[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re[2]: style sheet scalability (was: Specifying style notati



     I have had luck with the idea that pixels form in groups of 4. and 
     therefore it might make sense to only change image size in groups of 4 
     as well. For instance, if you scan in at 72, then changing image size 
     to 144 would result in a better looking image than say resizing at 
     143. Keeping this in mind, I have been able to achieve smoother 
     looking graphics. 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: style sheet scalability (was: Specifying style notation 
Author:  www-style@w3.org at interport
Date:    12/5/95 2:19 PM


>> Legibility should normally be increased with a larger display area, 
>> assuming you don't get make the image too big for your display ;), as 
>> long as the number of pixels you use on your screen is an integral
>> multiple of the number in the bitmap.
     
This would work although it would still be a bit rough.  It would look far 
better than if the enlargment is *not* a multiple of the bitmap.
     
     
>OK. I'm confused here. It has been my experience that if you blow up 
>a GIF image too much, the image loses quality due to the face that 
>the image is a bunch of pixels being drawn absolutly. Text gets 
>"jaggies" quickly under this scenario. That is why Postscript
>uses algorythms to scale text larger instead of just blowing up 
>the pixels. I would assume that this would be true for many other 
>image types as well. Highly ditherable but not already dithered 
>images would benefit from being blown up better than others, but 
>images that the designer dithers suffer from scaling problems.
     
Sure - postscript is a great fix to the 'jaggies' but there are other 
methods of getting rid of 'em -- Photoshop is a great example of how to 
enlarge and smooth at the same time.  Anti-alias it!  PS can use several 
different schemes to "smooth" images and they all look pretty good.  What 
about a built in anti-aliaser?  Dithering doesn't do much with how the 
edges look -- it's a method for reducing colors or using fewer colors to 
approximate a graident (or more colors than are present).
     
     
>Can you explain "how" legibility increases with significant size 
>enlargement?
>
     
If using a bitmap it won't -- it will only appear to be smoother with 
significant size enlargments of a multiple of the bitmap size...  Whew, say 
that five times fast! ;)
     
=B-)  Jacob Cazzell
     
--
/------------------------------------+--------------------------------\ 
|Jacob Cazzell                       | My name is Ozymandias, king of | 
|jacobcaz@inetdirect.net             | kings:  Look on my works, ye   | 
|http://www.inetdirect.net/jacobcaz/ | mighty, and despair!           | 
\------------------------------------+--------------------------------/