I agree that it's not appropriate for him to block you from posting, and some of these other items need to be addressed. Grady is a passionate man, like all of us he can get defensive about items, but his intentions are good. I think we should let this cool down for a couple days and I'm willing to discuss this matter with him directly.

Ryan

On 9/19/18 10:45 AM, C R wrote:

Seems they have blocked me entirely from posting. Yea, that's not cool. :)

-C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:31 PM C R <cajhne@...400... mailto:cajhne@...400...> wrote:

imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the Inkscape's g+
feed.

The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

They have:

1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the project)
2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain
wrong, esp for those wanting to print their pngs)
3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments proving his
statements incorrect.
4. Engaged in personal attacks.

imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

Here is a screenshot of the above: 
https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the
screencapture):
+Grady Broyles <https://plus.google.com/117132892207917418648>I've
been exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7
years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

-C

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

So you should have ownership of the Inkscape Brand Account, but this exists separately from the Inkscape Community page (thank Google for making this confusing). When you get on G+ you can change your account at the very top right to use G+ as Inkscape. You can then post on the community page as Inkscape (the brand).

I don't actually have any permissions on the community. Josh Andler (ScislaC) does. Josh, you able to help out with that?

I'll engage with Grady about this now too.

Ryan

On 9/19/18 11:26 AM, C R wrote:

Can you unblock me in the meantime? Also, how do I get access to the G+ feed?  I need to post the hackfest summary tonight.

Thanks. -C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel <inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net mailto:inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

I agree that it's not appropriate for him to block you from
posting, and some of these other items need to be addressed. Grady
is a passionate man, like all of us he can get defensive about
items, but his intentions are good. I think we should let this
cool down for a couple days and I'm willing to discuss this matter
with him directly.


Ryan

On 9/19/18 10:45 AM, C R wrote:

...

Seems they have blocked me entirely from posting.
Yea, that's not cool. :)

-C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:31 PM C R <cajhne@...400...
<mailto:cajhne@...400...>> wrote:

    imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the
    Inkscape's g+ feed.

    The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

    They have:

    1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the
    project)
    2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain
    wrong, esp for those wanting to print their pngs)
    3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments
    proving his statements incorrect.
    4. Engaged in personal attacks.

    imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

    Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

    Here is a screenshot of the above: 
    https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

    This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the
    screencapture):
    +Grady Broyles
    <https://plus.google.com/117132892207917418648>I've been
    exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7
    years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

    -C



_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

I did kinda stick it to him in an indirect way... It gets under my skin when people proclaim things like "I've been doing this for XX years, so do your homework before questioning mah authoritah!" For reference, I sent him this as a reply (600pdi A4 png): https://imgur.com/a/yVMsuJE

And suggested he could print it and put it on his wall to keep him from holding the same misconceptions about png for another 30 years.

IMHO, moderators should be engaging in useful and helpful conversation, not waving around their years of experience and proclaiming lordship of all things graphics (and calling people who disagree less intelligent). https://imgur.com/a/yVMsuJE

Yes, I probably could have been nicer, but, well, this is why I'm not a moderator. ;)

Our mods should be nicer than me. :) -C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:32 PM C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

Awesome, thanks. -C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 6:39 PM Ryan Gorley <ryan@...3676...> wrote:

...

So you should have ownership of the Inkscape Brand Account, but this exists separately from the Inkscape Community page (thank Google for making this confusing). When you get on G+ you can change your account at the very top right to use G+ as Inkscape. You can then post on the community page as Inkscape (the brand).

I don't actually have any permissions on the community. Josh Andler (ScislaC) does. Josh, you able to help out with that?

I'll engage with Grady about this now too.

Ryan

On 9/19/18 11:26 AM, C R wrote:

Can you unblock me in the meantime? Also, how do I get access to the G+ feed? I need to post the hackfest summary tonight.

Thanks. -C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

...

