DEED-MAPPER-USERS-L Archives

Archiver > DEED-MAPPER-USERS > 2008-08 > 1218493754


From: "John B. Robb" <>
Subject: Re: [DMU] Maps
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:29:14 -0400
References: <ee8507260808092104me0691a9lc5808ac72499ac8@mail.gmail.com><LLEOLCHBMEBAFFAAMPPOOECOCNAA.steve.stevens@verizon.net><ee8507260808100712n7deb5584offb5169e909bc57f@mail.gmail.com>


Sorry, David. I've been offline for a day.

Here's what I did (I just went thru the procedure again to be sure):

I went to the LOC map catalog page, scanned down to the 1863 FluvannaCo link
and clicked that. When the page came up with the map thumbnail, I clicked
that to expand it, then I clicked the link "Download JPEG2000 image (6924
kilobytes)", and saved it. I then opened this saved file with Corel
"PaintshopPro" (which covers pretty much the same territory as Adobe
Photoshop), and took a look at Image Information, which gives me the size
and density specs of the image.

PaintshopPro reported a 6924K image of 7316x6416 pixels at 200dpi. The
image size was reported as 36.58x32.08 inches. This was the size of the
original image from which the scan was made. The actual map image
downloaded has a solid border (with a narrower border line inset) all
around, with maybe half an inch outside the solid border all around.

Your converted JPG has truncated the border, and the whitespace edge outside
it, yet the Image Information for your JPG image comes up as 5127K,
6694x6185 pixels, 150dpi, and the indicated original image size is
44.627x41.233 inches - about 22% wider, even though you have truncated a
good part of the original LOC image.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Martin" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DMU] Maps


> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Steve Stevens
> <>wrote:
>
>> That dimension is the whole picture width not just the map width...
>>
>
> Exactly; and John was referring to the entire picture width in his post.
> I'm curious how he came up with 36.5 inches, but I believe that Steve
> Broyles already gave the right answer to my original question--the LOC
> image
> is double sized. The info page states that the original map is 54 x 62
> cm,
> but the image is 108 x 124 cm. Loading it at 300 dots/inch rather than
> 150
> sets that scale you mention pretty close to 13000 feet.
>
> Thanks everyone,
> David
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: