Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pixels per inch (20D RAW)??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 26, 2004 10:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A (hopefully) quick question. I have been playing around with the new Camera
RAW for CS. It seems to accept my 20D .CR2 files just fine.

I had a question regarding the pixels-per-inch. When I load my images, it
says 240 ppi. I can figure out atleast that this number only has meaning in
regard to print size. The shots are 3504x2336, so 240ppi would say that to
get an "8MP print" I could use 14.6" x 9.7" paper and no larger.

I noticed that when I export to another format I can "up" this number. What
does this really do? I imagine that lowering the 240 number just decreases
the size of print I can do (without loss of resolution), but I am not sure
what increasing the # would do.

Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated.

Thanks
Musty.

More about : pixels inch 20d raw

December 26, 2004 10:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> A (hopefully) quick question. I have been playing around with the new Camera
> RAW for CS. It seems to accept my 20D .CR2 files just fine.
>
> I had a question regarding the pixels-per-inch. When I load my images, it
> says 240 ppi. I can figure out atleast that this number only has meaning in
> regard to print size. The shots are 3504x2336, so 240ppi would say that to
> get an "8MP print" I could use 14.6" x 9.7" paper and no larger.
>
> I noticed that when I export to another format I can "up" this number. What
> does this really do? I imagine that lowering the 240 number just decreases
> the size of print I can do (without loss of resolution), but I am not sure
> what increasing the # would do.


240dpi is just their suggestion. You can print it as large as you feel
it looks good, I did 8-1/2x11 with a 3.3MP digicam at about 190dpi &
they looked great to my relatively un-picky eyes. I even tried printing
on six tiled 8x10's (70dpi) & it's not super sharp but I can't see any
pixels.

Also, people wont get as close to an 11x17 print as they do with a 4x5.
December 26, 2004 10:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QWDzd.6466$wD4.2845@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> A (hopefully) quick question. I have been playing around with the new
Camera
> RAW for CS. It seems to accept my 20D .CR2 files just fine.
>
> I had a question regarding the pixels-per-inch. When I load my images, it
> says 240 ppi. I can figure out atleast that this number only has meaning
in
> regard to print size. The shots are 3504x2336, so 240ppi would say that to
> get an "8MP print" I could use 14.6" x 9.7" paper and no larger.
>
> I noticed that when I export to another format I can "up" this number.
What
> does this really do? I imagine that lowering the 240 number just decreases
> the size of print I can do (without loss of resolution), but I am not sure
> what increasing the # would do.
>
> Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated.
>
Increasing dpi reduces the size of the image (i.e. the same number of pixels
spread over a smaller image). Decreasing dpi increases the size of the
image (i.e. the same number of pixels spread over a larger image). These
results are correct if you do not change the number of pixels by resampling.
Jim.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:46:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QWDzd.6466$wD4.2845@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> A (hopefully) quick question. I have been playing around with the new
Camera
> RAW for CS. It seems to accept my 20D .CR2 files just fine.
>
> I had a question regarding the pixels-per-inch. When I load my images, it
> says 240 ppi. I can figure out atleast that this number only has meaning
in
> regard to print size. The shots are 3504x2336, so 240ppi would say that to
> get an "8MP print" I could use 14.6" x 9.7" paper and no larger.
>
> I noticed that when I export to another format I can "up" this number.
What
> does this really do? I imagine that lowering the 240 number just decreases
> the size of print I can do (without loss of resolution), but I am not sure
> what increasing the # would do.
>
> Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Musty.
>
>
When you open a RAW file with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) you have the
opportunity to determin the size of the picture. At the bottom of the ACR
window is the size and dimensions of the image. If you click the down arrow
next to the boxes with the dimensions, you can choose larger or smaller and
more or less PPI. Also you can engage in interpolation after you have
converted the image and produce 24"x36" pictures with as much stunning
detail as a 4"x6" one. All those knockers -- who even today after
interpolation is so successful in so many labs - say you can't do it should
be ignored.

Yes, it is true that the opened size of a 20D image is about 11"x14" at 300
ppi. No, this is not the largest size which will produce prints. I scan and
print film images every day. I also enlarge digital images and make prints
from them. 35mm (100 ISO) film is claimed to have more ppi detail than a 20D
file. What these claimers don't tell you because the text books haven't yet
caught up with the real world... Is that 35mm has to be transformed to
digital before comparison and it is this transformation which breaks up the
35mm image with "digital noise" which of course pure digital images don't
have much of.

Enjoy your new gear. It doesn't come much better if you have a reliable one!

Doug
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Ryadia" ryadia@hotmail.com

> Yes, it is true that the opened size of a 20D image is about 11"x14" at
> 300 ppi.

No, it is *not* true, not even close ... the files are 3504 x 2336 pixels ...
at 300 ppi this is roughly 7.8 x 11.7 inches so you are off by almost 100%.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 9:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041226175455.06555.00001489@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >From: "Ryadia" ryadia@hotmail.com
>
> > Yes, it is true that the opened size of a 20D image is about 11"x14" at
> > 300 ppi.
>
> No, it is *not* true, not even close ... the files are 3504 x 2336 pixels
....
> at 300 ppi this is roughly 7.8 x 11.7 inches so you are off by almost
100%.
>
>
>
Get your head out of the text books Bill. We work in the real world now.
Take a look at the size you can open the file at with the method I
described.

Doug
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:12:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in
news:QWDzd.6466$wD4.2845@fe1.texas.rr.com:

> I noticed that when I export to another format I can "up" this number.
> What does this really do? I imagine that lowering the 240 number just
> decreases the size of print I can do (without loss of resolution), but
> I am not sure what increasing the # would do.
>

Nothing happens really. It is just a number.
The image is still the same. The PPI number is just
a suggestion about actual print size. So - lower
and increase it all you want. Nothing will change.

The only thing you shall be aware of is resizing.
When you resize, you can also resample, or not.
If you resample (up or down), then the number of
pixels will change. If you don't resample - nothing
happens, except the sugested print size changes.

Some programs use the suggested print size when printing.
Photoshop may do so or not - depending on how you print.
But in most case (IMHO) the suggested print size has no
value when printing. At least I do always choose the
print size when actually doing the printing.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>> From: "Ryadia" ryadia@hotmail.com
>>
>>> Yes, it is true that the opened size of a 20D image is about 11"x14"
>>> at 300 ppi.

>> "Bill Hilton"
>>
>> No, it is *not* true, not even close ... the files are 3504 x 2336 pixels
>> at 300 ppi this is roughly 7.8 x 11.7 inches so you are off by almost
>> 100%.

>From: "Ryadia" ryadia@hotmail.com
>
>Take a look at the size you can open the file at with the method I
>described.

Sure, using interpolation ... big deal, you can go all the way to 6,144 x 4,096
with the RAW converter resize option. If you knew much about Photoshop you'd
realize it's better to do the resizing outside the RAW converter though.

Since you were laughed off the Photoshop newsgroup for being so clueless about
Photoshop I guess you probably didn't know that. Did Interpol ever find the
people who were tormenting you when you were calling yourself TechnoAussie?
You said you were going to sic the law on them :) 

>Get your head out of the text books Bill. We work in the real world now.

So do I, Doug, or Ryadia (glad to see you dropped the lie that "Ryadia" was an
employee of yours ... such delusion isn't pretty and doesn't fool anyone), or
TechnoAussie or whatever you are calling yourself today.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:42:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041227105902.06016.00001648@mb-
>
> Sure, using interpolation ... big deal, you can go all the way to 6,144 x
4,096
> with the RAW converter resize option. If you knew much about Photoshop
you'd
> realize it's better to do the resizing outside the RAW converter though.
>
> Since you were laughed off the Photoshop newsgroup for being so clueless
about
> Photoshop I guess you probably didn't know that. Did Interpol ever find
the
> people who were tormenting you when you were calling yourself
TechnoAussie?
> You said you were going to sic the law on them :) 
>
> >Get your head out of the text books Bill. We work in the real world now.
>
> So do I, Doug, or Ryadia (glad to see you dropped the lie that "Ryadia"
was an
> employee of yours ... such delusion isn't pretty and doesn't fool anyone),
or
> TechnoAussie or whatever you are calling yourself today.
>
Why is it Bill, that when someone *anyone* pulls you up for something you
resort to personal abuse? I guess one day, you will realize that the world
according to Bill Hilton is a very lonely place.

Doug
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:49:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041227105902.06016.00001648@mb-m21.aol.com...
>
> So do I, Doug, or Ryadia (glad to see you dropped the lie that "Ryadia"
was an
> employee of yours ... such delusion isn't pretty and doesn't fool anyone),
or
> TechnoAussie or whatever you are calling yourself today.
>
>
The day I have to answer to you for using a pre-configured computer in a
company I own while an employee is on holidays, is the day hell freezes
over.

Get a life idiot!
!