Image Sharpening

A 1200 dpi image was optimized in Chrome (upper) and another browser (lower).

The happy impact of the image sharpening algorithm (=40) is obvious.

Please get the image sharpening algorithm working in Chrome.

Version 41.0.2272.101 m

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Sorry, it's a third party tool that I have no control over. All I can do is send them a link to this topic through their contact form.

Just FYI, 1200 DPI is severe overkill for web images.

Am I missing something? Chrome is a browser, not an image processor. Is chrome actually modifying the images in some way? Or is it just controlling display much like most if not all browsers now anti-alias text?

I apply unsharp mask to all my scans in photoshop, and I'm sure something similar is available in any image processor. The amount of sharpening depends on the pixel size of the image so it is hard to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

Also, 1200 ppi is definitely not overkill if you are scanning at actual size. If you have a 1" stamp, the resulting scan is 1200 pixels. Thats the same as a 12" image at 100 ppi. It will just about fill a 1280 pixel laptop screen and show the stamp in all it's glorious detail.

There is an image sharpening plug in/widget for Chrome for "image sharpening." I suspect the algorithm used is equivalent to those used in photo processing software.

The DPI/PPI discussion is a rat hole discussion unless you really understand the technicalities of printing and imaging software and displays. Unfortunately, even equipment manufacturers and some tech rags use the terms interchangeably. I think discussions regarding dpi/ppi are mostly futile (similar to discussing/comparing macro and closeup in photography).

DPI stands for dots per inch in printing. Many laser printers print right around 1200 dpi. Hi-end professional photo printers print a little higher.

PPI or pixels per inch is generally a function of screen resolution and screen size. Most PC laptop and stand alone displays come in around 72-100 pixels per inch (PPI). A few high end laptops and Apples Retina displays (e.g. 1080p>) have 200 - 400 pixels per inch.

A major factor in image resolution (and sharpening) is the beginning amount of pixels there are to work with in the initial image. So, scanning or photographing a stamp at higher resolutions is good if you want to significantly enlarge that image as Southpaw describes above. But, scanning at high resolutions also increases the size of the file.

In most cases, for display on the Internet and viewing in browsers we try to find a sweet spot between file size in bytes and the desired quality of the image displayed at max size in the browser. Personally I have found that anything over 300 PPI of life-size images is overkill for display on then internet, and 200 PPI is probably a good sweet spot for viewing most stamps at true size and 3x enlarged unless you really need super fine detail.

southpaw: Yes, you're missing something ;)

For example, the html code that displays the controls might have only been tested on, say, the much-detested IE.

Or, the controls may fail to display (or be invoked) because the javascript or activeX or whatever was not test on Chrome.

I have not looked at the html 'source' of the image optimizer page, and I am not prepared to promise that would help ;)

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

IkeyPikey - Is the issue with the way images are rendered when using Chrome?
If I understand correctly your initial two images are screencaps taken from two browsers?

AnthonyUK, Greetings:

No, the issue is not rendering, and the images are not screen captures.

I am using the SCF Free Image Optimizer ... note the auto-appended 'opt' towards the end of the file name.

I am downloading the optimized image.

The issue is, as I suggested above, buried in the html/java/whatever code.

In my other browser, the controls that appear include sharpening (my fave), tint, hue, etc.

In Chrome, none of these 'image processing' controls appear.

In all browsers, for example, I can set the jpg 'quality' (default 80).

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

PS: I've reviewed my original post, just to see how thick you really are, and realize that I wrote poorly. I've contacted Bobby about this issue before - and, for a time, it went away - so I did not properly introduce it. My bad, lad.

I sent them a link to this topic.

Have a look now.

Tada!