*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Sorry, I've overlooked the notes from Brian Armstrong below.

Thanks Brian, the data processed are new data as they depend on the
processing protocol. There is no much of science left when an image gets
filtered at resampling (controlled) and printing (unpredictable). What we
see in most of publications nowadays is not the visual representation of
primary (=scientific) datasets. Those become just illustrations to what a
researcher has seen on his screen at looking at the initial images. Those
data were then processed and analysed by researcher to come to his
conclusions and described in the paper in words, equations, plots and
tables.

Thank you,
Dmitry

On Sat, September 10, 2011 3:34 am, Stanislav Vitha wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I think it absolutely fine to resample the images for presentation.
> After all, when you give a PowerPoint presentation, quite often you are
> resampling your pictures as well, depending on the particular LCD
> projector
> that is used.
>
> In order for the image to look reasonably well when printed on paper, you
> need
> about 300 pixels per inch. If you have some annotation with hard edges,
> like
> letters, arrows, these may still look a little jagged at this resolution
> (it
> probably has something to do with the compression that the print facility
> may
> use), so a lot of journals will want such figures at 600 pixels per inch.
>
> So depending how large you want the printed figures, you may need to make-
> up for the imperfections of the printing process by adding pixels
> (resampling).
> A second consideration is whether a stamp-size figure on the paper is
> comfortable to look at, even if the resolution is there - as I get older,
> I prefer
> the smallest detail in the printed image to be represented by more than
> just
> one speck of ink.
>
> I agree with Guy and others - resample the grayscale images, or resample
> RGB
> images (after all, they are just three grayscale channels). I like to do
> the
> resampling while I still have the grayscale image as 16 or 32 bits per
> pixel - I
> use ImageJ for that, picking the higher quality resampling options (cubic,
> or
> quintic, IIRC).
>
>
> Stan
>
> Dr. Stanislav Vitha
> Microscopy and Imaging Center
> Texas A&M University
> BSBW 119
> College Station, TX 77843-2257
> http://microscopy.tamu.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:31:39 -0700, Armstrong, Brian
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>Is the request to upload an image that has increased Dpi?
>>For this I would open the image in Photoshop, open image size dialogue
>> box,
> type in resolution 300dpi, UNCHECK Resample image, and choose OK.
>>It seems to me that resampling a scientific image using an algorithm such
>> as
> bicubic is interpolating pixels and therefore creating new data where it
> did not
> exist before.
>>Am I missing something?
>>
>>Brian Armstrong PhD
>


-- 
Dr. Dmitry Sokolov
Institute of Fundamental Sciences
Massey University, Palmerston North
New Zealand