Importing pictures, best format

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jan Il
  • Start date Start date
J

Jan Il

Hi all!

I have a quick question, being this is my first time. I got a few pictures
of some of the kids for the Kid's Project, and I am going to have to scan
them to the computer to use for the project.

I have been playing with a few methods, but, I am not sure which would work
best. I want as much clarity as possible, and right now I'm getting a bit
of 'mistiness', or perhaps the better term is 'fog', 'haze' with the bmp and
jpeg formats that I am using.

To be sure I get the best format for the project, I would appreciate some
input as to the best format I should use to get the best quality. I have a
HP G55 All-In-One printer, copier, scanner. Should I do the scan as a bmp,
tiff, jpeg...???

I can do some enhancement if necessary in some other programs I have, but,
would like to have a good quality product to start with when the pics are
scanned.

Thanks,

Jan :)
 
For starters, have you seen TAJ's tutorial?
http://www.powerpointbackgrounds.com/powerpointgraphics.htm. That should
give you the basics. I'm a Photoshop user, so I always import directly into
PS from the scanner. Then I can set the size (in pixels) and do any
clean-up that might be needed. The file format you save in really depends
on the image. I favor PNG usually, but everyone has their favorite and it
does vary depending on the image.
--
Sonia, MS PowerPoint MVP Team
http://www.soniacoleman.com
(Free Templates, Tutorials, PowerLink, PowerLink Plus,
and Autorun CD Project Creator Pro)
PowerPoint Live! - Featured Speaker
Tucson, AZ; October 12-15, 2003
 
Hi Sonia!

Sonia said:
For starters, have you seen TAJ's tutorial?
http://www.powerpointbackgrounds.com/powerpointgraphics.htm. That should
give you the basics. I'm a Photoshop user, so I always import directly into
PS from the scanner. Then I can set the size (in pixels) and do any
clean-up that might be needed. The file format you save in really depends
on the image. I favor PNG usually, but everyone has their favorite and it
does vary depending on the image.
Click to expand...

I'll mosey over to TAJ's site as you suggest. I know he has a whole wazoolie
of very impressive stuff there, I just didn't pay too much attention to all
of it at the time, as I was looking for his awesome background goodies. ;-))

I also have Photoshop, but, never thought about scanning to that for PPT.
I'll give this a go too. I'm not too up on all the fixer-uppers for pics,
but, this is as good a time as any to learn ;-)) Since the pics will
ultimately end up inside objects for portions of the project, I want them to
be as clear as possible. The photos I got are not pristine, so it will take
a bit of spit and polish on my part to get them up to the quality I want
after they are scanned.

Jan :)

BTW...don't you sleep???
 
Thanks Sonia!

TAJ's tutorials are great, and just what I needed to get me on the right
track. I also have Corel PhotoPaint <forgot I had it too since I got Corel
Suite 11---;-) >

Huh! And to think...I thought TAJ was just another pretty background.. ;-))

Jan :)
 
best. I want as much clarity as possible, and right now I'm getting a bit
of 'mistiness', or perhaps the better term is 'fog', 'haze' with the bmp and
jpeg formats that I am using.
Click to expand...

Jan, keep in mind that PPT will *always* blur pictures a little bit in an
attempt to smooth out the jaggies. Most of the time, this works out fairly
well, but in some cases it can be mildly annoying or it can pretty well mung
the picture badly (screen captures, for example, where you want it to be
exactly like the original screen, no soft edges, just the facts).
 
best. I want as much clarity as possible, and right now I'm getting a
bit
Jan, keep in mind that PPT will *always* blur pictures a little bit in an
attempt to smooth out the jaggies. Most of the time, this works out fairly
well, but in some cases it can be mildly annoying or it can pretty well mung
the picture badly (screen captures, for example, where you want it to be
exactly like the original screen, no soft edges, just the facts).
Click to expand...

Yeah....I did notice that seems to be the case. I have had some really
clean jpegs and once taken into PPT they tend to lose a some of the quality.
But, adjusting the Contrast a bit helps improve the sharpness and color. I
have found that 2002 XP seems to do a 'lil bit better at keeping the quality
than 2000, I don't have to play with the adjusting as much to regain good
quality. I work with a lot of digital photos, both at home and at work and
have tried some of the items in both programs, and the '02 does take less
fiddling with. I do like the PhotoPaint, as it does not take as much playing
with to get good results. The only program I have at work is the one that
came with the HP 1315 PhotoImage printer we use with the digital camera, and
I have to go through a whole wazoolie of back and forth steps to get it just
right. By the time I get just one done, I find myself speaking in an unknown
form of sign language.

Screen captures are the pits...I never go there...they make me crazy... and
that's before I ever get started with them... ;-))
 
Hi Jeff!

Simple rules

1) Use JPG for photos (30:1 compression for most, 50:1 when detail is not
important)
2) Use GIF for cartoons & diagrams
3) Use animated GIfs when sound is not required
4) Use AVI for animated photos with sound
5) Use Macromedia Shockwave (SWF files) with canimated cartoons with sound
Click to expand...

Makes good sense. I have not used the AVI, haven't gotten that far yet. But,
I will be testing those waters soon with my special project, where I will
want to add some bits of music here and there, mostly there, to go with the
animated pictures and/or objects.

Never used the Macromedia Shockwave yet either, although, I am sure some
would think a lot of my work in PPT is kinda like cartoons, animated or
still-life, so there is room for growth there too. ;-) I'm sure Mr. Tufte,
the over-opinionated 'lil guy with an under-developed brain the size of
......a right-handed piss-ants left nostril, would be the first to agree. It
would no doubt give him a whole new PPT bane to expound on. <g>

Thank you very much for your time to provide this additional information,
Jeff, I really do appreaciate it. I'll make sure to add this to my reference
library, and print out a copy to keep on hand. Sometimes, it's like trying
to
figure out which of the 3 forks next to your plate ya use for the salad.
Especially, when they're all the same size...??

Jan :)
 
Unknown? Not to anybody who uses computers or drives in traffic much.
Everybody knows that one, Jan. ;-)
Click to expand...

...ummm....didn't get that one past ya said:
It depends on what you're after. They are what they are - and I'd be a lot
happier if I could get PPT to leave them that way.
Click to expand...

Well..that's sorta what I mean...PPT has a way of always wanting to change
things to what it 'thinks' you want. I hate to use them, but, sometimes that
is the only way to get what I need, and so I have to use them from time to
time for maintenance manual instructions and visual call-outs. For this I
need to have as much 'raw' detail as possible for visual clarification. PPT
sometimes tends to 'cloud' the subject to a point of being useless, no
matter what you do, and I have to find another way to get the job done. It
just drives me to distraction.....makes me daffy... :-(
 
Well..that's sorta what I mean...PPT has a way of always wanting to change
things to what it 'thinks' you want. I hate to use them, but, sometimes that
is the only way to get what I need, and so I have to use them from time to
time for maintenance manual instructions and visual call-outs. For this I
need to have as much 'raw' detail as possible for visual clarification. PPT
sometimes tends to 'cloud' the subject to a point of being useless, no
matter what you do,
Click to expand...

Bingo. That's the "feature" I meant.

There's a dodge that used to work explained here:

MUSHY/BLURRY GRAPHICS in PowerPoint
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00065.htm

Note the caveat carefully, though - the things generally won't print right,
though they look fine on screen.
 
Well..that's sorta what I mean...PPT has a way of always wanting to
change
Bingo. That's the "feature" I meant.

There's a dodge that used to work explained here:

MUSHY/BLURRY GRAPHICS in PowerPoint
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00065.htm

Note the caveat carefully, though - the things generally won't print right,
though they look fine on screen.
Click to expand...

Yeppa..that seems to be the one. The dodge seems like it would work pretty
well for the show and all, and I could use that with our PPT training
projects we are going to be starting in November this year. But, for the
manuals and standard operating procedure documents, they must be printed
out. While we do have the HP 1315 color printer, which *might* work fairly
well with that procedure, I am thinking that the Enhanced Metafile method
discussed in the caveat section might work best for the ones that need to be
printed. This is the process I had to use when I was importing all the 453
system schematics wmf files into PPT (ughhh!), as it was the only way I
could
get them to print properly, and also be editable in PPT. I realize that this
would be different, as the format would not be editable, but the
sectionalizing of the bmp to just the immediate part needed in the Paint (or
similar) would be easy enough to do, then do the paste special as Enhanced
Metafile into PPT. I know this does help retain fairly good quality, as long
as they don't have to be manipulated too much.

That is one if the reasons I was interested in finding out the best format
to get the best quality for the scanned object and pictures. Would it not
be better to scan them at a size that you might actually need, than to scan
smaller and try to resize once they are scanned? Just curious on this part,
as I surely don't know anything about that. Is there a document or some
printed guideline that addresses how to find the right ratio of units,
pixels, etc. in relation to a certain size? Say, I want the picture to scan
in at 5"x7" when it is only a 2"x3". My scanner has several standard size
selections you can pick from, anywhere from thumbnail size to 8x10, but,
perhaps I want something bigger than 5x7, but, smaller than 8x10. And at
what resolution(s)?? I have not been able to find anything thus far that
gives any specific setting for formatting or scaling information. The Help
with my printer is pretty limited, and vague at best on this, but, it does
allow various settings *IF* you know what you want. Is it just a matter of
playing around with it until you find the right size, resolutions, etc. ?

Maybe I can find out more about this at PPT Live. ;-))
 
Back
Top