This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > June 2004 > 72dpi to 300dpi
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Red Ant 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X
1600px, 300dpi?
| |
|
| >Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
> X 1600px, 300dpi?
Yes. Use the Image Size command and turn "Resample Image" OFF.
"Resample" means "change the number of pixels." If resampling is turned off,
the pixel dimensions will be identical--a 1200x1600 pixel image will still be
1200x1600 pixels. The resolution will change, and the size of the picture when
it is printed out will change.
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| the photo has 1200 x 1600 pixels...it has no dots per inch until you tell it
how many inches it will be. Often your viewer/editor will default to some
DPI...but that is illusory. It means nothing. Change the number under image
size and no resampling and the numbers change...but the file will not.
"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
X
> 1600px, 300dpi?
>
>
| |
| The Doormouse 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote:
> Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to
> 1200px X 1600px, 300dpi?
Yes, this is very basic.
You should be able to do this with no problem.
The Doormouse
--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
| |
| Red Ant 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
|
"Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040525123948.05832.00001852@mb-m03.aol.com...
>
> Yes. Use the Image Size command and turn "Resample Image" OFF.
>
> "Resample" means "change the number of pixels." If resampling is turned
off,
> the pixel dimensions will be identical--a 1200x1600 pixel image will still
be
> 1200x1600 pixels. The resolution will change, and the size of the picture
when
> it is printed out will change.
>
> --
> Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
> Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
> Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
> http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
>
If i want the pixel dimensions and the document size to be remained but only
the dpi change to 300dpi, can i do it this way:
1) turn of the resample and change the dpi to 300, then
2) turn on the resample and set the document size back to its original.
Does that cause any lose in pix quality?
| |
|
| Image>Image size, then uncheck "resample image" and change resolution to
300, click "OK." But I wouldn't consider that an "upgrade" since the
picture will still be 1200x1600.
Don
"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
X
> 1600px, 300dpi?
>
>
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:10:50 +0800, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote:
>
>"Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040525123948.05832.00001852@mb-m03.aol.com...
>off,
>be
>when
>
>
>If i want the pixel dimensions and the document size to be remained but only
>the dpi change to 300dpi, can i do it this way:
>1) turn of the resample and change the dpi to 300, then
>2) turn on the resample and set the document size back to its original.
>Does that cause any lose in pix quality?
No. That causes loss of mathematics.
DPI is dots per inch, or with regard to computer images pixels per
inch.
So the formula is as follows:
pixels divided by inches is DPI
So when you increase the DPI with the number of pixels constant your
document size will shrink. And when you increase dpi with the document
size constant the number of pixels will increase too.
Michael
| |
|
| >If i want the pixel dimensions and the document size to be remained but
>only
>the dpi change to 300dpi, can i do it this way:
You say you want the pixel dimensions to stay the same. Then you say you want
the document size to stay the same. That is impossible.
If you resample the image, the document size will stay the same, but the pixel
dimension will change.
If you turn off resampling, the pixel dimensions will stay the same, but the
document size will change.
I am not clear on what you are asking. However, resampling an image ALWAYS
degrades its quality. Always. You can not invent image detail that does not
exist in the original; it is impossible to resample an image to increase its
resolution and have the result be as good as if you had simply made the image
at the proper size and resolution to begin with.
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Not for Publication 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is
by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. Another method which
works well is to use 'stair interpolation'. Basically this uses bicubic
resizing in Photoshop in 10% increments until the size is reached. Either
way, expect some degradation of the image. How much depends on how good the
original is.
W&W
----------------------------
"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
X
> 1600px, 300dpi?
>
>
| |
|
|
"Not for Publication" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2hhqiaFbehajU1@uni-berlin.de...
> The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is
> by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. [...]
Booo.
| |
| J. A. Mc. 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> found these
unused words floating about :
>Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px X
>1600px, 300dpi?
>
F1 => "image size"
| |
| J. A. Mc. 2004-05-25, 7:14 pm |
| d'Oh! 1200x1600 to 1200x1600 with a different 'printer' dpi marker setting
doesn't require interpolation!
On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:01:59 +1000, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> found these unused words floating about :
>The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is
>by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. Another method which
>works well is to use 'stair interpolation'. Basically this uses bicubic
>resizing in Photoshop in 10% increments until the size is reached. Either
>way, expect some degradation of the image. How much depends on how good the
>original is.
>
>W&W
>----------------------------
>"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
>X
>
| |
|
| Oops - I didn't read it right - sorry.
Don
"Don" <nospam@please.gov> wrote in message
news:10b71n2s3nqckf9@corp.supernews.com...
> Image>Image size, then uncheck "resample image" and change resolution to
> 300, click "OK." But I wouldn't consider that an "upgrade" since the
> picture will still be 1200x1600.
>
> Don
>
>
> "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message
news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
> X
>
>
| |
| Peter Wollenberg 2004-05-26, 7:14 am |
| tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
...
>
>I am not clear on what you are asking. However, resampling an image ALWAYS
>degrades its quality. Always. You can not invent image detail that does not
>exist in the original; it is impossible to resample an image to increase its
>resolution and have the result be as good as if you had simply made the image
>at the proper size and resolution to begin with.
You've repeated your mantra quite often since I read this group, and
in principle you are right, _but_ it is also true that information
stored in an image beyond the resolution of the eye of the beholder is
wasted. Upsampling is allright IMO, if the target image is looked at
from a reasonably greater distance than the original.
Negatives are routinely "resampled" to considerably larger size when a
fine print is made. There is definitely a loss of total information in
this process but at the same time there is a gain in useful
information, since image detail is revealed to the naked eye which was
invisible beforehand. From your notion, anything except a contact
sheet would be degradation, but this is evidently not the case.
I am convinced that you are well aware of this, I just wanted to make
clear to the novice that there is a relation between target resolution
and viewing distance. Normally, there is no good reason to create a
life-size poster of a truck at a resolution of 1200 lpi ;)
Peter
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-26, 7:14 am |
| Bugger off jerk.
Unless of course your vocabulary improves past one syllable. Then you ought
to get a life too.
"jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote in message
news:10b7dig8br2r060@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Not for Publication" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2hhqiaFbehajU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
is[color=darkred]
>
> Booo.
>
>
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-26, 7:14 am |
| DO you ever read the garbage you post?
"J. A. Mc." <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
news:fbf7b0dteiq4snq33ho0n561dq4as5cr38@4ax.com...
> d'Oh! 1200x1600 to 1200x1600 with a different 'printer' dpi marker
setting
> doesn't require interpolation!
>
>
| |
| Brian 2004-05-26, 12:14 pm |
| >>d'Oh! 1200x1600 to 1200x1600 with a different 'printer' dpi marker
> setting doesn't require interpolation!
> DO you ever read the garbage you post?
And why is that garbage? It's utterly true...
The ONLY thing that matters in measuring the resolution of a digital
image is the pixel dimensions; PPI (inaccurately referred to in this
thread as DPI) is merely an abstract based on the pixel dimensions
applied to a particular output size, and does not have any direct
correlation to the resolution of a given image. A 1500px X 1500px image
contains the exact same number of pixels (and therefore the same
resolution) whether it's being printed at 300ppi or 72ppi.
| |
|
| In article <40b437bc.1667046@134.96.4.2>, jenelisepasceci@web.de wrote:
> tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
[...]
> You've repeated your mantra quite often since I read this group, and
> in principle you are right, _but_ it is also true that information
> stored in an image beyond the resolution of the eye of the beholder is
> wasted. Upsampling is allright IMO, if the target image is looked at
> from a reasonably greater distance than the original.
See the tomes on Viewing Distance. The nominal standard 'reading' viewing
distance is 10". But what you posit is only partly true. When
photographers refer to viewing distance they speak to
line-pairs-per-millimeter and when they enlarge very often the information
is really there to enlarge, but it is less 'sharp' with greater
enlargements. Viewing distance in that regard concerns the accutance of
the human eye/brain. When we interpolate a lower resolution image, we do
not have the information to enlarge. It's a whole different thing.
Of course, most people have lower standards and interpolation is just
fine. It largely depends upon upon the requisites of the individual or the
client.
| |
|
| In article <HIZsc.11765$L.7511@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Wilder and
Wilder" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Bugger off jerk.
> Unless of course your vocabulary improves past one syllable. Then you ought
> to get a life too.
Hook, line and sinker. Oh, and killfile.
| |
|
| >Negatives are routinely "resampled" to considerably larger size when a
>fine print is made. There is definitely a loss of total information in
>this process but at the same time there is a gain in useful
>information, since image detail is revealed to the naked eye which was
>invisible beforehand.
A negative is llimited in resolution, of course, by the physical size of the
silver halide crystals in it--yet a negative, even a 35MM negative, contains
significantly more information than a 72ppi image that's 1200 pixels wide.
Furthermore, a negative is a continuoust-tone object that is not divided into
discrete pixels in the same way as a scanned image.
Enlarging a negative to make a print does not "resample" it. Enlarging a
negative is loosely analagous to enlarging a scanned image without resampling;
the total number of discrete image elements (pixels or silver grains) remains
the same, they're simply made larger. Enlarging a negative is better compared
to using Image Size to take a 24-mm image at 2,000 pixels per inch and making
it a 240-mm image at 200 pixels per inch.
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Stuart 2004-05-26, 7:14 pm |
| Brian wrote:
>
>
>
> And why is that garbage? It's utterly true...
>
> The ONLY thing that matters in measuring the resolution of a digital
> image is the pixel dimensions; PPI (inaccurately referred to in this
> thread as DPI) is merely an abstract based on the pixel dimensions
> applied to a particular output size, and does not have any direct
> correlation to the resolution of a given image. A 1500px X 1500px image
> contains the exact same number of pixels (and therefore the same
> resolution) whether it's being printed at 300ppi or 72ppi.
It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they
need to do is think about it logically.
Stuart
| |
| Red Ant 2004-05-26, 7:14 pm |
|
"J. A. Mc." <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
news:89f7b0dv5p7t9ib1r2l32dr9u589ke4opn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> found these
> unused words floating about :
>
X[color=darkred]
> F1 => "image size"
I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px,
72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is
limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per
inch could improve the clarity of the picture.....
| |
|
| >My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px,
>72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is
>limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot
>per inch could improve the clarity of the picture.....
Nothing--absolutely nothing, no technique or program--can increase the clarity
of the picture, because nothing can invent image detail that isn't there.
Sounds like your client needs to re-create the image. Sorry...
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Not for Publication 2004-05-26, 7:14 pm |
| The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves
around their ideas. The day you can define a pixel as an element of linear
measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots
or lines. To print a 1200x1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to
be interpolated up to that size. Are all Pommies idiots or only the ones
posting to graphic news groups?
Wilder on the waves.
-----------------------------
"Stuart" <stuart@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:c92d4u$36h$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
> Brian wrote:
>
> It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they
> need to do is think about it logically.
>
> Stuart
>
| |
|
| > To print a 1200x1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to
> be interpolated up to that size.
That's not true at all - if you print a 1200 x 1600 image at 72ppi the
image will measure 16.667" x 22.223"; print the exact same image at
300ppi and it will be 4" x 5.334".
Pixel dimensions and PPI are not intertwined, but completely unrelated
measurements. There is no such thing as a 1200 x 1600 72ppi image. There
is a 1200 x 1600 image, of course, but the ppi is wholly dependent on
what size you print that 1200 x 1600 image.
| |
|
| In article <40b4c546$1_1@news.tm.net.my>, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote:
> I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
In turn, I appreciate your candor.
> My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px,
> 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is
> limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per
> inch could improve the clarity of the picture.....
As you will learn, the software cannot invent detail. However, remind your
client of the concept of viewing distance. If the image is large, then
persons looking at it from a distance will, at least, see it as if it were
just a smaller print closer up. (for the most part). If they move closer,
they should simply not expect to see more detail.
| |
|
| In article <2hkedqFe68g2U1@uni-berlin.de>, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves
> around their ideas. [...]
And that rather well describes your stuck-state. Welcome to the 'XXXXwit'
section of my killfile.
| |
|
| In article <john-2605042024540001@m-0-
135.docsis.hbci.com>, john@xyzzy.stafford.net says...
> In article <40b4c546$1_1@news.tm.net.my>, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote:
>
>
> In turn, I appreciate your candor.
>
>
> As you will learn, the software cannot invent detail. However, remind your
> client of the concept of viewing distance. If the image is large, then
> persons looking at it from a distance will, at least, see it as if it were
> just a smaller print closer up. (for the most part). If they move closer,
> they should simply not expect to see more detail.
>
And for some such applications (for example - producing
a large poster from a relatively low resolution image),
it might then be appropriate to interpolate to higher
resolution followed by filtering so the closer-than-
optimal observer wil see a blurred or grained effect
rather than block-like pixels.
| |
| Stephan 2004-05-27, 7:14 am |
|
"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message
news:40b4c546$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>
> "J. A. Mc." <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
> news:89f7b0dv5p7t9ib1r2l32dr9u589ke4opn@4ax.com...
these[color=darkred]
1200px[color=darkred]
> X
>
>
>
>
> I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
>
> My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X
1600px,
> 72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is
> limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot
per
> inch could improve the clarity of the picture.....
>
Simply put: You should not have clients before you know what you are doing.
Stephan
| |
| Stuart 2004-05-27, 7:14 am |
| Not for Publication wrote:
> The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves
> around their ideas. The day you can define a pixel as an element of linear
> measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
>
> Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots
> or lines. To print a 1200x1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to
> be interpolated up to that size. Are all Pommies idiots or only the ones
> posting to graphic news groups?
>
> Wilder on the waves.
> -----------------------------
Your point is only relevant to the final print output size.
Stuart
| |
| Not for Publication 2004-05-27, 7:14 am |
| So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical
object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions
occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to
300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those
dimensions describe.
What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200x1600 at
72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi
qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions as
a precursor to becoming a photograph.
If the OP had said a 22"x16" image at 72 dpi instead of quoting the pixel
count and specifying a dpi, those feeble minds unable to grasp the concept
that a photograph is a measurable object might open their minds to reality
and start to comprehend that a photograph cannot exist until it is produced.
A digital file is only a means of producing the photograph, it is not the
photograph itself.
----------------------------------------------------
"Stuart" <stuart@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:c94auq$qam$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
> Not for Publication wrote:
linear[color=darkred]
dots[color=darkred]
image to[color=darkred]
>
> Your point is only relevant to the final print output size.
>
> Stuart
>
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:45:10 +1000, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
>For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical
>object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
>
>To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions
>occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to
>300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those
>dimensions describe.
You still don't get it.
A digital image of 1200x1600 pixels has no such thing as 72dpi. It has
a number of pixels. DPI is not a property of the digital image but of
the printed one. Size in inches is not a property of the digital image
but of the printed one.
A image of 1200x1600pixels IS PRINTED AT 72 ppi if you print it 16.67
inches x 22.22 inches.
If you talk about printing in photo quality, you talk about printing
images at 200 to 300ppi.
Now printing 16.67 inches x 22.22 inches in photo quality requires
something between 3333x4444 and 5000x6666pixels.
You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
When you print 1600x1200pixels at 300dpi you have a 5.3x4" 300dpi
print.
When you print it at 16.67x22.22 inches, you have a 72dpi print.
You can have it either 72dpi or 300dpi.
You either have a digital image that only has pixels or you have a
paper image that can have inches, dpi and pixels (if it was digital
before) and even dots if you are discussing printer specialties.
And if you upsample the poor 1600x1200 to 6400x4800pixels and print it
to 22.22x16.67 inches you have a 288dpi print that contains 1/16th or
6.25percent original data and 93.75 percent unsharp inventions of some
kind of software.
>What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200x1600 at
>72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi
>qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions as
>a precursor to becoming a photograph.
The DPI stored in the image is just useless for sizing.
When you use an image you decide what quality (print resolution) you
need - then you apply that value (or range of values) to the
available image's pixel size to check their possible print sizes. If
you rely on any real world sizes resulting from different resolutions
stored in the images you are lost.
So either you have the DPI setting in all your images set to one and
the same value to eliminate on the fly calculations or you ignore them
and calculate real world sizes according to your project specs.
DPI values in images have only one use and that is when Xdpi and Ydpi
are different - images having non square pixels that need to be
adapted before further processing.
>If the OP had said a 22"x16" image at 72 dpi instead of quoting the pixel
>count and specifying a dpi, those feeble minds unable to grasp the concept
>that a photograph is a measurable object might open their minds to reality
>and start to comprehend that a photograph cannot exist until it is produced.
>A digital file is only a means of producing the photograph, it is not the
>photograph itself.
A photograph is a real world object that is measured in real world
units - inches, centimetres, whatever. When it is scanned, the digital
image exists in the digital world and is measured in pixels only as
you don't know the size it will have when it is returned into the real
world. Any DPI value stored with the image can only refer to the past
if it comes from the scanning process or be completely arbitrary in
the case of a digital camera. Digital cameras don't know the size of
what they capture, even if they could and should leave the DPI field
empty.
Michael
| |
| Brian 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| > Simply put: You should not have clients before you know what you are doing.
Now *there's* the smartest thing I've read in this thread yet!
8^)
| |
| Brian 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| > To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions
> occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to
> 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those
> dimensions describe.
Those dimensions you're supplying don't describe *anything*, that's the
part you fail to see - there is NO SUCH THING as a 1200 x 1600 72ppi
image. There is ONLY a 1200 x 1600 image; the pixels per inch
measurement ONLY comes into play when you actually print the image, and
is variable depending on the dimensions at which the image is printed.
>
> What you lot are attempting to make out is that this image of 1200x1600 at
> 72 dpi has in fact no dimension which is wrong because the use of a dpi
> qualifier after the pixel size of the image, creates a set of dimensions as
> a precursor to becoming a photograph.
Nope, it's absolutely correct. A digital image has only its pixel
dimensions to measure its resolution; again, pixels per inch is an
abstract derived from dividing the pixel dimensions by the output size.
This number is in no way inherent to the image at all.
A 1200 x 1600 image printed at 72ppi, and the same image printed at
300ppi, have EXACTLY THE SAME RESOLUTION, specifically 1200 X 1600. As I
posted previously, printing this image at 72ppi will result in a print
size of 16.667" x 22.223"; printing the same image at 300ppi will result
in a print size of 4" x 5.334".
To look at it another way, printing an image at 16.667" x 22.223" at
300ppi would require an image resolution of 5000px X 6666.9px, which is
CLEARLY A DIFFERENT IMAGE RESOLUTION than 1200 x 1600. It's simple math.
You didn't understand a single word of which I and the others wrote, but
yet you continue to post as if you somehow have this knowledge that tens
of thousands of qualified professionals somehow lack. Disturbing, that...
| |
|
| In article <2hlrl9Fe56leU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> So tell me then. When is a photograph not a photograph?
> For a photograph to exist at all it has to occupy space, be a physical
> object. If it is not, it cannot be a photograph but merely a digital file.
Duh.
> To print a 1200 x1600, 72 dpi image at the 22"x16" (approx) those dimensions
> occupy as a photograph in any quality at all, it must be interpolated up to
> 300 dpi or thereabouts or printed at a size considerably smaller than those
> dimensions describe.
Let's make this simple. A printer that does, say, 360ppi will make a small
print of a 1200x1600ppi image. To make a larger print and keep the same
detail, a digital image containing a larger number of pixels is
neccessary. Agreed?
The argument is that a person wanting detail in a print will need more
pixels in the very first generation of the image. If he does not have
those pixels, then interpolation is neccessary.
Underneath all this is the fact that more pixels (created in a manner
other than interpolation) in that first generation image is better than
interpolation after the fact.
Are we okay now?
| |
| Tacit 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| >You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
A digital image does have a resolution. This resolution, measured in pixels per
inch, is stored as part of the file, usually in the file's header. The
resolution makes no difference until the image is printed; nevertheless, it is
still a property of the file, and Photoshop will show it as such.
A raster-based image is described by four properties: its pixel resolution,
which is the number of pixels it contains; its physical size on output; its
resolution in pixels per inch; and the number of bits per pixel. The first
three are all related.
Each pixel is a square of color. Each pixel is assigned a physical size; this
size is not relevant to display of an image on screen, but is relevant to
outpit. A 300 pixel per inch image is made of squares called "pixels," each one
of which is 1/300th of an inch wide. A 72 pixel per inch image is made of
squares called "pixels," each one of which is 1/72 of an inch wide.
Let us suppose you have a file 1,000 pixels wide.
If your file is 100 pixels per inch, then your file will print 10 inches wide.
If your file is 200 pixels per inch, then your file will print 5 inches wide.
If your file is 1,000 pixels per inch, then it will print 1 inch wide.
In all three cases, your file is exactly the same on a computer screen; the
only thing different is how big the pixels are in print.
Think about a tile mosaic for a second--because that is exactly what your
picture is. It's a tile mosaic. Every tile is a pixel.
You're an artist, and you make a tile mosaic that is 100 tiles wide and 100
tiles deep. If each tile you used is one foot wide, your mosaic is 100 feet
wide and 100 feet tall. If each tile you used is one inch wide, your mosaic is
100 inches wide and 100 inches tall. If each tile is 1/2" wide, your mosaic is
50 inches wide and 50 inches tall.
The "resolution" of a picture is very simple: It is nothing but how big each
pixel is!
So what is "resampling"?
Let's say you have a tile mosaic and you made it out of tiles one inch wide.
Your mosaic is 100 inches wide and 100 inches tall.
Let's say you re-create your mosaic with tiles 1/2" wide.
You have two choices:
You can re-create your tile mosaic with the same number of tiles. Now your
mosaic is smaller, because the tiles are smaller. Your new mosaic is 50 inches
wide and 50 inches tall.
Or, you can re-create your mosaic at the same physical size--100 by 100 inches.
Now you have to use more tiles--four times as many tiles, in fact. Your new
mosaic is 200 tiles wide and 200 tiles high. This is "resampling." Changing the
number of tiles--that is, changing the number of pixels.
If you resample, your image will print at the same size. But because you have
to create new pixels out of thin air, the quality of the picture goes in the
toilet. There is no way to invent new pixels out of nothing; the computer must
"guess" what color to make those pixels, and you will never see detail that was
not in the original picture to start with.
If you do not resample, the image will print at a different size.
But that's all there is to it. To figure out how big a digital image will
print, you take the total number of pixels, and you divide that number by the
size of each pixel, and that will tell you how big the print will be. If your
image is 1,000 pixels wide, and each pixel is one inch wide, your image is at
one pixel per inch and will be 1,000 inches wide when you print it.
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Brian 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| >>You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.
> Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
I think where he is getting terminally confused is by using both the
pixel dimensions and the PPI to describe the resolution of the image;
the image in question is 1600x1200, period, not 1600x1200 72ppi.
But then again you and I and several others have already clearly
explained this multiple times, so perhaps his confusion transcends to
other levels...
| |
| Larry Preuss 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| in article 40b5c99f.185233593@news.t-online.de, Xalinai at
xalinai_Two@xalinai.de wrote on 5/27/04 7:27 AM:
>
> The DPI stored in the image is just useless for sizing.
Would it makes things more clear if you did not use the term "dpi"
imprecisely. My understanding is that dpi refers to a capability of the
printer, depending largely on the architecture of its print head. If the
terms spi, ppi and dpi were used according to their strict definition,
rather than loosely as they mst often are, there would be fewer
misunderstandings.
LP
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| On 27 May 2004 14:36:20 GMT, tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
>
>Yes, you can; the resulting print is 5.33 by 4 inches in dimension.
No. The printed image has a size and you can determine pixels per inch
using a ruler and your knowledge about the number of pixels.
If you can't apply the ruler to the image the units on the ruler have
no meaning to the image.
>A digital image does have a resolution. This resolution, measured in pixels
Up to here I agree...
> per
>inch, is stored as part of the file, usually in the file's header. The
>resolution makes no difference until the image is printed; nevertheless, it is
>still a property of the file, and Photoshop will show it as such.
....here not.
We both know it is irrelevant until the image is printed and it stays
irrelevant whether Photoshop or the pope in Rome shows it.
>A raster-based image is described by four properties: its pixel resolution,
>which is the number of pixels it contains; its physical size on output; its
>resolution in pixels per inch; and the number of bits per pixel. The first
>three are all related.
A raster based image is described by its height and width in pixels,
its depth in bits per pixel and in very few cases in its pixels apect
ratio via Xdpi and Ydpi if both are different where pixels are not
square.
>Each pixel is a square of color. Each pixel is assigned a physical size; this
>size is not relevant to display of an image on screen, but is relevant to
>outpit. A 300 pixel per inch image is made of squares called "pixels," each one
>of which is 1/300th of an inch wide. A 72 pixel per inch image is made of
>squares called "pixels," each one of which is 1/72 of an inch wide.
Each pixel is a rectangle of color with a default of square pixels for
current non moving images. Pixels in video applications are not
square, neither in PAL nor in NTSC formats.
>Let us suppose you have a file 1,000 pixels wide.
>
>If your file is 100 pixels per inch, then your file will print 10 inches wide.
>If your file is 200 pixels per inch, then your file will print 5 inches wide.
>If your file is 1,000 pixels per inch, then it will print 1 inch wide.
>
>In all three cases, your file is exactly the same on a computer screen; the
>only thing different is how big the pixels are in print.
Right. This proves that there is no valid dpi or pixel size
specification for the digital image inside the computer. The dpi free
digital image is converted using a printing device in three paper
images having the same number of pixels but a different number of
pixels per inch. The process of printing to a certain device at a
specified size creates the PPI value.
Terminology is important:
You can print any raster image at any arbitrary ppi value.
But you can not print any raster image at a ppi value that is
different from the one you calculate from output size and number of
pixels - the PPI make sense for the printed (=real world) object only.
>Think about a tile mosaic for a second--because that is exactly what your
>picture is. It's a tile mosaic. Every tile is a pixel.
>
>You're an artist, and you make a tile mosaic that is 100 tiles wide and 100
>tiles deep. If each tile you used is one foot wide, your mosaic is 100 feet
>wide and 100 feet tall. If each tile you used is one inch wide, your mosaic is
>100 inches wide and 100 inches tall. If each tile is 1/2" wide, your mosaic is
>50 inches wide and 50 inches tall.
>
>The "resolution" of a picture is very simple: It is nothing but how big each
>pixel is!
You are perfectly right: Because the tile is a real world object that
can be measured. The pixel raster has no size, as your example shows.
It is only the plan for the arrangement of the tiles. The one who
designes the raster image does not need to know how big the tiles are
- the one who lays the tiles either calculates the necessary tile size
for a given room (print size given, pixel number given, PPI varies) or
he lays the image with tiles of a given size (PPI specified, pixel
number is given, size varies) filling an area of a size that results
from the number of tiles and their size.
>So what is "resampling"?
>
>Let's say you have a tile mosaic and you made it out of tiles one inch wide.
>Your mosaic is 100 inches wide and 100 inches tall.
>
>Let's say you re-create your mosaic with tiles 1/2" wide.
>
>You have two choices:
>
>You can re-create your tile mosaic with the same number of tiles. Now your
>mosaic is smaller, because the tiles are smaller. Your new mosaic is 50 inches
>wide and 50 inches tall.
This isn't resampling. This is changing the desired print resolution.
>Or, you can re-create your mosaic at the same physical size--100 by 100 inches.
>Now you have to use more tiles--four times as many tiles, in fact. Your new
>mosaic is 200 tiles wide and 200 tiles high. This is "resampling." Changing the
>number of tiles--that is, changing the number of pixels.
>
>If you resample, your image will print at the same size. But because you have
>to create new pixels out of thin air, the quality of the picture goes in the
>toilet. There is no way to invent new pixels out of nothing; the computer must
>"guess" what color to make those pixels, and you will never see detail that was
>not in the original picture to start with.
The tradesman would do a pixel resize and simply lay four tiles
instead of one, the artisan would adjust edges.
And that is what you should do when you don't have image data for a
large format: slightly blur the image, upsample, blur a bit more
against aliasing and add some noise to simulate crispness.
>If you do not resample, the image will print at a different size.
>But that's all there is to it. To figure out how big a digital image will
>print, you take the total number of pixels, and you divide that number by the
>size of each pixel, and that will tell you how big the print will be. If your
>image is 1,000 pixels wide, and each pixel is one inch wide, your image is at
>one pixel per inch and will be 1,000 inches wide when you print it.
To figure out how big a digital image will print divide the number of
pixels and dividy by your desired print resolution. Or divide the
number of pixels by the corresponding length and check whether the
result is within a range you can accept or not. But here you need some
feeling/experience for what can be accepted...
But again, you are right: this isn't wizardry, it is only a little bit
of math (3rd grade, I think).
And our discussion about the sense of DPI in the average, square
pixeled computer image is as useless^h^h^h^hful as the data field
itself :-)
Michael
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:03:25 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
wrote:
>In article <2hlrl9Fe56leU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Not for Publication"
><wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Duh.
>
>
>Let's make this simple. A printer that does, say, 360ppi will make a small
>print of a 1200x1600ppi image. To make a larger print and keep the same
>detail, a digital image containing a larger number of pixels is
>neccessary. Agreed?
>
>The argument is that a person wanting detail in a print will need more
>pixels in the very first generation of the image. If he does not have
>those pixels, then interpolation is neccessary.
>
>Underneath all this is the fact that more pixels (created in a manner
>other than interpolation) in that first generation image is better than
>interpolation after the fact.
>
>Are we okay now?
Isn't that a bit too pragmatic?
We have such a fine discussion about the number of angels on a needle
tip and you call us back to earth. :-)
Michael
PS: Et ceterum censeo... There is no inch size for rater images.
| |
| Not for Publication 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| You are quite wrong Brian...
To describe an image in both pixels and dpi is to define a pre-dimensioned
print size of a photograph or other physical printed page. To define an
image in pixels alone is to describe only a digital file. We are talking
here in a PHOTOshop group so for the purpose of comprehension, it can be
freely assumed discussions are about photographs, altering or editing them
and printing photographs.
No one on this earth has ever been able to hold and view a digital image in
the way a photograph is held and viewed. Why? Because a digital image of ##
x ## pixels has no size of dimension, only of presence. It can exist only in
magnetic space or in an electrified tube, not the atmosphere and therefore
all who argue that specifying 2 components of measurement (pixels and dots
per inch) is irrelevant are unable to understand the difference between a
photograph and a magnetically created file. Unfortunately, Brian... You are
one such person.
Adobe has for as long as I can recall, specified 2 measurements in their
image file descriptions. I suggest that as Adobe invented Postscript which
is now the standard page description language of the printing industry,
their use of describing an image in both pixels and dots per inch is also a
valid method of measuring a "ready for print" image and providing in that
description, a means of readily assessing the quality of the printed page.
Wherever people get the idea that pixels are all that count is quite
irrelevant to what the printing industry and photographic industry use in
their descriptions or for that matter, need in order to print a page. What
is relevant is that some people (you included) have such an unshakable
belief that the world is flat as to continue on with an argument which has
no merit.
Probably a better group for you to post to would be a digital artists group
where pixels wear red hats and the dpi arrest them for exposure. Your
opinions are just as fanciful when it comes to printing photographs... This
is after all a group devoted to software used for photographic manipulation.
----------------------------------------
"Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:862c2$40b5ef64$d1cc6c12$29172@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
dimensions[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
those[color=darkred]
>
> Those dimensions you're supplying don't describe *anything*, that's the
> part you fail to see - there is NO SUCH THING as a 1200 x 1600 72ppi
> image. There is ONLY a 1200 x 1600 image; the pixels per inch
> measurement ONLY comes into play when you actually print the image, and
> is variable depending on the dimensions at which the image is printed.
>
>
>
>
at[color=darkred]
as[color=darkred]
>
> Nope, it's absolutely correct. A digital image has only its pixel
> dimensions to measure its resolution; again, pixels per inch is an
> abstract derived from dividing the pixel dimensions by the output size.
> This number is in no way inherent to the image at all.
>
> A 1200 x 1600 image printed at 72ppi, and the same image printed at
> 300ppi, have EXACTLY THE SAME RESOLUTION, specifically 1200 X 1600. As I
> posted previously, printing this image at 72ppi will result in a print
> size of 16.667" x 22.223"; printing the same image at 300ppi will result
> in a print size of 4" x 5.334".
>
> To look at it another way, printing an image at 16.667" x 22.223" at
> 300ppi would require an image resolution of 5000px X 6666.9px, which is
> CLEARLY A DIFFERENT IMAGE RESOLUTION than 1200 x 1600. It's simple math.
>
>
>
> You didn't understand a single word of which I and the others wrote, but
> yet you continue to post as if you somehow have this knowledge that tens
> of thousands of qualified professionals somehow lack. Disturbing, that...
| |
|
| > You are quite wrong Brian...
No, I'm not. I've been working professionally in prepress for (too
many!) years now, I know exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps you
misread my posts, because what you are saying is not technically wrong
but it addresses issues that I am not speaking of...
> To describe an image in both pixels and dpi is to define a pre-dimensioned
> print size of a photograph or other physical printed page. To define an
> image in pixels alone is to describe only a digital file.
Which is *all* I am doing here. The resolution of a digital image is
defined *only* by its pixel dimensions. The pixel per inch measurement
is *only* valid when speaking of print output.
Again (for what seems like the hundredth time) if you print a 1200x1600
image at 72ppi the output will be 16.667" x 22.223"; if you print the
same image at 300ppi the print output will be 4" x 5.334". In both
cases, however, the resolution of the digital image is *exactly* the
same, specifically 1200px X 1600px. The print output has two different
resolutions, one @ 72ppi and the other @ 300, but I am *not* referring
to that for this particular discussion.
Photoshop provides a ppi reference as a courtesy only; if you change the
ppi of any image with resample unchecked you are only affecting the
display of the print dimensions of the image; the resolution has *not*
been affected by even one single pixel.
Read thoroughly and you will see that where we disagree is not on the
technical aspects of the disucssion, but rather the topic we are each
speaking about.
And lastly, stop being so condescending. You act as if you are the only
person here who has a clue what Photoshop is for and can do, or what
photography or print is, and in that sir you are woefully mistaken.
| |
|
|
"Not for Publication" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2hn3dfFevddcU1@uni-berlin.de...
>[...] We are talking
> here in a PHOTOshop group so for the purpose of comprehension, it can be
> freely assumed discussions are about photographs, altering or editing them
> and printing photographs.
Is it too much to ask a PS user to understand what a pixel really is? It is
elementary to the whole digital paradigm! If a PS user can spend huge money
to buy the product, then they are likely to be have the skills necessary to
balance their checkbook, and that's all the magic they need to know in order
to render pixels into a print without incurring dissapointments from being
willfully ignorant.
> No one on this earth has ever been able to hold and view a digital image
in
> the way a photograph is held and viewed. Why? Because a digital image of
##
> x ## pixels has no size of dimension, only of presence.
Utter pseudo-philosophical hogwash. A red herring. Following your mental
recursion (eg: leapfrogging through your own metaphysical XXXXXXX) leads
nowhere but to more of the same, but elementary, proven metrics of pixels
always yields perfectly correct answers through simple grade-school
arithmetic.
By your reconing so far, you would have sent people into lala land to solve
their printing issue. Have you not already told them that they should print
a small image to a much larger format by interpolating? We were trying very
hard to make it perfectly clear that when they do that, PS has to invent
data to create the image. That is important. You used the term interpolation
correctly (albeit perhaps by accident) and you cry that we are being too
technical?
Put a plug in it, NFP.
| |
| Voivod 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:03:40 +1000, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> scribbled:
>This is after all a group devoted to software used for photographic manipulation.
That's not a decision you get to make for others.
| |
| sunlei6662003@hotmail.com 2004-05-28, 4:14 am |
| Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-28, 12:14 pm |
| Aparently those who would offer themselves as keepers of the (flawed)
"pixels rule" school, failed to read or comprehend the original post and
instead set off on a tangent to expound their idea of how flat the world
really is until someone else highlighted the point that the OP wanted to
print the picture... And isn't that what I've been discussing all along?
"Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:213a7$40b5ecfa$d1cc6c12$29112@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
doing.[color=darkred]
>
> Now *there's* the smartest thing I've read in this thread yet!
> 8^)
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-28, 12:14 pm |
| On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:56:36 -0400, Larry Preuss
<LPreuss@NocomNocast.net> wrote:
>in article 40b5c99f.185233593@news.t-online.de, Xalinai at
>xalinai_Two@xalinai.de wrote on 5/27/04 7:27 AM:
>
>
>Would it makes things more clear if you did not use the term "dpi"
>imprecisely. My understanding is that dpi refers to a capability of the
>printer, depending largely on the architecture of its print head. If the
>terms spi, ppi and dpi were used according to their strict definition,
>rather than loosely as they mst often are, there would be fewer
>misunderstandings.
The relevant property for a digital image is the amount of information
in the image. This is specified by two dimensions of pixel count and
one dimension of bit depth. As long as you stay in the digital
universe there is no further property that can add information about
the amount of detail available in the image.
Print resolution or sizes that compare the image to objects outside
the digital universe are only valid in this real world. During the
image's stay in digital space they are like the information on a can
of paint that says it will last for five square meters - they make
assumptions how someone will use it and specify a sample outcome of
its application. But saying "I have a 1000x2000pixel/72dpi image" is
like saying "I have a 800 millilitres 5 square meter can of paint!"
Michael
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-28, 12:14 pm |
| On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:03:40 +1000, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>You are quite wrong Brian...
>To describe an image in both pixels and dpi is to define a pre-dimensioned
>print size of a photograph or other physical printed page. To define an
>image in pixels alone is to describe only a digital file. We are talking
>here in a PHOTOshop group so for the purpose of comprehension, it can be
>freely assumed discussions are about photographs, altering or editing them
>and printing photographs.
>Adobe has for as long as I can recall, specified 2 measurements in their
>image file descriptions. I suggest that as Adobe invented Postscript which
>is now the standard page description language of the printing industry,
>their use of describing an image in both pixels and dots per inch is also a
>valid method of measuring a "ready for print" image and providing in that
>description, a means of readily assessing the quality of the printed page.
You are talking of the habits in an industry. The use of a term in an
industry may be widespread but still either wrong or just jargon.
To combine possible output resolution and the data volume of an image
in a specification leads to misunderstandings like two people
discussing the difference between a 72dpi and a 300dpi version of the
same 2000x3000 pixel digital image.
What those people not understand is that they should discuss the
difference between a 72dpi 8"x10" and a 300dpi 8"x10" image - real
world objects that actually do have a resolution measured in dpi.
>Wherever people get the idea that pixels are all that count is quite
>irrelevant to what the printing industry and photographic industry use in
>their descriptions or for that matter, need in order to print a page. What
>is relevant is that some people (you included) have such an unshakable
>belief that the world is flat as to continue on with an argument which has
>no merit.
An industry where you give someone an image of 6000x4000pixels that
has a stored dpi of 72 to be printed 20 inches wide and get the image
rejected because "the resoluton is too low, we need it in 300dpi"
should very quickly re-learn their job.
Michael
| |
| Larry Preuss 2004-05-28, 12:14 pm |
| in article 40b72c78.276074046@news.t-online.de, Xalinai at
xalinai_Two@xalinai.de wrote on 5/28/04 8:20 AM:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:56:36 -0400, Larry Preuss
> <LPreuss@NocomNocast.net> wrote:
>
>
> The relevant property for a digital image is the amount of information
> in the image. This is specified by two dimensions of pixel count and
> one dimension of bit depth. As long as you stay in the digital
> universe there is no further property that can add information about
> the amount of detail available in the image.
>
> Print resolution or sizes that compare the image to objects outside
> the digital universe are only valid in this real world. During the
> image's stay in digital space they are like the information on a can
> of paint that says it will last for five square meters - they make
> assumptions how someone will use it and specify a sample outcome of
> its application. But saying "I have a 1000x2000pixel/72dpi image" is
> like saying "I have a 800 millilitres 5 square meter can of paint!"
>
> Michael
Not "dpi." Dots per inch is a measure of how many dots of ink a printer is
able to place in a measured space, is limited by the design of the print
head and your decision of standard, fine print, or whatever the notation is
for your printer, and has no relationship to the measurements of what is
presented to it to print.
Larry
| |
| Voivod 2004-05-28, 12:14 pm |
| On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:45:06 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> scribbled:
>Aparently those who would offer themselves as keepers of the (flawed)
>"pixels rule" school, failed to read or comprehend the original post and
>instead set off on a tangent to expound their idea of how flat the world
>really is until someone else highlighted the point that the OP wanted to
>print the picture... And isn't that what I've been discussing all along?
The funniest part is you STILL think you're right....
| |
| J. A. Mc. 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
| On Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:11 +1000, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> found these unused words floating about :
>The problem with narrow minded people is they think the world revolves
>around their ideas.
This would be a self-description?
>The day you can define a pixel as an element of linear
>measurement, will be the day I start printing them.
Got plenty of ink/toner and paper?
A pixel can easily be defined as having a linear measurement when referenced
by dpi. THAT's the whole point of having the dpi MARKER in the file. That it
can be altered, that's a function of modern technology.
pixel = 1/dpi in inches
>
>Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots
>or lines. To print a 1200x1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to
>be interpolated up to that size.
>Are all Pommies idiots or only the ones
>posting to graphic news groups?
Self application ... again? <G>
IMHO You need to learn the physical facts AND read before dumping. Double
check the OP's exact query ... again!
>Wilder on the waves.
>-----------------------------
>
>"Stuart" <stuart@nospam.uk> wrote in message
>news:c92d4u$36h$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
>
| |
| J. A. Mc. 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
| On Thu, 27 May 2004 00:26:42 +0800, "Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> found these
unused words floating about :
>
>"J. A. Mc." <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
>news:89f7b0dv5p7t9ib1r2l32dr9u589ke4opn@4ax.com...
>X
>
>I really appreciate you guys for the valuable opinions.
>
>My objective to this is simple. I have a client with this 1200px X 1600px,
>72dpi picture requires to blow to an A2 size poster. My knowledge is
>limited, I thought by remaining the document size but increasing the dot per
>inch could improve the clarity of the picture.....
>
There's the rub ... IF you're simply (as stated) altering the dpi and
retaining the pixels as before, then the printed image will be smaller.
To keep the -printed- size the same, then you'll have to increase the
pixels. It's a classic inter-related triangle. To change one part, something
else has to change.
NFP's misreading of your exact words actually gave the most likely solution
- albeit expensive for a small occasional use.
One trick you might try is to use "image size" and resample at 600 dpi. Then
apply the median filter (noise category) and then resample down to 300 dpi.
You can try the "unsharpen mask" at this point, but with just a subtle
change needed.
In many cases it produces a pleasing and usable image. In either way you
have not any more real information, just presented differently.
| |
| Stuart 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
| Larry Preuss wrote:
>
> Not "dpi." Dots per inch is a measure of how many dots of ink a printer is
> able to place in a measured space, is limited by the design of the print
> head and your decision of standard, fine print, or whatever the notation is
> for your printer, and has no relationship to the measurements of what is
> presented to it to print.
> Larry
If you had vaguely followed this thread then you would not have written
your post.
Stuart
| |
| Stuart 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
| Voivod wrote:
>
> The funniest part is you STILL think you're right....
LOL!!
| |
| Larry Preuss 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
| in article c97nuc$r11$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk, Stuart at stuart@nospam.uk
wrote on 5/28/04 12:01 PM:
> Larry Preuss wrote:
>
>
> If you had vaguely followed this thread then you would not have written
> your post.
>
> Stuart
>
I have been following it, with some interest.
| |
| Stephan 2004-05-28, 7:14 pm |
|
<sunlei6662003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f37cdca.0405272256.18ff192@posting.google.com...
> Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
> you...
Why would anyone want to spend money on such crap?
Windows comes with about the same image editing power with Imaging.
Stephan
| |
| aka 717 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
|
"Red Ant" <hugo@klkh.com> wrote in message news:40b3732c_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px
X
> 1600px, 300dpi?
I think you want to keep the picture the same size,
whatever that is, and make in higher resolution.
It any case decide how big you want the picture,
enter that number in the crop tool along with dpi
that you desire and select the area that is best.
Be sure to have bicubic interpolation set in the
preferences.
| |
| J. A. Mc. 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:28:06 -0400, Larry Preuss <LPreuss@NocomNocast.net>
found these unused words floating about :
>in article c97nuc$r11$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk, Stuart at stuart@nospam.uk
>wrote on 5/28/04 12:01 PM:
>
>I have been following it, with some interest.
The "dpi" used by most graphics programs isn't "printer dots". Truly it
should be called "ppi" but getting manufacturers to understand is like
getting 'resolution' straight for newbies.
| |
| Bill Hilton 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| >From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> I hope someone got something valuable somewhere in this circle of
>confusion.
Circle of confusion? Don't be so hyperfocal John!
:)
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads
to industry adoption of that description. You only need to look at the
current description of 'fonts' and their traditional description to see
that.
Eventually the widespread use of including dpi in the measurement of an
image's size and quality will become the norm and traditionalists will
forever morn the passing of yet another dead pixel.
"Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message
news:40b72f39.276779343@news.t-online.de...
>
> An industry where you give someone an image of 6000x4000pixels that
> has a stored dpi of 72 to be printed 20 inches wide and get the image
> rejected because "the resoluton is too low, we need it in 300dpi"
> should very quickly re-learn their job.
>
> Michael
| |
| David Haley 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> proclaimed:
>Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads
>to industry adoption of that description. You only need to look at the
>current description of 'fonts' and their traditional description to see
>that.
>
>Eventually the widespread use of including dpi in the measurement of an
>image's size and quality will become the norm and traditionalists will
>forever morn the passing of yet another dead pixel.
DPI is just like the scale on a map. If you make more world-km to the map-cm but
don't change how much world you're representing, your map gets smaller. If you
make less world-km to the map-cm but don't change how much world you're
representing, your map gets bigger. It couldn't be simpler. It's not directly an
issue of quality when you print, it's an issue of scale: how many of those magic
little computer bytes go into our dull little real-world inches. I appreciate
your efforts in trying to bring us poor souls to modernity here, but I think
I'll pass on this particular "instruction" of yours. :)
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| I certainly learned that many people vehemently believe their own
opinions... Even if they differ from what others do in day to day use. Right
at the start I said the only way the OP would achieve his aim was to
interpolate the image up to 300 dpi before printing.
I think that started the fiasco where all the Pixels got arrested by the dpi
and so the tale continues with no one giving an inch to anyone else... It
was you, too John, who first started the row over printing the image and
Booo'd me for suggesting it maybe possible if interpolated... Geezzzz!
"jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-2805042023370001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com...
> In article <FaPtc.1621$W01.563@okepread01>, "aka 717" <no@spam.net> wrote:
>
> And so we come full circle, right back to the original nonsense we stared
> with . I hope someone got something valuable somewhere in this circle of
> confusion.
| |
|
| In article <_XVtc.15963$L.13385@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Wilder and
Wilder" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I certainly learned that many people vehemently believe their own
> opinions... Even if they differ from what others do in day to day use. Right
> at the start I said the only way the OP would achieve his aim was to
> interpolate the image up to 300 dpi before printing.
>
> I think that started the fiasco where all the Pixels got arrested by the dpi
> and so the tale continues with no one giving an inch to anyone else... It
> was you, too John, who first started the row over printing the image and
> Booo'd me for suggesting it maybe possible if interpolated... Geezzzz!
The "Booo" was for your recommendation of Genuine Fractals, aka: Snake Oil.
| |
| Voivod 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> scribbled:
>Your argument is flawed in that "widespread" industry usage invariably leads
>to industry adoption of that description.
Ladies and gentlemen - In this corner, wearing polka dots, weighing in
at 98 lbs it's the DPI Warrior! And in the other corner, weighing in at
several gigatons it's.... everyone else..
| |
| Not for Publication 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| I'll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most
certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising
large dimensions and produce good to very good results... But then my python
must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
"jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-2905040128570001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com...
> In article <_XVtc.15963$L.13385@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Wilder and
> Wilder" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
Right[color=darkred]
dpi[color=darkred]
It[color=darkred]
>
> The "Booo" was for your recommendation of Genuine Fractals, aka: Snake
Oil.
| |
| Tacit 2004-05-29, 12:14 pm |
| >I'll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most
>certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising
>large dimensions and produce good to very good results...
It produces "good to very good" results for people unskilled at digital
imaging, or uncritical. I have used it, and even on their best-possible-case
images, I personally find their results crap.
You know that breochure they produced, challenging you to pick the
GF-interpolated image from the high-res image? I picked the interpolated image
12 out of 12 times.
Nothing--no technique, no algorithm, no program, nothing--can interpolate an
image and produce image information which does not exist in the original.
--
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
| In article <2hqr4fFg3qiqU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Not for Publication"
<wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I'll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most
> certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising
> large dimensions and produce good to very good results...
GF users raving positive impressions are a good determination of their
uncritical skills, low expectations. Sometimes I wonder if today's low
expectations are not due to digital photography's dilution of true quality
imaging.
| |
|
|
| Johan W. Elzenga 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| jjs <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote:
> One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet
> prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read
> this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page...e=Photo_Talk803
>
> Rather daunting, isn't it?
Daunting, yes. But written by someone who is clearly not as knowledgable
as he thinks himsef. Just look at this quote: "today's best cameras
record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if,
in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If
you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher
resolution."
That is nonsense. Yes, you can easily scan 20 Mpixel or more out of that
piece of film. But if you record an 11 Mpixel file to film and scan it
again, you will never get more detail than the original 11 Mpixel file
contained. Your 20 Mpixel scan will be no different than interpolating
the original 11 Mpixel file to 20 Mpixel. In fact, interpolation will
almost certainly give better results, because output to film and
scanning again will always cause some loss of detail, even if it's done
with the best equipment available. There is really no reason to backup
on film, even apart from the fact that this would be incredibly
expensive.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| In article <1gek7co.1dgl06i1pkeugwN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> jjs <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote:
>
>
> Daunting, yes. But written by someone who is clearly not as knowledgable
> as he thinks himsef. Just look at this quote: "today's best cameras
> record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if,
> in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If
> you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher
> resolution."
> That is nonsense. Yes, you can easily scan 20 Mpixel or more out of that
> piece of film.
I believe there is a misunderstanding. The 11 megapixel was given as an
example of the higher resolution prosumer cameras of the time. The author
was saying "using today's better digital camera, you will still fall short
of Large Format film fidelity."
Clear?
| |
| Voivod 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:48 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
scribbled:
>
>One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet
>prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read
>this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page...e=Photo_Talk803
>
>Rather daunting, isn't it?
Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is
composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the
current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more
than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:48 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> scribbled:
>
>
> Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is
> composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the
> current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more
> than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
And there are 20 Mpixels digital camera backs for medium and large
format cameras. The problem is that people who are used to film, simply
count pixels to compare film and digital. It is true that you can easily
scan 25 Mpixels out of a 35mm slide, or 100 Mpixels out of a 6x7 cm
slide. However, that does NOT mean that you need a 25 Mpixels digital
camera to get the same quality as 35mm film, or 100 Mpixels digital
camera to compete with 6x7 cm film. Direct comparison (in the British
'Professional Photographer' magazine for example) have shown that the
Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels) already beats an analog Canon 35mm camera with
the same lens on it.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
> Rather like crap really. It sounds like Arizona Highways magazine is
> composed of film snobs. How old is that article anyhow? "The best of the
> current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more
> than 11 megapixels." Kodak has a 14 MP camera out.
The difference between 11MP and 14MP is absolutely ZERO, and possibly
MINUS. Why? because pixels don't indicate quality in regards to how those
pixels combined contribute to overall tone and color rendition, nor
resolution.
If you live by the manufacturers' metrics, you are already blinded.
| |
| Voivod 2004-05-29, 11:14 pm |
| On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:21:27 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
scribbled:
>Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>
>The difference between 11MP and 14MP is absolutely ZERO, and possibly
No, it's 3. 14 - 11 = 3 See, math works.
>MINUS. Why? because pixels don't indicate quality in regards to how those
>pixels combined contribute to overall tone and color rendition, nor
>resolution.
So because a POSSIBILITY exists that your $5000 14 MP digital SLR is of
lower quality than your $8000 11MP camera that's reason to say the
difference is zero or even a 'minus'?
>If you live by the manufacturers' metrics, you are already blinded.
| |
| Wilder and Wilder 2004-05-30, 4:14 am |
| Total crap.
National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over
a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who the
hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ... What is Arazona? Does anyone
actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
"jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-2905041045480001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com...
>
> One last post, perhaps. Imaging for publication is not like making inkjet
> prints at home or friends, or undemanding employers. Photographers, read
> this: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page...e=Photo_Talk803
>
> Rather daunting, isn't it?
| |
|
| In article <nucuc.17432$L.11358@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Wilder and
Wilder" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Total crap.
> National Geographic has been accepting images from Digital cameras for over
> a year. Now that is the definative publication for picture quality. Who the
> hell are Arizona Highways anyway? Christ... What is Arazona? Does anyone
> actually read the backwater magazine anyway?
And your point is? NG has been accepting B&W forever, too. :) Arizona
Highways was referring to pictures it also uses for exhibitions, if that
helps.
Oh, for a "backwater" magazine, it pays pretty well. Say what you like,
it's not all about pop culture afterall.
| |
| Stephan 2004-05-30, 4:14 am |
|
"Not for Publication" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2hqr4fFg3qiqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> I'll pass that one over. I use GF daily. It has oddities but it most
> certainly can enlarge basically good, low resolution images to surprising
> large dimensions and produce good to very good results... But then my
python
> must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
>
Nobody would expect you to want to know you got ripped off.
GF is not any better than Stair Interpolation and Stair interpolation can be
replaced by a home made, free, action.
Stephan
| |
| Stephan 2004-05-30, 4:14 am |
|
"jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-2905042310060001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com...
> In article <nucuc.17432$L.11358@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Wilder and
> Wilder" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
over[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
> And your point is? NG has been accepting B&W forever, too. :) Arizona
> Highways was referring to pictures it also uses for exhibitions, if that
> helps.
>
No, there were talking about their out of this world quality, see here:
"But an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp,
high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages
of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch"
My guess is that there are no stores offering digital cameras along
Arizona's highway's yet or that Mr. Ensenberger is a Hasselblad or Leica
user.
Stephan
| |
| aka 717 2004-05-30, 7:14 am |
|
"Stephan" <NoMoreSpam@Thank.you> wrote in message
news:Nieuc.9972$hM4.709@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote in message
> news:john-2905042310060001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com...
> over
Who[color=darkred]
> the
anyone[color=darkred]
>
> No, there were talking about their out of this world quality, see here:
> "But an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp,
> high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages
> of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch"
> My guess is that there are no stores offering digital cameras along
> Arizona's highway's yet or that Mr. Ensenberger is a Hasselblad or Leica
> user.
>
> Stephan
Arizona Highways is printed in half tone, isn't it, at
about 150-200 lines/inch. At the norm of 2.0-2.2
X lpi = ppi, then a scan or digital photo should be
from 300 ppi to 440 ppi.
That's the way I figure it. Please correct me. It's been
a while.
| |
| aka 717 2004-05-30, 7:14 am |
|
"Stephan" <NoMoreSpam@Thank.you> wrote in message
news:wdeuc.9928$hM4.6703@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Not for Publication" <wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2hqr4fFg3qiqU1@uni-berlin.de...
surprising[color=darkred]
> Python
>
> Nobody would expect you to want to know you got ripped off.
> GF is not any better than Stair Interpolation and Stair interpolation can
be
> replaced by a home made, free, action.
>
> Stephan
>
>
Or a droplet.
| |
| Bill Hilton 2004-05-30, 12:14 pm |
| >From: "Stephan" NoMoreSpam@Thank.you
>No, there were talking about their out of this world quality, see here:
>"But an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp,
>high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages
>of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch"
Highways typically prefers 4x5" chromes and drum scans from that. They'll take
medium format (a friend got the cover shot a couple of times with 6x4.5 cm but
it's uncommon) but prefer large format and probably 80-90% of the full spread
shots are taken with 4x5. They rarely print from 35 mm except for the
occasional wildlife or action shot. It's actually a very highly regarded
magazine for the quality of its printing.
Most of us who've actually used the 11 Mpixel body he mentions (the Canon 1Ds,
which I use) feel it's better than 35 mm but not up to medium format standards,
and since this magazine pefers large format over MF it's no wonder they aren't
switching over to digital yet. On the other hand if you know how to rez up the
files with the best techniques and use edge sharpening on the rezzed up file
you can make very nice large prints from the 1Ds, but magazines don't want to
go to this trouble when they can just scan large format instead.
>My guess is that there are no stores offering digital cameras along
>Arizona's highway's yet or that Mr. Ensenberger is a Hasselblad or Leica
>user.
I did a multi-day hike down Paria Canyon with Ensenberger 12 years ago and he
was lugging a Pentax 6x7 system, which they probably consider entry level gear
for that particular magazine. The two pros who often contribute to the
magazine and who led this trip (Jack Dykinga and Gary Ladd) both had 4x5's, as
did many of the other participants in the workshop. Blad would be marginally
OK with this group, Leica wouldn't cut it :) Though Dykinga did use Leicas in
his journalism days when he won a Pulitzer Prize, before taking the vow of
poverty and becoming a landscape photographer.
It's no big deal guys, they're just saying they prefer large format and even
the best Canon dSLR's don't match that. No surprise there.
Bill
| |
| Xalinai 2004-05-30, 12:14 pm |
| On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:02:15 -0700, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:11 +1000, "Not for Publication"
><wilder_4_awhile@yahoo.com.au> found these unused words floating about :
>
>This would be a self-description?
>
>
>Got plenty of ink/toner and paper?
In a world that has no other means of maesurement, pixels already are
an element of linear masurement - the size of icons and on screen
objects are measured in pixels, so are images in the web.
>
>A pixel can easily be defined as having a linear measurement when referenced
>by dpi. THAT's the whole point of having the dpi MARKER in the file. That it
>can be altered, that's a function of modern technology.
>
>pixel = 1/dpi in inches
This is valid where you can measure in inches - real world objects
like printed images.
[color=darkred]
The process of printing a 1200x1600 image at 300ppi requires no
interpolation, as well as printing it at 72ppi - the resulting sizes
will be different.
There are different procedures available to reduce the visibility of
the pixel structure of the image printed at 72dpi but none of them
will make it as clear or sharp as a 300ppi image of 16.67x22.22
inches.
And as ppi is pixels/inches, an image can never be 72ppi and 300ppi
the same time as "printing a 72ppi image at 300ppi" suggests.
Michael
| |
|
| Xalinai wrote:
> On 27 May 2004 14:36:20 GMT, tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No. The printed image has a size and you can determine pixels per inch
> using a ruler and your knowledge about the number of pixels.
> If you can't apply the ruler to the image the units on the ruler have
> no meaning to the image.
>
>
>
>
> Up to here I agree...
>
>
>
>
> ...here not.
>
> We both know it is irrelevant until the image is printed and it stays
> irrelevant whether Photoshop or the pope in Rome shows it.
Please keep in mind, this (resolution/density) issue pertains to
Photoshop, ONLY. Not all graphic viewers and editors follow this!!!!!!
:-)
Here, have a clip:
| | |