How to print 1704x2560 pixels to 6x8 inches on 8.5x11 inch paper in WinXP?

[Yves Alarie]

OK. You have "comments and questions" and both are legitimate and both
incorrect.

1. None of the proposed suggestions even come close.

Have you tried going to lumapix, look at the video demonstration and tried
their free trial version? The idea that lumapix will not allow you to solve
the problem indicates to me that you have not tried it. Send me any two
pictures you want printed on a page and tell me how you want them printed. I
will print them using lumapix and mail them to you for free.
When I say mail them to you, I don't mean e-mail. I will mail you a pro
print. Coming close to what you want?
No. I will send you BETTER than what you want.
Don't post "none of the proposed suggestions even come close to" unless you
tried them. Why did you post a list of suggestions, if, according to you,
none of your own suggestions even come close to solving the problem?

2. Doesn't pasting the 72 dpi.....destroy the....

This comment and question are nonsense.
First, there is no such thing as 72 dpi copy and paste. 72 dpi (or 96 dpi)
is simply your computer screen display resolution. It has absolutely nothing
of any relevance to inserting a photo (or graphic) of any resolution into a
document such as MS Word, Word Perfect or Power Point.
Second, try it. Have you tried opening a blank page in Microsoft Word, Word
Perfect or Power Point and inserting a photo and then another photo etc. and
then print?

This has been done for years (digital years!) by graphic artists. The idea
that inserting a photo into the above software will result in poor printing
is just nonsense.

You can send me any picture files you have, tell me how you want them
printed on a page and which one of the above software you want me to use. I
will mail the print at no charge and you can judge.
There is no such thing as "size in dpi" for a digital picture. It simply
does not exist.
A digital picture is just a file on your computer. It has absolutely no
print size of any kind attached to it. It only has an aspect ratio (4:3 for
most popular point and shoot digital cameras and 3:2 for most "pro" camera)
and the file has a resolution (number of pixels)
Nothing more and nothing less, unless you want to include the exif
information, irrelevant to printing

3. The original poster

The original poster asked for help to solve a problem of aspect ratio/print
size. The original poster understood that she had a photo file of a specific
aspect ratio, this aspect ratio embedded in the file. But how to you get a
print size with a different aspect ratio than the original file aspect
ratio?
The original poster did a lot of work to solve the problem, by trial and
error. Nothing wrong with this approach. She did get the correct result
(almost correct, quite,quite, close to what she wanted) and she understood
what the problem was and how she could get very close to the correct result.
What she wanted from this newsgroup is, instead of all my trial and error
work, can someone tell me how I can get this done a little faster? The
answer is YES, you can get it done faster. And there are a lot of ways to
get it done from the many suggestions posted here (forget the nay sayer).
But you have to try them before you tell us that "none of the proposed
suggestions even come close to".

page.

Huh?

While microsoft word and microsoft powerpoint have the distinct advantage of
allowing floorplanning, rotation, fitting, etc (which none of the proposed
suggestions even come close to) ... doesn't pasting the 72 dpi copy of the
photograph into microsoft word destroy the original print quality?

Or does the original print retain its complete quality when pasted into
microsoft word and powerpoint for subsequent manual floorplan

manipulation?

 

[Yves Alarie]

Vanessa, what is your problem here?
Converting unknown pixels?
The original poster gave you exactly the pixel size of the file. Can you
read? If you can convert it to print size, tell her. If not, don't tell her
it cannot be done, unless you really know that it cannot be done.
Why are you posting such nonsense about HP printers?
HP printers are just fine, as long as you will take the time to read the
manual understand how they work.

 

[G.B. White]

2560/8 = 320 ppi and 1704/6 = 284 ppi. so the long dimension of the source
image will dictate the final max size on an 8x6 output form.

I found this subject fascinatingly interesting as the fundamentals of the
problem of printing fixed pixel size photos to fixed paper sizes has always
plagued me.

I also found Ed Ruf's reply (see below for the complete reply) to be the
most informative of all suggested for a manual calculation of the correct
aspect ratio modifications that need to be made in this common situation.

The only thing I question is the statement above.
I miss the logic.
More to the point, I don't understand the logic.

It's not obvious to me that the 320 pixels per inch side dictates the final
maximum size on an 8x6 inch output form. It would seem to me that the
smaller ppi number (ie 284 pixels per inch) would be the limiting factor?

Can someone explain the logic of this dilemma?

XXX

 

[G.B. White]

Yes, but to print you must map a pixel to a given space on your output.

I've been thinking about this problem (unsuccessfully) for years.
I'm no genius (you'd figure it out even if I didn't tell you) so pardon me
if I ask this question which has plagued me on this discussion.

Is a pixel always square?

If it's not always square, then doesn't that skew many of the calculations
provided?

XXX

 

[G.B. White]

Simply paste the 2 photos onto a new blank image with the size
3408x2560. (3408= 2x1704).

Then in the printer setup, choose your paper size and select "fit to
page". Voila!

m-m

Is there a program that will do this automatically for us?

 

[M-M]

Simply paste the 2 photos onto a new blank image with the size
3408x2560. (3408= 2x1704).

Then in the printer setup, choose your paper size and select "fit to
page". Voila!

m-m

Is there a program that will do this automatically for us?[/QUOTE]

How much automation do you need?
It's only a few clicks or keyboard shortcuts. But no, there is no one
button to push that will do it all for you.

m-m

 

[Jon O'Brien]

Is there a program that will do this automatically for us?

QImage is the closest to doing it all automatically that I've come across.
It's also produces the best prints of any software I've used. The
interface isn't the easiest to understand, though, so some time spent on
the tutorial is recommended.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

Jon.

 

[Ed Ruf]

It's not obvious to me that the 320 pixels per inch side dictates the final
maximum size on an 8x6 inch output form. It would seem to me that the
smaller ppi number (ie 284 pixels per inch) would be the limiting factor?

Can someone explain the logic of this dilemma?

If you try to print the 2560 pixels at 284 ppi you end up with a size
of 9.01 inches in this dimension. The OP asked for 8x6 as the
constraint.

 

[Ed Ruf]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:08 +0100 (BST), in comp.periphs.printers

QImage is the closest to doing it all automatically that I've come across.
It's also produces the best prints of any software I've used. The
interface isn't the easiest to understand, though, so some time spent on
the tutorial is recommended.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

Qimage has the option of automatically scaling the image to fit the
longest dimension or cropping to fit the shortest.

 

[Yves Alarie]

Since you are interested in this fascinating fundamentals let me take a stab
at it.
First, pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi) are exactly the same.
PPI is used to describe the quality of your computer screen display. Your
screen display may be 72 ppi or 96 ppi. 96 is better than 72. The more ppi
you have, the higher the resolution and the higher the resolution is, you
can see more details in the file being displayed, regardless of the number
of pixels this file contains. Obviously, the more pixels in the file the
better.
DPI is used to describe the quality of your printer. Most inkjet printers
will use 300 DPI. What does this mean?
It simply means that if you have a photo file with, say, 900 x 900 pixels,
the highest quality print out of this printer will be 900/300 = 3 inches.
Does this mean you are limited to print 3 x 3 inches?
No. But if you print larger than this, the quality (resolution) of the print
will start to degrade and will be very noticeable if you print at 9 x 9
inches. This is when using softwares like Qimage or Lumapix if you print at
home (and commercial printing like Costco, Wall etc. and the many Internet
sources to order prints from)come in. Such software will "so to speak"
create new pixels. So the limitation of 3 x 3 print can be increased because
the software took your 900 x 900 pixels file and increased it to 2700 x 2700
pixels and now you can get a 9 x 9 print (2700/300 = 9) instead of a 3 x 3
print and the quality will be "almost" the same. Obviously there is a limit
to this. But this is how it works.

Now for your second interest in fundamentals.
You have this 900 x 900 pixels file. A perfect square (900/900 = 1). As long
as you select a print size of a perfect square, all the pixels will be
included. It does not matter how big you want to print. Select 3 x 3, 4 x 4,
9 x 9, 100 x 100, anything you want. All the pixels will be printed, but
there will be a loss in quality as you enlarge, as described above.
But this is really not your problem. You have this 900 x 900 pixels file, a
perfect square. Where are you going to find paper for your printer to fit
this (3 x 3, 9 x 9, 100 x 100) it does not exist!
So, what are going to do?
There are two solutions. The original poster described one very well.
1. Print a perfect square, say 3 x 3 on any kind of photo paper larger than
this, say 4 x 6.

