Original Size and Scale values in Format Picture window question

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

little vinegar cup - 16 May 2008 23:54 GMT

I import in Word a PNG picture 0.34"H x 7"W. The Format Picture window/Size
tab shows the following: Size 0.34" x 7"; Lock aspect ratio & Relative to
original picture size boxes are checked; and yet the Scale is H=98% & W=100%,
which alters the pic size to 0.33 x 7". One would expect the Scale to be
H=100% and W=100%. There is an inconsistency here: on one hand Word tells you
that it honors the aspect ratio on another hand it refuses to interpret it as
100% in both dimensions, i.e. it distorts the image after all. I could simply
uncheck the Lock aspect ratio box and type in 100% in both H and W fields,
which causes the Size [and Rotate] field to match the original image size.
Yet, now I am not sure if for some reason when the pic is "forced" to its
original size, Word actually distorts it but, if allowing Word to "tweak" it,
it compensates for an unknown to me factor and actually presents it in a
truer manner. It may seem a small deviation but in graphic design a slight
logo distortion for example is inadmissible. Any revelations? Thanks!

Reply to this Message

Bob Buckland ?:-) - 17 May 2008 02:16 GMT

What version of Word are you using and what method are you using to 'import' the picture?

================
I import in Word a PNG picture 0.34"H x 7"W. The Format Picture window/Size
tab shows the following: Size 0.34" x 7"; Lock aspect ratio & Relative to
original picture size boxes are checked; and yet the Scale is H=98% & W=100%,
which alters the pic size to 0.33 x 7". One would expect the Scale to be
H=100% and W=100%. There is an inconsistency here: on one hand Word tells you
that it honors the aspect ratio on another hand it refuses to interpret it as
100% in both dimensions, i.e. it distorts the image after all. I could simply
uncheck the Lock aspect ratio box and type in 100% in both H and W fields,
which causes the Size [and Rotate] field to match the original image size.
Yet, now I am not sure if for some reason when the pic is "forced" to its
original size, Word actually distorts it but, if allowing Word to "tweak" it,
it compensates for an unknown to me factor and actually presents it in a
truer manner. It may seem a small deviation but in graphic design a slight
logo distortion for example is inadmissible. Any revelations? Thanks! >>

Signature

Bob Buckland ?:-)
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Reply to this Message

little vinegar cup - 21 May 2008 17:21 GMT

I tested both on Microsoft Word 2004 for MAC and Microsoft Office Word 2003
for PC and the issue manifests on both. I have a feeling that Word does not
look at it as a problem but it rather acts within some constrains in trying
to negotiate both pixels and dimensions of a raster image. Thanks for picking
up the trail!

> What version of Word are you using and what method are you using to 'import' the picture?
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> truer manner. It may seem a small deviation but in graphic design a slight
> logo distortion for example is inadmissible. Any revelations? Thanks! >>

Reply to this Message

Bob Buckland ?:-) - 23 May 2008 03:10 GMT

While Word basically 'thinks' in TWIPS (1/1440th of an inch), there are a number of factors that can affect how it 'sees' a graphic
sizing.

In Word 2003, if the picture has an embedded pixel per inch value (PPI) then Word uses that. If the graphic does not have an
embedded PPI value (you can open the graphic in a package such as http://irfanview.com and look at the 'Information' icon data to
see if it has an embedded PPI).

If the graphic does not have an embedded PPI then Word 2003 uses the PPI value in Tools=>Options=>General=>[Web Options]=>Pictures

I created a graphic with a 100PPI setting, 34pixels wide by 700 pixels high. When I imported that into Word it came in at .34"W x
7.0H". Same result with one 700 pixels wide and 34 pixels high. (7.0"W x .34"H)

If I created a PNG graphic with no established PPI but used the same per inch sizing and the Picture options was set to 72 PPI then
the result I get is similar to yours. The graphic app that produces the graphic (or basically its internal settings for encoding
and sizing a picture) can also be interpreted differently in different apps. There isn't a set size for a 'pixel', so the
conversion to inches/cm, etc isn't always handled the same way by each graphic app.

If you insert a picture 'inline with text' and the picture is wider than your margins, Word may 'scale' it to the boundaries.

================
I tested both on Microsoft Word 2004 for MAC and Microsoft Office Word 2003
for PC and the issue manifests on both. I have a feeling that Word does not
look at it as a problem but it rather acts within some constrains in trying
to negotiate both pixels and dimensions of a raster image. Thanks for picking
up the trail! >>

Signature

Bob Buckland ?:-)
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

Reply to this Message