High Resolution Screen Capture

Is there any way to do a high resolution screen capture?

All of the Windows-XP built-in Print Screen stuff is crappy compared to what I'm seeing directly (1280 x 1024). ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

You sure? The printscreen key should capture exactly the pixels on your monitor(s) to the clipboard. It will look like crap if you print a 100 DPI screen to a 600 DPI printer, or if it gets scaled on the same monitor to other than an integral multiple of 100% (in Photoshop, use "actual pixels"). On my CAD machine it produces an image 5120 x

1600 pixels, which is just adequate for a 7" x 5" at 300DPI (17" x 5", actually).
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

I tried printing to PDF at 600dpi... looks crappy unless you zoom in.

Didn't think to use Photoshop. "N" has that, I'll try it. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Screen capture with Print Screen and alt-print screen are at screen resolution, not sure why you don't see the same results.

Reply to
PeterD

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I've had the same issues when trying to get screen shots for documentation. Found it best to either maximize a window or do an ALT PrtScreen to get just the current window. Best to maximize the window so you get the best resolution.

There are a few programs for screen capture that come up when searching for "screen capture" windows

formatting link

Reply to
Oppie

I've always used Paint Shop Pro 4.12. It can capture the full screen, a window, an area, and a couple of other modes, and it's pixel for pixel.

Good Luck! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

On a sunny day (Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700) it happened Jim Thompson wrote in :

Linux import from Imagemagick

Yea, then why use MS.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

If print screen has got you down, try MWSnap. Been using it for a year or so and it works well.

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

the print-screen button

Perhaps you're being hit by HDCP? shut down all media players.

--
?? 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Reply to
Jasen Betts

Jim Thompson:

It has to, since the "standard" monitor resolution is 75 DPI.

If you have a monitor 15" wide with a resolution of 1280 pixel, your screen resolution is 85,33 pixel per inch.

You can use software tricks to reduce the "pixelation" of the image by smoothing the border between one pixel and the next, but the resolution will remain the same.

Or you can print it 1:1, but the dimension of the printout will be about

1/10 of the screen.
Reply to
F. Bertolazzi

Hmm, you know what would be really cool? A "screen shot" which actually records GDI objects. I suppose it would have to be driver level though. It would allow at least some objects to be captured with unlimited resolution (i.e., TrueType / ClearType characters), or to change the "Theme" of the capture.

In principle, this would also allow unlimited resolution of other objects as well (buttons, etc.), though I suppose most are described by bitmaps anyway.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Reply to
Tim Williams

You can get the Window handles. As I understand all controls are actually windows, at least for custom controls. So that?s a start. Now actually getting the control objects is another matter. But the controls can be listed, eg Excel VBA project, So there probably is a way to do it. Why would you want this anyway?

Merry Christmas

Reply to
Martin Riddle

Try ParaBen Sceen Capture..

Reply to
Robert Baer

As others have alluded, screen capture simply captures the pixels on your screen exactly as they are so the problem isn't with screen capture, per se, it's what's done with it later.

The confusion comes from 'DPI'. DPI has meaning to printers, as that's how they print, but none to the display screen. By that I mean a 1280x1024 screen is 1280x1024 whether on a 15" screen, 20" screen, or projected to wall size and, clearly, those are different 'DPI' for the same pixels.

However, screen capture, for obscure historical reasons, sticks 72DPI in as a default 'to have something' but it has no 'real' meaning since, assuming you did a full screen capture, it's simply 1280x1024 pixels.

But when you stick the capture into a program that knows it's going to print on paper all of a sudden that default 72dpi takes on a real meaning. It thinks you've got a 17.778" x 14.222" picture at 72DPI. (Note that this makes absolutely no difference to displaying it on the screen as it's still the same pixels. It's going to *paper* that's the problem)

The simple answer is to change the DPI. In Photoshop, when you select 'new file', to then paste the capture into, change the DPI setting in that dialogue box from the default 72 to whatever you would like, such as 300DPI, which will magically change the 'size' to 4.267" x 3.413". Or 600 DPI for half that size (2.133" x 1.707"). Then, when you put it into PDF (or another 'print' program) it will think the picture is that size with that resolution.

If it's already 'saved' somewhere with 72DPI (or something else you would like to change) you can alter it in Photoshop with "image size." Just turn off the "resample image" check box and it'll do the magic size change when you alter the DPI. (If you leave resample on it thinks you want the size to remain the same so it interpolates pixels to 'increase' the DPI to the new value. You don't want that as you'll still have the 18" picture, with a 'faked' increase of resolution that has no 'real' increase to go with it, and the print program will still need to 'scale down to fit'. It also makes a HUGE file with the increased size of no value.)

(If you don't have Photoshop then Gimp will probably do it but I don't have that on this machine to check the menu options. I'm sure there are others as well.)

Note, if you're going to be resizing (after the DPI change) for print it's better to turn off clear type, and any other 'display enhancements', as that tends to 'fuzzy up' text, to make it more pleasing to the eye, but that 'fuzz' doesn't generally scale as well as crisp text. It depends on how much resizing you're doing (magazines often erase the text and re paste it with an editor, e.g. photoshop).

Another note, changing 'DPI' in Windows display properties has no effect on the screen capture DPI since the screen is still simply

1280x1024. That 'display DPI' is a 'logical' (as in the computing term) fabrication to set character size, not 'resolution', which is why it seems to be backwards. I.E. if it were really 'DPI' then 120 would be smaller type than the default 96 but it works the other way as it's more akin to 'pixels per thing to display' than 'per inch'. I.E., use 120 pixels instead of 96 when constructing the 'thing' and, since 'DPI' is 'fixed' by the pixel resolution on your size screen, that makes the 'displayed thing' bigger as it takes more pixels to make it. Screen capture, however, will still be 1280x1024 at a dummy default 72DPI.
Reply to
flipper

If you can't be bothered working it out, here is a page that shows you the actual DPI for screen diagonal and resolution (valid only for square pixels).

formatting link

Most of my ones in current use are 100-135 DPI.

Note that Fax resolution is around 200 DPI (and that's using the "fine" setting).

A display with 0.25mm pitch pixels is about 102 DPI.

We're still a long way from having a reasonably affordable display (say < $2K 2010 dollars) that will show a window containing 2-page letter or A4 spread with 600 (or even 300 DPI) color. Say 10:1 for 300 DPI and 36:1 for 600 DPI. If Moore's law holds (y= 2* ln(36)/ln(2), right? )we could see it in another decade or so.

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

It isn't a matter of being "bothered working it out." The point was it's irrelevant to Windows screen capture.

If you want a preview of the future try a smartphone. My Tilt2 at

800x480 on a 3.6" screen is roughly 250 DPI and, at my age, I can barely read 'the fine print'.
Reply to
flipper

I just stuck the link in there for those who might find it useful when looking for a new monitor or whatever-- and btw, it's the "you" for the reader, not you personally, so, like, chill, man.

Are you saying additional information is undesirable? What the heck kind of engineer are you? ;-)

I can almost pick out individual atoms with my glasses off, but there are limits to how close one's eyeball should be to some things.

Something of 18 x 12" dimensions or so with 250 DPI to 600 DPI would be very nice (or bigger, provided the total number of pixels stays about the same). My camera has a ~270 DPI LCD on it, but it's made with a low temperature polysilicon process that probably doesn't scale to larger displays. With so few pixels, using those displays for working with serious data is like trying to do precise work through some kind of tiny window- If I wanted to be a gynecologist or laproscopic surgeon I would have gone for one of those professions...

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

Don't worry. I wasn't 'upset'. It's just that DPI was the point of confusion and talking about 'bothered to work it out' implies it has meaning.

The kind that usually gets accused of including too much 'additional information' ;)

I used to be like that but these days they have to be BIG atoms ;)

On the other hand, an 18" view screen would sort of defeat the 'pocket camera' concept.

Reply to
flipper

flipper:

Yes, but, apart from projectors, since bigger screens have higher resolution, the Pixel Per Inch wiill stay about the same

But, for the reason above, it will stay around that 72 PPI.

Why, with a resolution so lower than for printers, the image quality seems to be similar, i.e. not "pixellated"? The light you see from a screen is emitted, so it tends to blend with the neighbouring pixels', while the light from a print is reflected is reflected, with an higher contrast.

On top of that there is the fact that projections are meant to be seen from

10-20 feet, monitors from 2-3 feet, smartphones from 1 foot, and their resolution scaled accordingly.
Reply to
F. Bertolazzi

The root of your point is well taken because it's obviously of little use to have 'resolution' finer than the eye can resolve but it actually varies quite a bit and 72DPI isn't very common (not any more).

formatting link

The 'problem' is really in calling it 'DPI' as it's more correctly PPI (pixels per inch). DPI is a term for printers and printers work differently so the 'meaning' doesn't fit for pixel displays (more below).

A Samsung 2343BW is 102 'DPI' and a NEC MD205MG-1 is 163 'DPI'.

The 75 'DPI' number comes from the early says. I'm not sure exactly which was used but, for example, the old 14" 800x600 IBM monitor came in around 75 'DPI'.

If you're using an LCD try turning off clear type and then stick your eyeball up there like it was hand held paper.

A CRT will 'look better', for the same 'fine' resolution, because the electron gun-phosphor mechanism 'blurs' the dots. I.E. You'll be able to read those dern skinny character lines better because they're 'spread' wider (the electron gun can't go instantly off-on-off) and that's what clear type does for LCDs (because LCD pixels *can* be distinctly off-on-off)

The other reason is modern monitors are typically in the 90+ 'DPI' range, vs the older 75 'DPI', with the higher 'DPI' at least partially eaten up by 'clear type' to again make it 'readable'.

There are a lot of differences, due to the medium and mechanism, but the biggest is that displays typically have 24 or 32 bit depth 'per pixel' but ink 'dots' do not. Print 'fakes' depth by using multiple dots (remember half tone printing?) so it takes more 'dots per inch' to render the 'pixel' (and depends on a lot on the printer technology being used). For a printer you really need to know the LPI when comparing to display pixels.

That's one reason why "DPI" doesn't translate. 'Printer Dot' 'Display Pixel'.

In fact, CRT displays do something similar in that a 'pixel' is really

3 (1 each red green blue 256 bit depth) 'dots' making the one 'color pixel'.

I can't even *get* paper 3 feet away with my arms so, in addition to the above, it would clearly need more 'DPI' to look as good as a monitor's lower 'DPI'.

The original point was that displays and printers simply work differently and 'DPI' doesn't directly translate from one to the other. Displays use 'number of pixels per whole image' and printers use DPI (dots per inch). Screen capture puts in a dummy DPI but if you simply 'shrink' the picture size for print, so it fits on the page, you still have a 75 DPI picture (because you simply cannot print more DPI than the printer can print). The picture is just smaller and, since there's the same DPI but fewer inches of them, there's no place for those display pixels to go. You lose 'resolution'.

Changing 'size' by altering the image 'DPI' retains the 'pixels'.

Reply to
flipper

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.