Question about sizing JPGS. Anyone?

If I scan them at 300dpi, full size, what would be a good size and res, or
dpi, to drop them down to so that I can get more on the cd, yet allow someone to increase the size back to original without losing too much quality.

You can’t. You can’t increase the pixel dimension of an image without losing quality.

JPEG files are compressed; fitting a large number of JPEGs onto a CD should not be that big a deal. (You also don’t need 300 pixels per inch for consumer-grade inkjet printers; you’ll see little benefit with an average consumer inkjet printer above 240 pixels per inch or so.)

I imagine it’s a trade-off along the line but I would like to keep degradation to a minimum.

If quality is important, I question using JPEG in the ifrst place; just by saving as JPEG you degrade quality. Any Windows computer can use a .bmp file, and it’s not degraded.

How important is quality? Why not just burn multiple CDs?

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

If I scan them at 300dpi, full size, what would be a good size and res, or
dpi, to drop them down to so that I can get more on the cd, yet allow someone to increase the size back to original without losing too much quality.

You can’t. You can’t increase the pixel dimension of an image without

losing

quality.

JPEG files are compressed; fitting a large number of JPEGs onto a CD

should not

be that big a deal. (You also don’t need 300 pixels per inch for

consumer-grade

inkjet printers; you’ll see little benefit with an average consumer inkjet printer above 240 pixels per inch or so.)

I imagine it’s a trade-off along the line but I would like to keep degradation to a minimum.

If quality is important, I question using JPEG in the ifrst place; just by saving as JPEG you degrade quality. Any Windows computer can use a .bmp

file,

and it’s not degraded.

How important is quality? Why not just burn multiple CDs?
—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Take a mean-size (of the collection) image and save as a TIF file, compressed. Do the arithmetic and see if the whole collection will fit on a CDROM. (TIF has no information loss.)

(To get a rough mean, just sort the directory window by file size and look at the middle of the list.)

"Tacit" wrote in message

If I scan them at 300dpi, full size, what would be a good size and res, or
dpi, to drop them down to so that I can get more on the cd, yet allow someone to increase the size back to original without losing too much quality.

You can’t. You can’t increase the pixel dimension of an image without

losing

quality.

JPEG files are compressed; fitting a large number of JPEGs onto a CD

should not

be that big a deal. (You also don’t need 300 pixels per inch for

consumer-grade

inkjet printers; you’ll see little benefit with an average consumer inkjet printer above 240 pixels per inch or so.)

I imagine it’s a trade-off along the line but I would like to keep degradation to a minimum.

If quality is important, I question using JPEG in the ifrst place; just by saving as JPEG you degrade quality. Any Windows computer can use a .bmp

file,

and it’s not degraded.

How important is quality? Why not just burn multiple CDs?
—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Thanks,
It’s not that I want to use jpg’s. I can’t use tiff files because some of the people that I give this disc to won’t understand them. I need to keep it pretty simple for them, lol.
When you talk about degradation with jpg’s, how much are we talking about? The image will be resized and printed. It won’t be used in any production, just printed and cut out.
240 ppi will help save some space. I’ll just make them full size, about 7" at the widest. BMP files are certainly a thought. Aren’t they a bigger file than a jpg, or tiff?
Thanks a bunch for your replies.
T

When you talk about degradation with jpg’s, how much are we talking about?

Depends on the quality level setting, and on whether or not you have edited and re-saved a JPEG.

The JPEG file format was developed to make files smaller on disk by deliberately degrading quality. It’s intended for situations where file size is critically important and quality is not important–such as the Web. It gets tose small file sizes by discarding information. The lower the quality setting when you save, the more the image is degraded.

The degredation is irreversible and cumulative. Nothing can get the quality back, and if you open a JPEG and re-save it, the quality is degraded more.

BMP files are certainly a thought. Aren’t they a bigger file than a jpg, or tiff?

They are bigger than a JPEG. They are approximately the same size as a standard (uncompressed) TIFF.
—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Tour wrote:

Hi all.
I am filling a cd with 12×12 labels to print out on an inkjet printer at a later time.
I need to use jpgs, as I will be sending them to a few people that won’t be able to use much else and obviously gifs aren’t the hot ticket for printing. If I scan them at 300dpi, full size, what would be a good size and res, or dpi, to drop them down to so that I can get more on the cd, yet allow someone to increase the size back to original without losing too much quality.
I imagine it’s a trade-off along the line but I would like to keep degradation to a minimum.
By the way, I am saving them all as psd files and will batch convert them to jpgs when I am done.

What exactly are on the labels?

Stuart

Scans of fruit labels. post cards and greeting cards. All pre 60’s.

"Stuart" wrote in message

Tour wrote:

Hi all.
I am filling a cd with 12×12 labels to print out on an inkjet printer at

a

later time.
I need to use jpgs, as I will be sending them to a few people that won’t

be

able to use much else and obviously gifs aren’t the hot ticket for

printing.

If I scan them at 300dpi, full size, what would be a good size and res,

or

dpi, to drop them down to so that I can get more on the cd, yet allow someone to increase the size back to original without losing too much quality.
I imagine it’s a trade-off along the line but I would like to keep degradation to a minimum.
By the way, I am saving them all as psd files and will batch convert

them to

jpgs when I am done.

What exactly are on the labels?

Stuart

Well, I’m glad I’m saving all of the scans as psd files! I guess I can batch them all to bmp. There will be a little less on the discs, I’ll just have to make more discs, lol
Thanks. BIG HELP!

"Tacit" wrote in message

When you talk about degradation with jpg’s, how much are we talking

about?

Depends on the quality level setting, and on whether or not you have

edited and

re-saved a JPEG.

The JPEG file format was developed to make files smaller on disk by deliberately degrading quality. It’s intended for situations where file

size is

critically important and quality is not important–such as the Web. It

gets

tose small file sizes by discarding information. The lower the quality

setting

when you save, the more the image is degraded.

The degredation is irreversible and cumulative. Nothing can get the

quality

back, and if you open a JPEG and re-save it, the quality is degraded more.

BMP files are certainly a thought. Aren’t they a bigger file than a jpg, or tiff?

They are bigger than a JPEG. They are approximately the same size as a

standard

(uncompressed) TIFF.
—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

[snip]

BMP files are certainly a thought. Aren’t they a bigger file than a jpg, or tiff?

They are bigger than a JPEG. They are approximately the same size as a standard
(uncompressed) TIFF.

I believe the .bmp format also supports lossless compression, at least at certain bit-depths.

—
Odysseus