Well, nobody else seems to have looked into this, so here goes....
The 562kb image on your site, fern-label.BMP, is only 438x438 pixels,
which is just right: 438*438*3/1024=562. With an image size of 6x6
inches, that is 72ppi and the individual pixels are each 1/72" square.
The very definition of pixelation is pixels large enough to be
individually seen, and that's what you have here.
Considering that the image that created the actual label went through
compression and resizing and lost a lot of dynamic range somewhere in
the process of printing/scanning, it looks remarkably similar to the
original. They couldn't make up resolution they didn't receive.
My guess would be that you need to send a label with at least 150dpi
resolution and probably higher to the label producer to get the kind of
results you want. This means an uncompressed image of at least 2.4mb and
probably more like 10mb. The label maker should be able to guide you on
this. They should know what input they need. Even with compression, you
will need to get a fairly large file to them.
On another point I've made before, scanning off a 4x6 print looses a lot
of detail and dynamic range. Even if the image will eventually be
reduced and loose range in the printing process, starting with a film
scan will give better end results. If the image was scanned and printed,
is it possible to get the scan and start with that? In this particular
case, working backward, if the print was scanned at 400dpi and the image
ended up at 438x438 pixels, the image used for the cover was only
slightly bigger than 1" square on the print, hardly the best start to
the reproduction process. If you can't get a higher res film scan, can
you get a bigger print? Going to 8x10 (or just an 8x, 4x6 of the desired
area) would double your resolution. A 16x enlargement would quadruple
it, giving an image of the area used for the label just over 4x4". Scan
that on the flatbed and you will lose a bit of dynamic range, but at
least you will have enough resolution.
It's a lovely image and design and I'll bet the CD it goes on is a
unique resource. It deserves the best.
Moose
Brian Swale wrote:
Query on how to get a better image for a stick-on CDROM label.
Hi folks,
I've just made my first CDROM stick-on label and I'm not happy with the
results
See http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/Cdrom/
There is the original scan produced (see the first page) as follows:
Photographed on transparency
Transparency scanned and printed as a 4 x 6 inch glossy print
Print scanned using a KTX 4800AP flatbed scanner at 400 dpi under the
control of the program CDLaboratory and saved as a BMP image.
143kb (I had eventually to upload a jpeg copy as the 563 kb BMP image
persistently wouldn't up/down-load accurately).
I took this image and used a variety of Adobe Photoshop to add the text as a
separate layer, saving it again as a bmp image.
Then, below, it is as submitted to the UBIX photocopier laboratory
They used the NERO cdburner program to slightly resize it and fit it to the
particular Avery stick-on label page they use.
Note that there is little pixelation in the jpeg/bmp and the added text has
clear borders.
Use your browser to magnify the image 300% to bring it up to about the size
of the label print.
........................................
The UBIX photocopier laboratory used a Konica (that's the in-house UBIX
copier brand) to produce the printed label.
What I noticed immediately was severe pixelation in the colour photocopier
image on the stick-on label
To get this image I scanned the Konica print at 400 dpi and saved it as a
JPEG, which I resized to bring the file size down from 702 kb to 502 kb.
You may need to bring the browser image down to 30%.
To my surprise I have not been able to reproduce the pixelation that I find so
offensive, including the pixelation of the text.
None of these images have been sharpened.
One alternative that has been suggested to me by my computer-
maintenance guy, is to use a colour printer that is able to print directly on
the CDROM top surface.
Comment and specifics on this will be much appreciated.
PS; don't feel you NEED to look at these images; if you ALL download them
my ISP bill will be through the roof. They are nothing remarkable.
Taken with an OM - forget for now which one, and probably a 50 mm lens.
Took about 15 minutes stooped over the frond to get the shot with a fitful
wind blowing and couldn't use a tripod due to site limitations.
Cheers, Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|