I agree that it's not appropriate for him to block you from posting, and some of these other items need to be addressed. Grady is a passionate man, like all of us he can get defensive about items, but his intentions are good. I think we should let this cool down for a couple days and I'm willing to discuss this matter with him directly.

Ryan

On 9/19/18 10:45 AM, C R wrote:

Seems they have blocked me entirely from posting. Yea, that's not cool. :)

-C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:31 PM C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

...

imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the Inkscape's g+ feed.

The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

They have:

1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the project)
2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain wrong,

esp for those wanting to print their pngs) 3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments proving his statements incorrect. 4. Engaged in personal attacks.

imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

Here is a screenshot of the above: https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the screencapture): +Grady Broyles https://plus.google.com/117132892207917418648 I've been exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7 years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

-C

---

Inkscape-devel mailing listInkscape-devel@...1901...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

He hid my one other response (and therefor I've lost the actual wording.) See previous email.

Yes, he jumped right in and told me to "do my homework", citing his 30 years of experience in reply to my asking him where he found that 96dpi information. The last bit I assume is in reply to my graphic (which he calls a meme, even though it's a 600dpi a4 mini poster).

My take: If you're going to abuse people whilst citing your 30 years of experience all in the same sentence, then prepare to be made fun of when you're actually wrong. ;)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:44 PM brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:

Admitedly I have difficulty navigating on G+, it's why I hardly ever visit. But I can't find the post in question. Has it been removed already?

He made all those comments on your one sentence?? I agree, those are inappropriate responses for anyone (in my opinion) let alone a moderator. I see some other comments from the same moderator (in other threads) which seem aggressive, as well.

I see a "Report Abuse" button. Did you try that? Maybe that's why I can't see it?

Good luck.

All best, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:31 AM To: inkscape-devel Subject: [Inkscape-devel] One of the moderators on our Inkscape G+ feed is blocking comments and slinging insults

imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the Inkscape's g+ feed.

The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

They have:

1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the project)
2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain wrong, esp

for those wanting to print their pngs) 3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments proving his statements incorrect. 4. Engaged in personal attacks.

imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

Here is a screenshot of the above: https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the screencapture): +Grady Broyles I've been exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7 years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

-C

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Hehe. Well, DPI is only useful in combination with a real-world document/graphic measurement (inches), thus you can't have DPI without the I. :) All that is a bit irrelevant though, since Inkscape will happily take your page size (say A4), and let you type in what DPI you want to export at, and give you a png that's exactly the right dimensions.

This seems to be a major source of confusion for Mr. Broyles, since he's repeatedly pointed to a stack exchange answer (with 2 upvotes) which says dpi is irrelevant, citing that as the irrefutable reason why pngs are 96dpi.

He's presently getting picked apart by other users on G+ -C

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:45 PM Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

Just wanted to add the maybe non usefull information, but nice to know, that pngs are weirdly in DOT per METER. I think they are the only graphic format to do so. Being the conversion between meter and inch not an integer, you cannot have either 96 or 300 or 600dpi, but some float number in the nearby.

I understand how it does not fit, but i felt like sharing.

Have a nice evening everyone

Il giorno mer 19 set 2018 alle ore 20:54 C R <cajhne@...400...> ha scritto:

...

He hid my one other response (and therefor I've lost the actual wording.) See previous email.

Yes, he jumped right in and told me to "do my homework", citing his 30 years of experience in reply to my asking him where he found that 96dpi information. The last bit I assume is in reply to my graphic (which he calls a meme, even though it's a 600dpi a4 mini poster).

My take: If you're going to abuse people whilst citing your 30 years of experience all in the same sentence, then prepare to be made fun of when you're actually wrong. ;)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:44 PM brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:

...

Admitedly I have difficulty navigating on G+, it's why I hardly ever visit. But I can't find the post in question. Has it been removed already?

He made all those comments on your one sentence?? I agree, those are inappropriate responses for anyone (in my opinion) let alone a moderator. I see some other comments from the same moderator (in other threads) which seem aggressive, as well.

I see a "Report Abuse" button. Did you try that? Maybe that's why I can't see it?

Good luck.

All best, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:31 AM To: inkscape-devel Subject: [Inkscape-devel] One of the moderators on our Inkscape G+ feed is blocking comments and slinging insults

imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the Inkscape's g+ feed.

The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

They have:

1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the project)
2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain wrong, esp

for those wanting to print their pngs) 3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments proving his statements incorrect. 4. Engaged in personal attacks.

imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

Here is a screenshot of the above: https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the screencapture): +Grady Broyles I've been exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7 years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

-C

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:44:56 +0200 Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

Just wanted to add the maybe non usefull information, but nice to know, that pngs are weirdly in DOT per METER. I think they are the only graphic format to do so.

Being the conversion between meter and inch not an integer, you cannot have either 96 or 300 or 600dpi, but some float number in the nearby.

Here's the relevant part of the actual PNG specification, in case somebody wants to quote it to the fool with 30 years experience ("Dunning-Kruger effect", haha).

https://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11pHYs

The pHYs chunk specifies the intended pixel size or aspect ratio for display of the image. It contains:

Pixels per unit, X axis 4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer) Pixels per unit, Y axis 4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer) Unit specifier 1 byte

The following values are defined for the unit specifier:

0 unit is unknown 1 unit is the metre

When the unit specifier is 0, the pHYs chunk defines pixel aspect ratio only; the actual size of the pixels remains unspecified.

If the pHYs chunk is not present, pixels are assumed to be square, and the physical size of each pixel is unspecified.

There's obviously nothing that stops you from assuming that the "unknown" unit is actually inches, or anything else, and setting the pixels/unit values accordingly.

Maybe the Inkscape interface could be adjusted to allow the PNG output resolution to be specified in dots/cm as well as dots/inch, and set the unit specifier to 1 or 0, accordingly.

They surprisingly read it, almost all of them, or at least all the basic software of the OS from which people open the image and can quickly look at it. PNG is an underrated format, is not well received from print companies, but things started to change since is what you get by default from web applications, and the only lossless.

They do convert in the nearest dpi value, even if the tag sets to some integer in dot per meter and then it becomes 299.9923 dot per inch. They will just print at 300.

Regarding the specs, no one will support the non square pixels that i know of, and by default you will always find 1, also no one will easily support different resolution per axis.

I did not follow the thread, are we missing png dpi support in inkscape?

Il giorno gio 20 set 2018 alle ore 08:20 C R <cajhne@...400...> ha scritto:

Nice! Excellent information.

So does Inkscape ever set a value for these or is it always 0 (unknown unit?)

Not that it really matters all that much... Any print company worth anything will know that a raster file of pixel dimensions 2480 pixels x 3508 pixels is A4 @ 300dpi (no bleed)

Yes, I've encountered printers who didn't, but it's pretty basic stuff, so I tend to avoid companies that can't get DPI right. :)

It's generally advisable to send a pdf, which includes the relevant size information, since it properly stores all that stuff, but imho, there's nothing wrong with popping out a png at the proper pixel dimensions and saying "I'd like this printed at A4 300 DPI". That should be more than enough information for any printer to get it the right size.

It's been on my to-do list for a while to make a video on DPI. It's quite astonishing how many designers (and printers) just don't understand it.

Thanks for the info. It would be a good idea to make use of the png unit specifier, however I don't know how many pieces of software will read the value and use it, even if we include it.

-C

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:36 AM ian_bruce--- via Inkscape-devel < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:44:56 +0200 Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

...

Just wanted to add the maybe non usefull information, but nice to know, that pngs are weirdly in DOT per METER. I think they are the only graphic format to do so.

Being the conversion between meter and inch not an integer, you cannot have either 96 or 300 or 600dpi, but some float number in the nearby.

Here's the relevant part of the actual PNG specification, in case somebody wants to quote it to the fool with 30 years experience ("Dunning-Kruger effect", haha).

https://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11pHYs

The pHYs chunk specifies the intended pixel size or aspect ratio for
display of the image. It contains:

Pixels per unit, X axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Pixels per unit, Y axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Unit specifier             1 byte

The following values are defined for the unit specifier:

0    unit is unknown
1    unit is the metre

When the unit specifier is 0, the pHYs chunk defines pixel aspect
ratio only; the actual size of the pixels remains unspecified.

If the pHYs chunk is not present, pixels are assumed to be square,
and the physical size of each pixel is unspecified.

There's obviously nothing that stops you from assuming that the "unknown" unit is actually inches, or anything else, and setting the pixels/unit values accordingly.

Maybe the Inkscape interface could be adjusted to allow the PNG output resolution to be specified in dots/cm as well as dots/inch, and set the unit specifier to 1 or 0, accordingly.

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Is there a viewer which allows us to see the dpi settings (pixels per unit) of a png? Is it set to something specific based on the user-entered dpi resolution?

Thanks! -C

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:58 AM Marc Jeanmougin <marc@...3062...> wrote:

...

I did not follow the thread, are we missing png dpi support in inkscape?

No.

Mc

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

on Windows I use exiftool. For a png saved at 300 dpi it gives me the following info: the resolution is reported as 11811 dots per meter, which is close to 300 dpi.

C:\Odds_and_Ends>exiftool \windows\temp\bitmap300.png ExifTool Version Number : 10.31 File Name : bitmap300.png Directory : /windows/temp File Size : 36 kB File Modification Date/Time : 2018:09:19 18:51:49-04:00 File Access Date/Time : 2018:09:19 18:51:48-04:00 File Creation Date/Time : 2018:09:19 18:51:44-04:00 File Permissions : rw-rw-rw- File Type : PNG File Type Extension : png MIME Type : image/png Image Width : 2480 Image Height : 3508 Bit Depth : 8 Color Type : RGB with Alpha Compression : Deflate/Inflate Filter : Adaptive Interlace : Noninterlaced Significant Bits : 8 8 8 8 Pixels Per Unit X : 11811 Pixels Per Unit Y : 11811 Pixel Units : meters Software : www.inkscape.org Image Size : 2480x3508 Megapixels : 8.7

-- Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html

Talking about printing is there any RG. To CMYK filter mode for inkscape? That will help convert RGB vectors to CMYK.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 2:55 PM C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

Cool thanks for the good info. And yes, that's my experience too regarding printing of pngs. I usually will wrap them in a pdf just to be sure the sizing is unambiguous, but some web printing companies will only accept jpeg or png files.

Maybe I'll call the video "DPI and the power of the PNG".

Can you provide some links to the information you've given here so I can include them in the sources for people to check out? (Cuts down trolling by "experts")

Thanks again for your help!

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

...

They surprisingly read it, almost all of them, or at least all the basic software of the OS from which people open the image and can quickly look at it. PNG is an underrated format, is not well received from print companies, but things started to change since is what you get by default from web applications, and the only lossless.

They do convert in the nearest dpi value, even if the tag sets to some integer in dot per meter and then it becomes 299.9923 dot per inch. They will just print at 300.

Regarding the specs, no one will support the non square pixels that i know of, and by default you will always find 1, also no one will easily support different resolution per axis.

I did not follow the thread, are we missing png dpi support in inkscape?

Il giorno gio 20 set 2018 alle ore 08:20 C R <cajhne@...400...> ha scritto:

...

Nice! Excellent information.

So does Inkscape ever set a value for these or is it always 0 (unknown unit?)

Not that it really matters all that much... Any print company worth anything will know that a raster file of pixel dimensions 2480 pixels x 3508 pixels is A4 @ 300dpi (no bleed)

Yes, I've encountered printers who didn't, but it's pretty basic stuff, so I tend to avoid companies that can't get DPI right. :)

It's generally advisable to send a pdf, which includes the relevant size information, since it properly stores all that stuff, but imho, there's nothing wrong with popping out a png at the proper pixel dimensions and saying "I'd like this printed at A4 300 DPI". That should be more than enough information for any printer to get it the right size.

It's been on my to-do list for a while to make a video on DPI. It's quite astonishing how many designers (and printers) just don't understand it.

Thanks for the info. It would be a good idea to make use of the png unit specifier, however I don't know how many pieces of software will read the value and use it, even if we include it.

-C

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:36 AM ian_bruce--- via Inkscape-devel < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:44:56 +0200 Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

...

Just wanted to add the maybe non usefull information, but nice to know, that pngs are weirdly in DOT per METER. I think they are the only graphic format to do so.

Being the conversion between meter and inch not an integer, you cannot have either 96 or 300 or 600dpi, but some float number in the nearby.

Here's the relevant part of the actual PNG specification, in case somebody wants to quote it to the fool with 30 years experience ("Dunning-Kruger effect", haha).

https://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11pHYs

The pHYs chunk specifies the intended pixel size or aspect ratio for
display of the image. It contains:

Pixels per unit, X axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Pixels per unit, Y axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Unit specifier             1 byte

The following values are defined for the unit specifier:

0    unit is unknown
1    unit is the metre

When the unit specifier is 0, the pHYs chunk defines pixel aspect
ratio only; the actual size of the pixels remains unspecified.

If the pHYs chunk is not present, pixels are assumed to be square,
and the physical size of each pixel is unspecified.

There's obviously nothing that stops you from assuming that the "unknown" unit is actually inches, or anything else, and setting the pixels/unit values accordingly.

Maybe the Inkscape interface could be adjusted to allow the PNG output resolution to be specified in dots/cm as well as dots/inch, and set the unit specifier to 1 or 0, accordingly.

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Got it, thankyou so much CR :)

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 6:29 PM C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

If you use linux, there's a command-line tool called ghostscript which will convert your pdf contents to CMYK.

just rename your pdf to "in.pdf" and run this command:

gs -o out.pdf -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dUseCIEColor -sProcessColorModel=DeviceCMYK -sColorConversionStrategy=CMYK -dEncodeColorImages=false -sColorConversionStrategyForImages=CMYK in.pdf

This will make a pdf called out.pdf which will be CMYK

Note: Most printers have no problems converting your RGB pdf to CMYK, so you could always just let them do it. This will allow them to use their printer's own colour profile for a better match to your original file.

Hope it helps. :) -C

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:53 PM Aditya Sher <adityasher2000@...400...> wrote:

...

Talking about printing is there any RG. To CMYK filter mode for inkscape? That will help convert RGB vectors to CMYK.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 2:55 PM C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

...

Cool thanks for the good info. And yes, that's my experience too regarding printing of pngs. I usually will wrap them in a pdf just to be sure the sizing is unambiguous, but some web printing companies will only accept jpeg or png files.

Maybe I'll call the video "DPI and the power of the PNG".

Can you provide some links to the information you've given here so I can include them in the sources for people to check out? (Cuts down trolling by "experts")

Thanks again for your help!

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andrea Bogazzi < andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

...

They surprisingly read it, almost all of them, or at least all the basic software of the OS from which people open the image and can quickly look at it. PNG is an underrated format, is not well received from print companies, but things started to change since is what you get by default from web applications, and the only lossless.

They do convert in the nearest dpi value, even if the tag sets to some integer in dot per meter and then it becomes 299.9923 dot per inch. They will just print at 300.

Regarding the specs, no one will support the non square pixels that i know of, and by default you will always find 1, also no one will easily support different resolution per axis.

I did not follow the thread, are we missing png dpi support in inkscape?

Il giorno gio 20 set 2018 alle ore 08:20 C R <cajhne@...400...> ha scritto:

...

Nice! Excellent information.

