Being a pure video type - I cannot see any reason why people would not work in the highest quality imagery possible. Storage is not expensive, and it's ridiculous to think in this day and age that any company would not specifiy a minimum resolution of 4/8x resultion at 300dpi as minimum working resolution. For PAL output, all our renders are performed at 2880 x 2304 at 24bit color (+ 8 bit alpha) then scaled down by a factor of 4 for broadcast, or by a factor of 2 for print - and dynamic scaling for web output. It's the only way to ensure quality throughout the production process. One of our printers (now ex-) insisted that JPEG compression was acceptable for print graphics, where instead we would provide TIFF and TGA streams to ensure correctcolor spacing. Just my slightly on-topic whine of the morning! :) Scott -----Original Message----- From: Dan Boen [mailto:info at theplate.net] Sent: 24 March 2003 00:12 To: thelist at lists.evolt.org.uk Subject: Re: [thelist] "muddy" images If I might add to Sharon's suggestion... > AOL USERS: AOL caches and compresses the images for all their web > content which distorts image quality. To turn off image compression: > 1. Log onto AOL, go to the Task Bar and choose "My AOL." 2. Choose > "Preferences Guide." 3. Click on "The Web" or "WWW", whichever you > have. 4. Choose "Web Graphics." 5. Make sure "Use Compressed Graphics" > is unchecked. 6. Restart AOL for changes to take effect. A statement like that might be very useful if graphics are an important part of the site and the client knows a lot of AOL users are gonna be the audience. It will also go miles in quelling the AOL-centric client's fears - any client that I've had who's web world consists of AOL has had trouble understanding the world outside of that environment. Why AOL has that option clicked ON by default is amazing in this day and age. Carol also addresses the other question: > As to scanning, have your client scan images at 96dpi, and keep them > at that resolution. The exception is if your client wants her Web > viewers to be able to PRINT downloaded images -- then you should have > her scan them at (at least) 300dpi, and you should reduce them to > about 96dpi for the thumbnail and screen view, but have the much > larger file available as a download for a print-only version. > If a client is going to do the scanning I always ask for source images sized at least 220 dpi, if not 300, reason being simply because the larger screen image makes for more precise editing. Then I bring them down to 72 dpi when saving for the web (in Photoshop). I've not seen any real reason to save to 96 dpi but I'm sure that's been a subject of debate here before??? DB -- * * Please support the community that supports you. * * http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !