If I can view a 1280x768 image on my monitor...

[speg]

If I can view a 1280x768 image on my 19" inch monitor, and for all intensive purposes it looks fine. Why can I not print it out on the same size of paper and get the same quality? Why?! Maybe I'll just get a 19" LCD and frame it on the wall.... I could do that someday...

 

[djNickb]

Um, your printer has to support the same resolution

 

[Heisenberg]

Because your printer probably doesn't have near enough the resolution.

 

[speg]

But if it did... I could right? But it was taken with a 2 MP camera. I thought they couldn't get prints over 4x6 without too much jaggies... How much DPI would I need... How much DPI are there on a monitor... ( 1280 / width )?

 

[djNickb]

If the image is 1280x768 and you wanted to duplicate that with your printer, it would need to support at least 1280x768 or higher.

 

[notfred]

Your monitor displays images at roughly 90dpi. What you're used to as "quailty" printed work (stuff like magazines) is printed at about 350dpi. Of course, if you print stuff at 90 DPI, it wont look as good as stuff printed at 350dpi. The paper also doesn't have the advantages of being back lit.

Also, color doesn't bleed on an LCD. If you're not using high quality paper, tthe ink in your print will bleed.

 

[rh71]

This isn't a grammar forum, but just so you don't embarrass yourself in the future elsewhere or in real life... it's "intents and purposes".

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: rh71
This isn't a grammar forum, but just so you don't embarrass yourself in the future elsewhere or in real life... it's "intents and purposes".

really?

 

[alkemyst]

have some patients too RH71

1 problem is paper and monitor aren't the same aspect ratio some of the times.

11x17 is a close to 19" monitor size you'd have cropping on the 17" side.

There is a lot of reasons why images don't look as good on paper printed than they did on the screen.

There is also a big difference of how much 'jaggyness' is acceptable to someone and another.

Å

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: redly1

Originally posted by: rh71
This isn't a grammar forum, but just so you don't embarrass yourself in the future elsewhere or in real life... it's "intents and purposes".

really?

I don't know, what makes more sense to you ?

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: redly1

Originally posted by: rh71
This isn't a grammar forum, but just so you don't embarrass yourself in the future elsewhere or in real life... it's "intents and purposes".

really?

Yes, really.

It is "for all intents and purposes", not "for all intensive purposes"

Confused

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: rh71
This isn't a grammar forum, but just so you don't embarrass yourself in the future elsewhere or in real life... it's "intents and purposes".

Wong!! He was right, it's "intensive pourposes". Me fail english? That's unpoissible!

 

[speg]

I think then... that if I want to display some pictures on the wall. I should set up an LCD with like a little computer tucked away somewhere with all the images rotating every now and again. That'd be pretty neat? Arn't there already some digital picture fram thingy's like that?

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: speg
I think then... that if I want to display some pictures on the wall. I should set up an LCD with like a little computer tucked away somewhere with all the images rotating every now and again. That'd be pretty neat? Arn't there already some digital picture fram thingy's like that?

Or you could just buy a decent painting or two for less than the cost of another computer.

 

[speg]

Bah! What good would that be? I think it'd be much neater to see various pictures of whatever ( family / landscapes / vacations / porn ) on your wall that changes rather than one or two painting that always stay the same...

 

[HonkeyDonk]

Originally posted by: speg
Bah! What good would that be? I think it'd be much neater to see various pictures of whatever ( family / landscapes / vacations / porn ) on your wall that changes rather than one or two painting that always stay the same...

you're an idiot.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: speg
I think then... that if I want to display some pictures on the wall. I should set up an LCD with like a little computer tucked away somewhere with all the images rotating every now and again. That'd be pretty neat? Arn't there already some digital picture fram thingy's like that?

Yes small though.

If you got cash to hand a 19" screen to use for picture purposes they probably have one that can display a still shot off flash media out there.

Å

 

[rh71]

My buddy from work did a digital picture frame... here. Quite the innovator he is (with other projects too).

 

[DeadByDawn]

Originally posted by: speg
Bah! What good would that be? I think it'd be much neater to see various pictures of whatever ( family / landscapes / vacations / porn ) on your wall that changes rather than one or two painting that always stay the same...

Text

 

[Amorphus]

ahem, sir

 

[DeadByDawn]

Originally posted by: Amorphus
ahem, sir

Now THAT is Cool!!!!!!!