Office Picture Manager diffilculties Resizing Converting

As I understand the measure Pixel is a relative one, depending on
(screen/printer) resolution One pixel measures different. Yet pixels are
treated like something absolute, like one measure to add to centimeters and
inches.
Which therefor makes it difficult to convert 1000 pixels to a compareable
measurement.
Converting cm to inches is merely a question of multiplying a number, this
can never be done using pixels... Right?

Did I miss something?
--

picture manager doesn't
have all the fancy features
that a full fledge graphics
program can offer.

for example, in a full fledge
graphics program you can
set the image to 10 pixels
per inch and set the canvas to
be 20" by 30" which would
make overall size of the file
on the disk to be perhaps
2 megs.

but the above would be
a image of poor quality
unless you were being
artistic.

on the other hand you can
set an image to be 1000
pixels per inch and set the
canvas size to 4" x 6" which
would make the overall size
of the file on the disk to maybe
80 megs


so as you can see by the
above pixels are not absolute
or relative to the size of
the canvas

you just need to use a high
level graphics editor to manage
these variables.

incidentally, to print a good
looking 4 x 6 picture it should
have between 260 - 300
pixels per inch which would make
its file size around 2 megs.









--

db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen




"Vincent" wrote in message ...
As I understand the measure Pixel is a relative one, depending on
(screen/printer) resolution One pixel measures different. Yet pixels are
treated like something absolute, like one measure to add to centimeters and
inches.
Which therefor makes it difficult to convert 1000 pixels to a compareable
measurement.
Converting cm to inches is merely a question of multiplying a number, this
can never be done using pixels... Right?

Did I miss something?
--

No, a pixel is a unit of information it contains the color of a spot.
How many of those spots are placed in particular area is called
resolution. Whether you use CM or inches is immaterial as that is merely
defining the same area using a different unit of measure.

Vincent wrote:
As I understand the measure Pixel is a relative one, depending on
(screen/printer) resolution One pixel measures different. Yet pixels are
treated like something absolute, like one measure to add to centimeters and
inches.
Which therefor makes it difficult to convert 1000 pixels to a compareable
measurement.
Converting cm to inches is merely a question of multiplying a number, this
can never be done using pixels... Right?

Did I miss something?

In article , Vincent wrote:
As I understand the measure Pixel is a relative one, depending on
(screen/printer) resolution One pixel measures different.

If we're talking about pixels in an image file, a pixel is just a series of
numbers representing one color sample (dot if you like) in the image.

When the image is displayed or printed, it appears on a device that has
measurable pixel sizes (a 1200 dot per inch printer, for example).

Yet pixels are
treated like something absolute, like one measure to add to centimeters and
inches.

When a program imports an image, it usually needs to assign it some size in
inches/cm/whatever. It needs to know how large to display the image. Some
images can also contain data that says "Make me 5" wide" or similar. Some
don't. In the case of the ones that don't, the program has to make an
arbitrary decision; PowerPoint, for example, assumes 72 or 96 or some other DPI
value, depending on version. So a 1000 pixel image will import at 1000/72
inches.

Which therefor makes it difficult to convert 1000 pixels to a compareable
measurement.
Converting cm to inches is merely a question of multiplying a number, this
can never be done using pixels... Right?

Not sure I understand this last ... can you explain what you're after here?