Importing PDF problem

users
#41

very interesting, yes indeed :wink:

       well, the more I read this list, 'the more I seem to learn, yet the
stupider I feel' :wink:
               (the glorified typewriter has so surpassed me)

       I note you've used a 'new' word; acronymonious seems to fit well in
this saga -
           yet I hope you didn't mis-type acrimonious :wink:
               (oh, surely not)

#42

      very interesting, yes indeed :wink:

      well, the more I read this list, 'the more I seem to learn, yet the
stupider I feel' :wink:
              (the glorified typewriter has so surpassed me)

      I note you've used a 'new' word; acronymonious seems to fit well in
this saga -
          yet I hope you didn't mis-type acrimonious :wink:
              (oh, surely not)

I did not mistype. I went neologistic on you.

F.

#43

Hi :slight_smile:
Most on-line dictionaries (in the top 10 according to a google search) agree that
"A neologism is a newly coined term, word, or
phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not
yet been accepted into mainstream"
but my fav is Mirriam-Webster's bucking the trend amusingly
"a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

Even though it is not apt it's still quietly amusing, to me at least, sorry Felmon bud! :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#44

Hi :slight_smile:
Most on-line dictionaries (in the top 10 according to a google search) agree that "A neologism is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream"
but my fav is Mirriam-Webster's bucking the trend amusingly
"a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

Even though it is not apt it's still quietly amusing, to me at least, sorry Felmon bud! :slight_smile:

no problem but seriously, if the people in the telly were constantly sending _you_ neologisms, don't pretend it wouldn't unsettle you a bit too.

F.

#45

Hi :slight_smile:
They do and it does. :smiley:

This "mega pixel" malarky is hilarious.  Everyone else is racing to get more and more mega-pixels (is 12 or 16 mega-pixels the standard issue now?) so that they can have more noise and distortions and file-sizes like a herd of elephants trying to stampeded down my phone-line.  One company is trying to market a 4 Mega-pixels camera that gives a better quality image by not adding in random fuzziness.  However everyone is going to say "this 16 megapixels MUST be better than 4 right?  4 is old isn't it?".  meanwhile we getting stunning photos of Mars done on 'old' 2 megapixels cameras.  It wouldn't be quite so bad if "mega-pixel" really meant anything.  It clearly does NOT mean 1,000 pixels (or 1,024 in computers)
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#46

Tom,
+5
Don't get me started on this subject!
I use 640x480 (300K) on my photos, which are reasonable file sizes to attach to messages and they look good enough to me at 4x5 photo paper sizes. I have no intention of blowing my photos up to 8x10 or larger. That blowup is where the larger pixel count is good, but who does that regularly? I keep getting photos from relatives of their grandson, etc. that are so detailed I can see the pores on the kid's face, but I can't see the entire picture on the screen at once! It is frustrating to scroll around the photo on my screen to get some idea of what the photo is about. Sometimes I just don't bother. Life is too short.

One thing that is enabling this megapixel bloat is the increasing size of the memory cards. For example, my camera, at 640x480 (300K), is showing 9999 photos available with a few shots already on it and with an 8GB card. At 4608x3456 (16M), it is down to 1877 photos. Yes, it is a 16 megapixel camera.
Girvin

#47

I do lots of graphics in simulations, schematic layout and other areas
of my work. 640x480 works for photos, but not for high end graphics.

I routinely send my co-workers schematics encoded at 1920x1280 because
the small lines, some text and often critical details vanish at larger
pixel sizes or become unreadable.

I do not use PDF, but often PNG or JPEG as the exported file format
because they retain more data.

When one works with highly technical data and graphics, more detail is
warranted for publishing. IF it is to go into print, the added detail
allows the printing service to edit the pictures because they can see
all the content and you can tell them if any or all aspects are crucial
to understanding the document.

Many people do not understand the relationship between screen resolution
and sensor resolution and image quality. You still see many "home made"
videos even from large companies that do not recognize that screen
reproduction requires some rendering software to ensure no loss of
context or vital information.

  A resolution of 640x480, even at 5x7 actually presents data that is
fuzzy to look at in the details. It is Minecraft 2.0 graphics at best.

  Another example is when 640x480 information is in a slide presentation
which is then projected onto a screen that is say 6'x4', and each pixel
becomes about 0.1" in size. If you are say 5 feet from the screen, not
uncommon in most conference rooms, the data looks fuzzy at best.

  For a technical person this is hardly a testament to their skills at
using technology.

Regards,
Les H

#48

you're cute and knowledgeable - a great combination!

#49

ah, yes; and photography is such fun.

#50

Why not open the file in a viewer that lets you zoom the size? Gwenview
is one, GIMP is another. Probably a whole batch, some better than others.

--doug

#51

Hi :slight_smile:
I generally double-click on a picture to open it and then double-click on that to "full-screen it".  If it's larger than the screen the picture gets reduced in size to fit.  If i have a lot of pics to look through then instead of "Full-screening it" i go to the menus and choose

View - Slideshow

and use the keyboard arrows to flick through or just let it run
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#52

Tom,
Thanks, I will try that double-click next time.
Girvin

Hi :slight_smile:
I generally double-click on a picture to open it and then double-click on that to "full-screen it". If it's larger than the screen the picture gets reduced in size to fit. If i have a lot of pics to look through then instead of "Full-screening it" i go to the menus and choose

View - Slideshow

and use the keyboard arrows to flick through or just let it run
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

<snip>

#53

OOPS mispoke,
  JPEG is very lossy. I sometimes use TIFF, but most often for critical
work, I use raw bitmaps is what I meant to say. Mind and fingers in
constant conflict, and generally the bit that causes watery eyes and
confused brain takes over :0

Regards,
Les H