As I understand it correctly the 'dpi' setting is irrelevant for monitor
viewing. Assuming the monitor allows displaying the full size of the
picture, the dimensions (pixels) of your picture determine which area of
the screen is occupied, *not* the 'dpi' setting of the picture.
When resizing, the algoritm used (with it parameters) determine the quality
of the resized image. The relation between the original dimensions and the
resized dimension will probably influence the quality of the resized
picture, but I expect the 'dpi' setting of the original picture to be
irrelevant as well.
So given the 900 pixel default viewing size of the gallery & the
actual algorithm used, there could be some native resolutions of the
original picture that give a better 900-resized picture then others. 1800
might be better then intermediate values, it is worth a try.
Best, Frank
2013/1/10 Bob Whitmire
> That brings up a question for your engineer, pixel-peeper types: Is there
> a set of best sizes for monitor display. Epson printers, for example,
> prefer 360 dots per inch. You don't have to abide by their preferences, but
> print quality sometimes suffers at the odder dpi. Is 1024 pixies a better
> display than, say, 1750? Or, if the original is 800, should the larger be
> at 1600?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|