Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index 

On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 11:08 -0700, Girvin Herr wrote:

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


On 04/16/2013 04:03 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
They do and it does. :D

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 :)






________________________________
From: Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 2:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Importing PDF problem


On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Tom Davies wrote:


Hi :)
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! :)

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.


Regards from Tom :)







________________________________
From: Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Importing PDF problem


On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, anne-ology wrote:


        very interesting, yes indeed  ;-)

        well, the more I read this list, 'the more I seem to learn, yet the
stupider I feel'  ;-)
                (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  ;-)
                (oh, surely not)

I did not mistype. I went neologistic on you.

F.




On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, anne-ology wrote:

         yikes, sounds as if I need further information -

            or need to keep studying ... ... ...  ;-)


not sure how the further discussion would be relevant to you if you just
want to use the tool. the link I gave you explains the things pdftk can do.
you can then decide if it might be useful.

the next step is to determine if you find it convenient to use.

of course, if you are also interested in how the tool is built, then
that's a different matter.


         Please update re. this / these tks whenever; I'll stay tuned  ;-)

        Ah, acronyms  ;-)
            tk := 
http://www.acronymfinder.com/**TK.html<http://www.acronymfinder.com/TK.html>
        (well, while waiting to understand all this, my mind tends to wander
- puns are so much fun  :-)  )


don't mean to be acronymonious about it but all disciplines and
occupations use abbreviations and have specialist dictionaries -
general-purpose dictionaries won't do.

F.




On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Girvin Herr wrote:


   Felmon,


Looks like pdftk is written in Java.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****Pdftk<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Pdftk>
<https://en.wikipedia.**org/wiki/Pdftk<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdftk>

So the gui (Graphical User Interface) is whatever the Java Runtime
Environment (JRE) interfaces with.  From my experience, it isn't pretty,
but functional.

I noticed there are some other source files and some 3rd-party code in
the package that I did not take time to investigate, and it takes Gcc to
build it.  But one of the big ideas of Java is that it contains its own
gui
code, so the programmer's effort is greatly reduced.  I would be
surprised
if pdftk does not use the standard Java gui.
Girvin Herr



good to know, especially about the '3rd-party code'.

makes sense the gui would be in java so it can run on various platforms.

I don't however foresee myself invoking the gui unless I'm working off of
Windows or something.

I'll look but I bet there's a command-line version for Windows too.

F.





On 04/13/2013 11:24 PM, Felmon Davis wrote:

   On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Tom Davies wrote:

   <snip>


   I'm only familiar with pdftk as a command-line tool; thus I was

confused
by the discussion of desktop environments.

it does have a gui interface (or several?) and then there are the
Windows and Mac versions. I don't know what is used to make the gui
interface on Linux.

Felmon

   <snip>



-- 
Felmon Davis


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted





-- 
Felmon Davis

Chastity and virtue are their own punishment.
-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted









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


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context

Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.