This thread is now suffering from multiple misunderstandings about
what the Net/Web "is for" and what it "can handle" mechanically,
i.e.-"Internet bandwidth."

First, the Web is a mechanism for publishing images and text in an
open-standards method, so that any platform can view the information
in a "universally accessible" manner via a web browser. Individual
characteristics and features of the browser may vary, but the
important aspect is that there are standards: HTML 1.0, HTML 2.0,
HTML 3.0, which are the agreed upon defining standards by which all
browsers should properly function. Netscape extentions are not part
of these standards and represent Netscape's effort to: A) gain
proprietary advantage in the marketplace with slick functions, AND/OR
B) influence the adoption of these features into subsequent
HTML.standards.  But the Web remains a simple, but universal
publishing mechanism, first and foremost.

Second, the Internet is still in its infancy. With the huge number of
people coming online there is potentially a huge traffic jam anytime
soon. Add to this the fact that many home users are still using 9600
baud modems (they take time), and anything less than ISDN or T-1 line
access requires much time to download web pages, especially those
with images. If the digital image files are large in file size, the
download time (i.e.-bandwidth consumed) is massive and that will tax
the Internet infrastructure, making it run slow for everyone.


Third, understanding high res/low res/dpi/color depth of images
should eliminate disagreements which have recently developed. The
biggest concept to understand is that most color monitors only can
show an image at 72 dpi. Hence, a 72 dpi image file displayed will
look identical to a 300 dpi file because the screen can only show it
through a matrix of the 72 dpi screen. If Web browsers were able to
magnify the view of the displayed image, then the 72 dpi image would
start to pixelate when enlarged and the 300 dpi image would still
look great when equally enlarged. (If you do a 200% enlargement of a
72 dpi image, you effectively reducing the image to 36 dpi display.
200% of the 300 dpi file would reduce it visually to the equivalent
of a 150 dpi file. A 400% magnification of the 300 dpi file would
make the effective viewing 75 dpi, which is still within the
capability of the screen. Any greater magnification of the 300 dpi
file would start to show pixelation because the dpi of the monitor
would exceed the apparent dpi of the image and you could see the
individual pixels of the image.)


Two factors should be ruminated upon with those mechanical facts in
mind: 1) most web browsers do not have the capability to magnify
individual images, and  2) a 300 dpi file is exponentially larger
(2x2x2x2, etc.) in size and would thus take FOREVER to transfer over
the Internet. A much better plan is to display a very usable image on
a web page and have somebody FTP the high res (much larger) file
directly, without clogging the system for the mainstream casual user.


Keeping file sizes small at this early stage of the Internet is of
primary importance so that everyone can have reasonable speed and
access without bringing the entire worldwide system to its knees.
Sensible planning avoids the major pitfalls, serves the worldwide
public at large, and institutions should very easily be able to cater
to anyone who has need of access to the more detailed, higher
resolution images.

A basic understanding of where we stand technologically will allow us
to move forward without compromise or conflict. We have great tools
now and the system is getting better/faster than any of us could have
dreamed of. Work with the system for maximum benefit!!!


This post/dialog is what prompted my diatribe:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:30:31,  Christopher Whittle wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Aug 1995, Robert A. Baron wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 Christopher Whittle, etc.

>I am blessed with state of the art equipment that allows me to see
detail in all its glory. Why study a postcard when a poster is
available.
---Bandwidth!!! Hi resolution images on web pages will clog the
entire Internet. Low resolution images look just as fine, but
transfer in a timely manner.

>Depending on one's definition and their application, low-res is
worthless. I am a scholar and I require the finest images
technologically possible
---72 dpi looks !AS GOOD AS! 600 dpi when displayed on a web browser.
Given a slow modem, the download time for the high res would be days
instead of minutes, and you wouldn't be able to tell any difference.

>If you are going to put it on the WWW put the best images you can
create on...
72 dpi images look just fine. Even significant compression with JPEG
can get the file size small (making for rapid file transfer) without
major image degradation.

Let's all be responsible, think out the challenges that face us
technologically and work together as responsible Net citizens to make
the system function well and evolve rapidly.

I hope that this will help to resolve some of the controversy.

Robert MacKimmie
Curatorial Director of Photography
California Historical Society, San Francisco
[log in to unmask]