That's handy. It also demonstrates how abstract that ppi number really is. Between 120 and 2000 works. And sometimes 1 pixel works.(Per your example) DPI or PPI doesn't mean anything really until that fateful moment when the printer fires up and the math is applied.
Just received a photo that is .057 inches wide, 9999.99 dpi. check the preview when I place it at 5 inches wide:
It comes out to about 300 dpi when it's 2 inches wide.
I dunno what they were up to. But InDesign, over the last few iterations, has an info palette that gives you "Actual PPI" and "Effective PPI" so I don't even have to go into photoshop to investigate, most of the time. Printing on newsprint, I'll run anything from 120 to 2000 PPI without any worries. If I have to convert to grayscale, etc, I'll usually run a resize/sharpen action to get it down to a normal size if it's too big, but usually we're talking about logos so I just let it go.
That's handy. It also demonstrates how abstract that ppi number really is. Between 120 and 2000 works. And sometimes 1 pixel works.(Per your example) DPI or PPI doesn't mean anything really until that fateful moment when the printer fires up and the math is applied.
Right. One pixel per inch. Over 5000 inches wide. When printed at 17 inches is 300 dots per inch.
Was that a test or something?
I dunno what they were up to. But InDesign, over the last few iterations, has an info palette that gives you "Actual PPI" and "Effective PPI" so I don't even have to go into photoshop to investigate, most of the time. Printing on newsprint, I'll run anything from 120 to 2000 PPI without any worries. If I have to convert to grayscale, etc, I'll usually run a resize/sharpen action to get it down to a normal size if it's too big, but usually we're talking about logos so I just let it go.
jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
I got a photo one time that was 1 pixels/inch. Or cm. Still was plenty big enough to print 17 inches wide.
Exactly. When people start throwing math equations my way, my brain automatically shuts off. I am a bona fide math-o-phobic.
I'm sorry. So, open the photo with whatever you used to determine that it's at 96 dpi. Or hell email it to me and I'll just tell you what you have, really.
jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
Wouldn't that be awesome? My book cover that big for everyone to see?
Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution.
i didnt do the math ( too lazy to open a calculator). it just seemed that there were easier ways to answer A's question. kinda like jrzy did.
jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
It's going to be for both a hardcopy book cover and an e-book.
Mostly, I just wondered if an image at 96dpi sounds like she sent it raw without trying to size it or not. That's why I just asked if she could send the raw original—-just in case. That way I have it, and can work with it accordingly.
Thanks.....and thanks everyone else too!
Just like how in my example, we don't know how far it is to the store by knowing only miles per hour, we can't know how big the image is by knowing only dots per inch. It's an incomplete formula, and it's an ass backwards way of describing image size because even when you have the rest of the formula you have to do the math.
Dots per inch or pixels per inch are essentially meaningless until you go to print. If this has to do with an e-book that will never be printed, whoever is requiring 300 dots per inch needs to go back to school.
It's going to be for both a hardcopy book cover and an e-book.
Mostly, I just wondered if an image at 96dpi sounds like she sent it raw without trying to size it or not. That's why I just asked if she could send the raw original—-just in case. That way I have it, and can work with it accordingly.
Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution.
i didnt do the math ( too lazy to open a calculator). it just seemed that there were easier ways to answer A's question. kinda like jrzy did.
What Scott is really saying is, it's the total dots that count, not the dots per inch. And it's not really dots until it's printed, it's pixels.
Imagine this scenario.......
Me: How far is it to the store?
You: One mile per minute. (sounds a lot like dots per inch huh?)
Me: Hm. Okay. But it seems like some of the formula is missing. I now know how many miles I'll cover in a minute, but I don't know how many minutes it will take. When I know how many minutes it will take, I can figure out how far it is to the store by doing the math.
So, if we know only that the image has 96 pixels in an inch, but we don't know how many inches the image is, we really have no idea how large it is. If, for example, the image is 96 pixels per inch and has a total of 1344 pixels in width, the image is 14 inches wide. (1344÷96=14) If we decide to print this image, or display it, at only 7 inches in width, without doing anything else we double the pixel count. (1344total pixels ÷ 7inches = 192 pixels per inch.)
The bottom line is, the total pixels is what matters. If, for example, the image is 3000 pixels wide, at 300 pixels per inch, and we print at 300 dots per inch we can print an image 10 inches wide. (3000 pixels, divided by 300 pixels per inch, equals 10 inches.
Dots per inch or pixels per inch are essentially meaningless until you go to print. If this has to do with an e-book that will never be printed, whoever is requiring 300 dots per inch needs to go back to school.
This is what we call a "Ranch" problem. Rancher Bob has a 100 acre ranch with 20 cows per acre. Rancher Tom has a 50 acre ranch with 50 cows per acre. You have 96 cows per acre. Who has more cows?
i dont know who has more cows, but you certainly seem to have more cowpies than Bob, Tom, and Alexandra combined.
Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution.
This is what we call a "Ranch" problem. Rancher Bob has a 100 acre ranch with 20 cows per acre. Rancher Tom has a 50 acre ranch with 50 cows per acre. You have 96 cows per acre. Who has more cows?
i dont know who has more cows, but you certainly seem to have more cowpies than Bob, Tom, and Alexandra combined.
96 is for viewing on the innertubes. if printed, it will be pixelated or blurry when printed. ask the person who did it to resize from the original for 300 dpi.I hope her original is 300 or better.
I just asked her to send the original, unsized file......and yes, hopefully.
check the preview when I place it at 5 inches wide:
