<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks Steve</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I still (unfortunatelly) don't understand
why I am getting the "same quality" image on the paper with the
first and second print (the second image has twice more pixels). Is it
because of the input image itself? To be specific - the raster input is
aerial image that gdalinfor reports as:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Files: 5C14-05-DOF.tif</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Size is 4500, 6000</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Coordinate System is `'</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Origin = (5419000.154658853100000,4964998.794652804700000)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Pixel Size = (0.499829146050620,-0.499829146050620)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Corner Coordinates:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Upper Left ( 5419000.155, 4964998.795)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Lower Left ( 5419000.155, 4961999.820)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Upper Right ( 5421249.386, 4964998.795)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Lower Right ( 5421249.386, 4961999.820)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Center ( 5420124.770,
4963499.307)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Band 1 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Red</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Overviews: 2250x3000, 1125x1500,
563x750, 282x375</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Band 2 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Green</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Overviews: 2250x3000, 1125x1500,
563x750, 282x375</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Band 3 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Blue</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Overviews: 2250x3000, 1125x1500,
563x750, 282x375</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">regards, dejan</font>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"Steve Lime" <Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us>
wrote on 30.07.2008 21:13:55:<br>
<br>
> Resolution in MapServer-speak is referring to the resolution of the
<br>
> output device a map<br>
> will be displayed on. The value is used for scale computations and
<br>
> nothing else. It does not<br>
> affect the size (in pixels) of MapServer. Scale values do impact the<br>
> size at which features<br>
> and text are rendered IF scaling (via SYMBOLSCALE) is turned on. <br>
> Higher quality output is<br>
> usually a matter of having more pixels to print, however you usually<br>
> want larger features<br>
> too which is where the resolution parameter combined with scaling
can help.<br>
> <br>
> Steve<br>
> <br>
> >>> On 7/30/2008 at 2:21 AM, in message<br>
> <OF8A10F31F.0E3F1C94-ONC1257496.0026AB23-C1257496.00286464@pula.hr>,<br>
> <Dejan.Gambin@pula.hr> wrote:<br>
> > Hi,<br>
> > <br>
> > I am trying to download a high resolution image and print it
on a paper. I <br>
> > am using p.mapper and its download function that enables downloading
the <br>
> > map image on different resolutions. <br>
> > <br>
> > I have turned on my raster layer (ortophoto image). I have zoomed
in to an <br>
> > area of interest. I have downloaded the map twice - with a resolution
of <br>
> > 150 and 300. The image is shown i a new page/tab (firefox). I
right click <br>
> > on the image and save it as a png (also tried with a jpeg) file.
Now, the <br>
> > first file is 2150x1111 pixels, 120 dpi vertical and horizontal
resolution <br>
> > (right click on a file, properties, summary, what does it mean?),
the <br>
> > second file is 4300x2222 pixels, 120 dpi vertical and horizontal
<br>
> > resolution. Seems ok. The second image is "doubled"
in pixel size.<br>
> > <br>
> > Now, when I try to print this image on A4 paper, using 300dpi,
the images <br>
> > are the same, there is no "better quality" in second
image.<br>
> > <br>
> > I have just finshed reading the Mapserver thread on "Change
image <br>
> > resolution in mapfile". Several limitations are mentioned
there - max. <br>
> > image size supported by Mapserver, "resolution" value/tag
embedded in <br>
> > output format, etc. Can it be related to my problem? Or is it
maybe that <br>
> > software I am using to print this image doesn't "use"
this extra pixels? <br>
> > Or I am just missing some basic stuff I need to know :-(<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > thanks very much on any explanation<br>
> > <br>
> > regards, dejan<br>
> <br>
</font></tt>