Re: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?

Subject: Re: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?
From: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:17:29 -0800

Pixels per inch is no more meaningful than dpi.

What you get from a digital camera is a grid of X pixels by Y pixels that
bears no fixed relationship to any particular number of inches. E.g. my
passable consumer-grade camera's default image size is 3264x2448, which at
300 dpi would be 10.88" x 8.16".

If your output is going to be 300 dpi at, say, 6" x 4", then to avoid
pixellation and other downsampling / upsampling artifacts you want the
digital photos to be 300 ppi for that output size, or a whole-number
multiple of 300 ppi (e.g. 600, 900, or 1200 ppi), or a power-of-two fraction
of 300 ppi (150 or 75 ppi).

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Boudreaux, Madelyn (GE Healthcare,
consultant) <MadelynBoudreaux -at- ge -dot- com> wrote:

> Nancy Allison exclaimed:
> >Curiouser and curiouser! The original images *are* at 240 dpi,
> >which surprises me.
>
> It doesn't surprise me. Speaking from experience, Canon and NIKON DSLRs
> shoot RAW at 240DPI. Google suggests Pentax does as well, and if I'm not
> mistaken, it's the standard at this point for high-resolution RAW
> images. They store far more information than just the visible pixels.
>
> Furthermore, DPI actually has no meaning in the digital photography
> world. It's technically PPI. DPI refers to the printed size. PPI
> involves the number of pixels recorded by the camera. ...
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you looking for one documentation tool that does it all? Author,
build, test, and publish your Help files with just one easy-to-use tool.
Try the latest Doc-To-Help 2009 v3 risk-free for 30-days at:
http://www.doctohelp.com/

Help and Manual 5: The all-in-one help authoring tool. Full support for
team authoring with multi-user editing - both directly and in combination
with VSS-compatible source control systems. http://www.helpandmanual.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?: From: Nancy Allison
RE: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?: From: Boudreaux, Madelyn (GE Healthcare, consultant)

Previous by Author: Re: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?
Next by Author: Re: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?
Previous by Thread: RE: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?
Next by Thread: RE: RE: tifs at 240 dpi worth redoing?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads