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 |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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).

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:34:21 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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).

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 |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:34:21 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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).

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

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
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...apture+windows

Jim Thompson wrote:

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).

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

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

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

Linux import
from Imagemagick



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

Yea, then why use MS.

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in message ...
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
--

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

http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html

Cheers

On 2010-12-22, Jim Thompson wrote:
Is there any way to do a high resolution screen capture?

the print-screen button

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

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



--
š‚šƒ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Jim Thompson:

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

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.

"Martin Riddle" wrote in message
...
If print screen has got you down, try MWSnap.
Been using it for a year or so and it works well.

http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html

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

"Tim Williams" wrote in message
...
"Martin Riddle" wrote in message
...
If print screen has got you down, try MWSnap.
Been using it for a year or so and it works well.

http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html

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

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

Jim Thompson wrote:
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
Try ParaBen Sceen Capture..

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:27:21 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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.

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).

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

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.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:45 -0600, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:17:02 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:27:21 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

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

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.

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).

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

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? ;-)


http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

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.

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'.

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"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

flipper:

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.

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

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, 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.