but your printer is using
300dpi, so the image will look around 4 times smaller on paper than on
screen.

If that isn't the question, then I don't understand what you mean.

No. I made the image in Photoshop 7 and its dimensions are 4.5" x 3.5".
When I upload it, put it on a webpage and print it, it prints about an
inch smaller on the paper at *any* resolution I have my printer set.
When I print it from Photoshop, it prints normally.

 

[SpaceGirl]

I'm using a bmp for my own uses, not for people browsing.




No. I made the image in Photoshop 7 and its dimensions are 4.5" x 3.5".
When I upload it, put it on a webpage and print it, it prints about an
inch smaller on the paper at *any* resolution I have my printer set.
When I print it from Photoshop, it prints normally.

er... you cant measure images on screen in inches honey. What if I have
a 15" wide display running at 800x600 resolution. How big would your
image be in physical inches then? Now what happens if I increase my
resolution to 1024x768 on the same screen? Suddenly your image is 30%
smaller in physical inches. Now I run it on my 21" flat panel running at
1600x1200... your image would look tiny!

You CANNOT measure computer graphics in inches, only pixels.

PhotoShop will expand images when it prints them, as will other
programs, if your printer driver supports the feature. Basically you are
trying to achieve something that is not possible as it relies on
everyone on the planet having the exact same computer screen size,
running at exactly the same resolution, with exactly the same printer
and printer driver, AND exactly the same Operating System...

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[menu boy]

er... you cant measure images on screen in inches honey. What if I have
a 15" wide display running at 800x600 resolution. How big would your
image be in physical inches then? Now what happens if I increase my
resolution to 1024x768 on the same screen? Suddenly your image is 30%
smaller in physical inches. Now I run it on my 21" flat panel running at
1600x1200... your image would look tiny!

You CANNOT measure computer graphics in inches, only pixels.

PhotoShop will expand images when it prints them, as will other
programs, if your printer driver supports the feature. Basically you are
trying to achieve something that is not possible as it relies on
everyone on the planet having the exact same computer screen size,
running at exactly the same resolution, with exactly the same printer
and printer driver, AND exactly the same Operating System...

Since there isn't an infinite number of combinations screen sizes, printer
settings and OS', one would assume there would be software that would
make this possible.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Since there isn't an infinite number of combinations screen sizes, printer
settings and OS', one would assume there would be software that would
make this possible.

There isn't, so write it, or wait for Windows 6 (which supports window
scaling).

Your statement suggest very little understanding in the way computers
work.... really do some googling, and you'll see why this is NOT
something easily achieved.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Arondelle]

Since there isn't an infinite number of combinations screen sizes, printer
settings and OS', one would assume there would be software that would
make this possible.

Um, you can calculate the size that an image will print out based on the
number of pixels in the image vs the resolution of the printer. It has
nothing to do with monitor resolution. And printer resolutions can be
adjusted by the user.

An image 300 pixels wide will print out 1" wide on a 300dpi printer. If
you want that image to print out 5" wide on a 300dpi printer, then you
have to resize the image by 5 times or 1500 pixels -- which is
uncomfortably wide on the average monitor. If you have an image 100
pixels wide, then it will be 1/3" when printed out on that same printer.

Of course, it may just me me, but my Deskjet prints out webpages at
96dpi, not 300dpi. That 300 pixel wide image will print out at just
over 3" wide. The 100 pixel image will print out at just over 1". So,
the lower the dpi of the printer, the larger an image will print out on
a dot for pixel basis.

If you want to offer people images to print, make your images in various
resolutions (Coarse(96dpi), Medium(150dpi), Fine(300dpi) and, if you
dare, Photo(1200+dpi)) and then create links to the images for download
in the format of your choice rather than attempting to plug a
one-size-should-fit-all, non-web-friendly format image into a webpage.

Arondelle

 

[menu boy]

There isn't, so write it, or wait for Windows 6 (which supports window
scaling).

Your statement suggest very little understanding in the way computers
work.... really do some googling, and you'll see why this is NOT
something easily achieved.

Thank you for your condescending remarks. I can see what
you offer to this NG. Plonk.

 

[menu boy]

Um, you can calculate the size that an image will print out based on the
number of pixels in the image vs the resolution of the printer. It has
nothing to do with monitor resolution. And printer resolutions can be
adjusted by the user.

An image 300 pixels wide will print out 1" wide on a 300dpi printer. If
you want that image to print out 5" wide on a 300dpi printer, then you
have to resize the image by 5 times or 1500 pixels -- which is
uncomfortably wide on the average monitor. If you have an image 100
pixels wide, then it will be 1/3" when printed out on that same printer.

Of course, it may just me me, but my Deskjet prints out webpages at
96dpi, not 300dpi. That 300 pixel wide image will print out at just
over 3" wide. The 100 pixel image will print out at just over 1". So,
the lower the dpi of the printer, the larger an image will print out on
a dot for pixel basis.

If you want to offer people images to print, make your images in various
resolutions (Coarse(96dpi), Medium(150dpi), Fine(300dpi) and, if you
dare, Photo(1200+dpi)) and then create links to the images for download
in the format of your choice rather than attempting to plug a
one-size-should-fit-all, non-web-friendly format image into a webpage.

Thanks. I did finally figure that out and I know how I can
calculate to account for different variables.
And thanks for not being a prick (or c*nt) about it. I had no
idea that some people could be such dicks (or tw*ts) when
asking a simple question.

 

[Arondelle]

Thanks. I did finally figure that out and I know how I can
calculate to account for different variables.
And thanks for not being a prick (or c*nt) about it. I had no
idea that some people could be such dicks (or tw*ts) when
asking a simple question.

You're welcome, I guess.

I just happen to have been dealing with screen-to-print issues for 10
years, give or take. Internet programming may be a newish field for me,
but printing stuff isn't: used to be called Desktop Publishing.

I just don't claim to know everything, and I don't always have to be
right. Experts tend to wish to be treated as such, and don't always
have much patience with non-experts.

::shrugs:: Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Arondelle

 

[menu boy]

You're welcome, I guess.

I just happen to have been dealing with screen-to-print issues for 10
years, give or take.

Thanks for saving me 10 years.

Internet programming may be a newish field for me,
but printing stuff isn't: used to be called Desktop Publishing.

I just don't claim to know everything, and I don't always have to be
right. Experts tend to wish to be treated as such, and don't always
have much patience with non-experts.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

::shrugs:: Treat others as you wish to be treated.

I've been playing the Usenet game for over 10 years. I know
some people get off on themselves and I say, let them.
Thanks for your help.

 

[Frogleg]

That's because Photoshop is kindly doing the scaling conversion from
inches to pixels for you.

 

[Frogleg]

Thank you for your condescending remarks. I can see what
you offer to this NG. Plonk.

On the contrary, SpaceGirl was extremely patient in trying to explain
the concept. Just because the explanation didn't suit you is no reason
to be rude.

 

[menu boy]

On the contrary, SpaceGirl was extremely patient in trying to explain
the concept. Just because the explanation didn't suit you is no reason
to be rude.

There was no reason for *her* to be rude and condescending.

 

[Neal]

There was no reason for *her* to be rude and condescending.

I found her neither rude nor condescending, but matter-of-fact and
concise. Perhaps you don't like that.