So does Inkscape ever set a value for these or is it always 0 (unknown unit?)

Not that it really matters all that much... Any print company worth anything will know that a raster file of pixel dimensions 2480 pixels x 3508 pixels is A4 @ 300dpi (no bleed)

Yes, I've encountered printers who didn't, but it's pretty basic stuff, so I tend to avoid companies that can't get DPI right. :)

It's generally advisable to send a pdf, which includes the relevant size information, since it properly stores all that stuff, but imho, there's nothing wrong with popping out a png at the proper pixel dimensions and saying "I'd like this printed at A4 300 DPI". That should be more than enough information for any printer to get it the right size.

It's been on my to-do list for a while to make a video on DPI. It's quite astonishing how many designers (and printers) just don't understand it.

Thanks for the info. It would be a good idea to make use of the png unit specifier, however I don't know how many pieces of software will read the value and use it, even if we include it.

-C

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:36 AM ian_bruce--- via Inkscape-devel < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 21:44:56 +0200 Andrea Bogazzi <andreabogazzi79@...400...> wrote:

> Just wanted to add the maybe non usefull information, but nice to > know, that pngs are weirdly in DOT per METER. I think they are the > only graphic format to do so. > > Being the conversion between meter and inch not an integer, you cannot > have either 96 or 300 or 600dpi, but some float number in the nearby.

Here's the relevant part of the actual PNG specification, in case somebody wants to quote it to the fool with 30 years experience ("Dunning-Kruger effect", haha).

https://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11pHYs

The pHYs chunk specifies the intended pixel size or aspect ratio

for display of the image. It contains:

Pixels per unit, X axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Pixels per unit, Y axis    4 bytes (PNG unsigned integer)
Unit specifier             1 byte

The following values are defined for the unit specifier:

0    unit is unknown
1    unit is the metre

When the unit specifier is 0, the pHYs chunk defines pixel aspect
ratio only; the actual size of the pixels remains unspecified.

If the pHYs chunk is not present, pixels are assumed to be square,
and the physical size of each pixel is unspecified.

There's obviously nothing that stops you from assuming that the "unknown" unit is actually inches, or anything else, and setting the pixels/unit values accordingly.

Maybe the Inkscape interface could be adjusted to allow the PNG output resolution to be specified in dots/cm as well as dots/inch, and set the unit specifier to 1 or 0, accordingly.

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Oh, forgot to post the link to the original post. It's here: https://plus.google.com/113647050513540398991/posts/1Ur82GzzYPq?fscid=z12kjh...

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:44 PM brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote:

Admitedly I have difficulty navigating on G+, it's why I hardly ever visit. But I can't find the post in question. Has it been removed already?

He made all those comments on your one sentence?? I agree, those are inappropriate responses for anyone (in my opinion) let alone a moderator. I see some other comments from the same moderator (in other threads) which seem aggressive, as well.

I see a "Report Abuse" button. Did you try that? Maybe that's why I can't see it?

Good luck.

All best, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:31 AM To: inkscape-devel Subject: [Inkscape-devel] One of the moderators on our Inkscape G+ feed is blocking comments and slinging insults

imho, they should not be in charge of moderating the Inkscape's g+ feed.

The name of this moderator is Grady Broyles.

They have:

1. Falsely asserted that pngs are lossy. (not good for the project)
2. Falsely asserted that pngs are locked at 96dpi (just plain wrong, esp

for those wanting to print their pngs) 3. Abused their moderator status by blocking arguments proving his statements incorrect. 4. Engaged in personal attacks.

imho, this person is not fit to moderate the Inkscape G+ feed.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. :)

Here is a screenshot of the above: https://imgur.com/a/2ToD1VT

This was in response to my comment (which did not fit in the screencapture): +Grady Broyles I've been exporting pngs from Inkscape at 600dpi A4 for the last 7 years... what on earth makes you think it is locked at 96 dpi?

-C

---

Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel