Sorry,
It should have read
"For the purposes of this discussion about resolution, DPI and PPI can be taken to mean the same thing""
You're certainly right.
You're certainly right.
h
Herschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,
Head of the Department of Photography,
Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Adobe Certified instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
----- Original Message ----
From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:50:39 PM
Subject: Re: DPI-was Image cathedral at Les Baux
From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:50:39 PM
Subject: Re: DPI-was Image cathedral at Les Baux
Hershel writes:
>PPI and DPI mean the same thing.
see my later reply - they may have *come* to mean the same thing through
popular usage (the same way 'gross' has come to mean 'disgusting' rather
than 'large') buut they are not the same at all, sorry..
>In other words we need to use the primary-school-simple formula:
Size(Inches) X DPI (Or PPI) = pixel dimensions.
>This is useful information. Nothing else is of much value.
>To send commercial images for preview by email. you can size them to:
>Around 1000 pixels for the longest dimension
>72 DPI resolution
>Medium JPEG compression
he dpi is irrelevant - the ppi would however tell a printer that you want
this image to be printed 14" wide, however it would look awful.
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 3.3 inches wide" it would look
pretty good (as it would be printed at 300 pixels per inch (ppi)
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 6 inches wide" it would look
OK in a newspaper (as it would be printed at 150 pixels per inch (ppi)
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 1.5 inches wide" it would look
pretty good (as it would be printed at 600 pixels per inch (ppi) , however
you'd have made the file twice as big as it needed to be as the human eye
can NOT generally see more than 300 lines per inch.
>Computer monitors bought in the last 20 years or used by people dealing
with images will not have a lower resolution than that.
Again, largely irrelevant. A better way is to consider WHAT resolution
pewople set their monitors to and size the images in pixels appropriately.
Mums and dads generally have machines set at 800x800, photographers
1024x768 or better.
Lets consider the 800x600 screens (the most common 'low' res these days) -
limiting an image to 600 pixels in height or 800 wide *maximum* means
they'll be able to see the whole image on their screen in one hit -
depending on the size of their browser/program window. Make it 400 wide or
300 high if you want it to look half the height/width of the screen -
simple! :)
>High quality magazine covers are actually printed at a resolution of
around 240 DPI (But they always ask for 300)
change that no ppi (NOT semantics) and you're right
>Newspapers are printed at around 100-150 DPI
newspapers work with dot screens and here dots are a relatively accurate
term, though lines per inch may be better
karl
>PPI and DPI mean the same thing.
see my later reply - they may have *come* to mean the same thing through
popular usage (the same way 'gross' has come to mean 'disgusting' rather
than 'large') buut they are not the same at all, sorry..
>In other words we need to use the primary-school-simple formula:
Size(Inches) X DPI (Or PPI) = pixel dimensions.
>This is useful information. Nothing else is of much value.
>To send commercial images for preview by email. you can size them to:
>Around 1000 pixels for the longest dimension
>72 DPI resolution
>Medium JPEG compression
he dpi is irrelevant - the ppi would however tell a printer that you want
this image to be printed 14" wide, however it would look awful.
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 3.3 inches wide" it would look
pretty good (as it would be printed at 300 pixels per inch (ppi)
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 6 inches wide" it would look
OK in a newspaper (as it would be printed at 150 pixels per inch (ppi)
if you'd said you wanted "this image printed 1.5 inches wide" it would look
pretty good (as it would be printed at 600 pixels per inch (ppi) , however
you'd have made the file twice as big as it needed to be as the human eye
can NOT generally see more than 300 lines per inch.
>Computer monitors bought in the last 20 years or used by people dealing
with images will not have a lower resolution than that.
Again, largely irrelevant. A better way is to consider WHAT resolution
pewople set their monitors to and size the images in pixels appropriately.
Mums and dads generally have machines set at 800x800, photographers
1024x768 or better.
Lets consider the 800x600 screens (the most common 'low' res these days) -
limiting an image to 600 pixels in height or 800 wide *maximum* means
they'll be able to see the whole image on their screen in one hit -
depending on the size of their browser/program window. Make it 400 wide or
300 high if you want it to look half the height/width of the screen -
simple! :)
>High quality magazine covers are actually printed at a resolution of
around 240 DPI (But they always ask for 300)
change that no ppi (NOT semantics) and you're right
>Newspapers are printed at around 100-150 DPI
newspapers work with dot screens and here dots are a relatively accurate
term, though lines per inch may be better
karl
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
