Mac OS 9 Lives
General => Off Topic => Topic started by: FBz on November 17, 2021, 05:35:02 PM
-
“Full” Screenshots and / or “other” image files.
Re-sizing images for Forum posting / attachments - or display.
Elementary perhaps to some, to others… not so much.
Here’s a fullscreen 1920 x 1200 (El Capitan) screenshot of a desktop (re-sized in Photoshop for purposes here).
The original screenshot was 26.667 inches wide and 16.667 inches high! (@72 ppi). Much too large for posting here.
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9291;image)
Now just imagine the above image at full original size on a 640x480 or 800x600 monitor!
Notice the default “Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement)” Photoshop default for Resampling.
You don’t want that… very poor overall image quality & detail results when reducing size.
Instead, Bilinear works best for most image reductions. (Actually used for image above.)
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9293;image)
Notice that the overall file size was reduced from 6.59M to 1.12M
… when reducing first image to 11” x 6.875” size, from the original size of 26.667” x 16.667”
Still that’s large for Forum display and typically, prefer to keep images 9” wide or less.
But a 9” width here, “mucks up” the very small image details. Unreadable folder titles.
Seriously, how often does one need to show an entire desktop anyway?
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9295;image)
Settings for the above 9” wide image.
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9297;image)
A Command + Shift + 4 selection… of a specific area - then Bilinear down-sized below.
Such an image capture, rotated 90˚ - and now you can actually read the folder name(s).
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9299;image)
And images here are all “click-able” - to display their full sizes, per click.
Images initially displayed (or embedded within text) under 400 pixels wide - makes it easier for those on older machines… w/ smaller screens & display capabilities. If you’re only going to add images as attachments… reducing image file sizes or overall dimensions in this manner is also a good thing.
*Used Photoshop in all above examples but same /similar is possible with other image editing software apps. (Like Graphic Converter, etc.)
And now, to possibly mud-i-fy all of this a little bit more…
Here’s a gratuitous image of the MotoGP GOAT!
Valentino Rossi / The Doctor.
*And like all images it’s click-able to view full size. 864 x 1296
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9301;image)
And here’s a reduction, also with Graphic Converter (small image inset - further reduced). Total size - 648 x 648
(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6134.0;attach=9303;image)
*This GOAT image used here without permission and may be removed upon request.
[Included here - also as something of a homage to “The Doctor”.]
Why all of this?
Well it’s a precursor for a “how-to” concerning… text+picture+text embedding in Forum posts.
-
GraphicConverter has several more advanced resampling algorithms (including Mitchell and Lanczos) which fix some of the artifacts and loss of sharpness that can occur with the simple bicubic algorithm. It's a valuable program (although its handling of color profiles leaves much to be desired).
-
Good point. Thanks for that resampling info robespierre.
An older thread (September 2020) discussing SCREENSHOTS
and the use of some free versions of GraphicConverter...
V.6.5 and V.5.9.5 for OS 9 AND with install codes are mentioned here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5659.msg44948.html#msg44948
“i remember vaguely there was some confusion with at least one picture format because the carbonized build ran on both OS” -IIO
I do wonder which version of the two noted above,
might be the best for use under OS 9?
[Taking IIO's comment into consideration.]
Anyone familiar in use with both versions?
(Asking for a friend.)
I'll assume that it's V.5.9.5. ;)
-
i updated from 5.0 to 6.5 around 2006 because of the better font tool, and i hate the elements 7.1 install because of its file browser (and some plug-ins not working)
afaik there should be no difference between 6 and 6.5 when it comes to filehandling or canvas resizing.
like rob says, photoshop is even worse than GC because it only offers bicubic interpolation - and the worst of all is that PS also does not care about pixels outside the canvas.
when i need to resize pictures i use a custom action which extends the image for 5 pixels in all directions, where the last pixel from inside is repeated. that is still better than white.
modern third party resize plug-ins for PS9 and above are on another level.
-
Here’s a link to that full-sized (1920 x 1200 - 72 ppi) original desktop screenshot.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ynfSbAKPC0F0KVri3lbY9sW6HXSo7SZ5/view
Download it and then resize it to 12” width… using whatever you think best.
And then post / attach your result file back here for comparison.
Include software and resample method information. ::)