2. You don't want the above, 3 x 3 is too small and you want to print on
paper size available for your printer and you want the print to fill the
entire paper size you select. So, here is what you want, 6 x 4 (you can
replace these numbers with any paper size you want, the solution is the
same).
6 x 4 is a rectangle, your picture (900 x 900 pixels) is a square. How are
you going to fit a square into a rectangle? There is only one way of doing
it. Removing pixels from your square until it becomes a rectangle.
How many pixels do you remove?
Simple, you want 6 x 4, 6 x 4 is 6/4 = 1.5. So divide 900 by 1.5 and you
have 600. So you need to remove 300 pixels and get this file to be 900 x 600
and now 900/600 = 1.5. Perfect fit.
Instead of 6 x 4, you want 10 x 8. 10/8 = 1.25. So divide 900 by 1.25 and
get this file to be 900 x 720. Perfect fit.
The calculations are easy. But how to you get this done?
For free, you can get it done with FastStone, and you can get it done with a
lot of other softwares, up to you to decide.

 

[Ed Ruf]

Since you are interested in this fascinating fundamentals let me take a stab
at it.
First, pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi) are exactly the same.
PPI is used to describe the quality of your computer screen display. Your
screen display may be 72 ppi or 96 ppi. 96 is better than 72. The more ppi
you have, the higher the resolution and the higher the resolution is, you
can see more details in the file being displayed, regardless of the number
of pixels this file contains. Obviously, the more pixels in the file the
better.
DPI is used to describe the quality of your printer. Most inkjet printers
will use 300 DPI. What does this mean?
It simply means that if you have a photo file with, say, 900 x 900 pixels,
the highest quality print out of this printer will be 900/300 = 3 inches.

No, a dot on your printer and a pixel are not the same thing. Suggest
you take a look at Wayne Fulton's Scanning 101 - The basics at
http://www.scantips.com/
See the list of subjects in the bottom right of the page.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ([email protected])
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Yves Alarie]

I did not say that a "dot on your printer and a pixel are the same thing"
Nonsense.This is your invention.
Look at my post again. Anything in it coming close to this?
No. Don't attribute to me "a dot on your printer and a pixel are the same
thing". Sorry, this is not what I said.

I do not need any scanning tip. Thank you. I have been scanning since 1990.
But somebody may learn something from visiting the scanning tip site you
posted in your reply if they want to scan.

 

[donnadigacomo]

I thank everyone for all the help in advising me!

I don't think I can summarize well enough to do you justice - but I'll
try to (where you can correct me where I am wrong or imprecise).

The problem of printing a 1704x2560 pixel digital photo to 6x8 inch
paper boils down to three major concerns:
1. ASPECT RATIO
2. CROPPING
3. RESAMPLING

ASPECT RATIO:
The digital photo has a pixel Pxy aspect ratio and the printed
results have a desired DPI or PPI paper printout aspect ratio Dxy.
Basically the goal is to modify one or the other so that the aspect
ratio quotient is the same. In the problem I had, the only choice was
to modify the aspect ratio of the original digital print to match that
of the aspect ratio of the desired printout. This involved cropping.

CROPPING:
Cropping in this case involved the loss of pixels. Basically that means
either in the x directory or in the y direction, or both, we digitally
cut out enough pixels such that the aspect ratio of the digital photo
and the desired paper results has the same quotient.

While one can manually draw a bounding box of the desired aspect ratio
and then manually move that bounding box around the digital photo to
crop the photo, a variety of software was listed which can also do that
job for the user. In my case, Irfanview had some utilities but I was
using an older version of Irfanview which did not have these utilities.
Fundamentally, the user desires to specify a bounding box of the
desired aspect ratio and the user can move that bounding box around on
the digital photo and then hit the crop button. Pixels will be lost but
now the digital photo will be the same aspect ratio as the desired
printed paper photograph.

RESAMPLING:
The discussions on Microsoft Word floorplanning and tool choices
underscored the reality that a resampling is occuring (whether the user
wants it or not) in the process of converting a JPEG on the disk
composed of pixels to a printed photograph on paper composed of dots of
ink per inch in the same ratio.

Even if the aspect ratio is the same for the digital photo as the paper
printout, RESAMPLING still occurs. In fact, apparently resampling still
occurs even if the pixel count is the same as the dots-per-inch count!
So, you can't avoid resampling (apparently).

MULTIPLE IMAGES:
On the problem of printing multiple images to a sheet of paper, it's
the same problem. What's different is the SIZE of the resulting print
(and the location on the paper). But, the fundamentals appear to be the
same as that shown above (i.e., aspect ratio, cropping, and resampling
are still major factors to consider).

Whatever I didn't get quite right, please correct so the next people
reading this can pick up where we leave off ...

Donna

 

[Yves Alarie]

Donna, everything you did is TOP NOTCH.
You not only understand what the problem is, you understand how to solve it
and you understand the limitations of each solution.
It was a pleasure to read your original post, describing the problem and the
work you did to solve it.
It is now a pleasure to read your post, describing exactly what needs to be
done: Aspect ratio, cropping and resampling. And all done correctly!

Do you have time to "stick around" and answer questions here? Would be nice
to have you here.

Have a great day.

 

[Stacey]

Qimage v2005.315 (trialware) $44.95
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/demo.htm

That's the one, then you can just click and print perfect size images and
stop making things complicated!

 

[Ed Ruf]

On 13 Jul 2005 15:46:28 -0700, in comp.periphs.printers

Even if the aspect ratio is the same for the digital photo as the paper
printout, RESAMPLING still occurs. In fact, apparently resampling still
occurs even if the pixel count is the same as the dots-per-inch count!
So, you can't avoid resampling (apparently).

This is because a pixel and a dot are not the same. A pixel can be one
of many colors. A dot is a the smallest region of a single ink color
your printer can lay down on paper. It takes more than one dot to make
a pixel.

 

[Ed Ruf]

I did not say that a "dot on your printer and a pixel are the same thing"
Nonsense.This is your invention.
Look at my post again. Anything in it coming close to this?
No. Don't attribute to me "a dot on your printer and a pixel are the same
thing". Sorry, this is not what I said.

You said.

DPI is used to describe the quality of your printer. Most inkjet printers
will use 300 DPI. What does this mean?

What exactly do you mean by this?

It simply means that if you have a photo file with, say, 900 x 900 pixels,
the highest quality print out of this printer will be 900/300 = 3 inches.

No, this is 300ppi in the final output, not dpi. IF you above mean
for photo quality prints an excepted value is 300 ppi then, that's not
what you said.

For what it's worth the high quality photo printers from Cannon and
Epson are optimized at 600 and 720 ppi, respectively these days.

 

[Anna Daptor]

I did not say that a "dot on your printer and a pixel are the same thing"
Nonsense.This is your invention.
Look at my post again. Anything in it coming close to this?
No. Don't attribute to me "a dot on your printer and a pixel are the same
thing". Sorry, this is not what I said.

But you DID say:

Since you are interested in this fascinating fundamentals let me take a stab
at it.
First, pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi) are exactly the

same.

So, first you say PPI and DPI are the same, now your saying you didn't say
that. Which is it to be? Are they the same or not?

I do not need any scanning tip. Thank you. I have been scanning since
1990.

Maybe you don't need any scanning tips, but you could do with learning the
difference between DPI, PPI and printer driver resolutions.

 

[donnadigacomo]

On 13 Jul 2005 15:46:28 -0700, in comp.periphs.printers


This is because a pixel and a dot are not the same. A pixel can be one
of many colors. A dot is a the smallest region of a single ink color
your printer can lay down on paper. It takes more than one dot to make
a pixel.

Do I understand the printing quality problem correctly in that it gets
even worse when you print MULTIPLE pictures to a page due to additional
LOSSY RECOMPRESSION?

It seems, from these discussions, that, to print multiple pictures to a
single sheet of 8.5 x 11 inch photographic paper, some people suggest
creating a new (blank) JPEG (or Word document) and then putting the two
or three (or whatever) JPEGs to print into that previously blank JEPG
(or Word document) such that you get a NEW (multiple-image) JPEG (or
Word document) of the desired aspect ratio.

The Word document route has already been suggested to not be a good
idea based on quality result issues so I'll ask this question based on
the blank JPEG approach.

If I paste two or more JPEGs into a new blank JPEG to then print, isn't
the new (previously blank) JPEG going to have an additional LOSSY
compression applied to it such that the print of multiple JPEGs would
have a lower quality than the printing of individual JPEGs?

Do I understand it correctly?

One thing that confuses me is if I don't actually ever SAVE the newly
created multiple-image JPEG, is that additional lossy compression step
still occurring?

I thank you for the help in printing a single image but in the process,
I became confused how to print multiple images without losing data
either due to the aforementioned reputed Microsoft Word "crayon effect"
or due to this purported blank JPEG "lossy recompression" effect?

Or does this lossy recompression not mattter to the final result?

 

[M-M]

If I paste two or more JPEGs into a new blank JPEG to then print, isn't
the new (previously blank) JPEG going to have an additional LOSSY
compression applied to it such that the print of multiple JPEGs would
have a lower quality than the printing of individual JPEGs?

No, you only get lossy compression when you save it that way. Pasting
the originals onto a blank image document does not compress them.

m-m