72dpi to 300dpi

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" wrote in message

Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px

X

1600px, 300dpi?

"Red Ant" 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.

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 1200×1600.

Don

"Red Ant" wrote in message

Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px

X

1600px, 300dpi?

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" wrote in message

Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px

X

1600px, 300dpi?

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution is by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. […]

Booo.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" 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"

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi marker setting doesn’t require interpolation!

On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:01:59 +1000, "Not for Publication" found these unused words floating about: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" wrote in message

Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px

X

1600px, 300dpi?

Oops – I didn’t read it right – sorry.

Don

"Don" wrote in message

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 1200×1600.

Don

"Red Ant" wrote in message

Anyone knows how to upgrade a pix at 1200px X 1600px, 72dpi to 1200px

X

1600px, 300dpi?

Bugger off jerk.
Unless of course your vocabulary improves past one syllable. Then you ought to get a life too.

"jjs" wrote in message

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

The most reliable way to interpolate an image up to a higher resolution

is

by using proprietory software like Genuine Fractals. […]

Booo.

DO you ever read the garbage you post?

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 with a different ‘printer’ dpi marker

setting

doesn’t require interpolation!

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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 <HIZsc.11765$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:35:13 -0400, Brian wrote:

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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.

Yes, this may be true, but the *printed size* (not the resolution) of the 300dpi image will be smaller than the printed size of the 72dpi image. Wont it?

Brian wrote:

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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.

It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they need to do is think about it logically.

Stuart

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" 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"

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…..

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 1200×1600 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" wrote in message

Brian wrote:

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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.

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 1200×1600 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$>, "Red Ant" 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 , "Not for Publication"
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 ‘fuckwit’ section of my killfile.

In article <
135.docsis.hbci.com>, says…

In article <40b4c546$>, "Red Ant" 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.

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.

"Red Ant" wrote in message

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" 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"

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

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 1200×1600 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

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 1200×1600 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" wrote in message

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 1200×1600 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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:45:10 +1000, "Not for Publication" 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 1200×1600 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 3333×4444 and 5000x6666pixels.

You can not print a 1600x1200pixel/72dpi image at 300dpi.

When you print 1600x1200pixels at 300dpi you have a 5.3×4" 300dpi print.
When you print it at 16.67×22.22 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 1600×1200 to 6400x4800pixels and print it to 22.22×16.67 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 1200×1600 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

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^)

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 1200×1600 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 , "Not for Publication"
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?

in article , Xalinai at
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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:03:25 -0500, (jjs)
wrote:

In article , "Not for Publication"
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?

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.

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" wrote in message

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 1200×1600

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…

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 1200×1600 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" wrote in message

[…] 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 asshole) 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.

On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:03:40 +1000, "Not for Publication" 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.

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!

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" wrote in message

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^)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:56:36 -0400, Larry Preuss
wrote:

in article , Xalinai at
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.

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

On Fri, 28 May 2004 07:03:40 +1000, "Not for Publication" 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 2000×3000 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

in article , Xalinai at
wrote on 5/28/04 8:20 AM:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:56:36 -0400, Larry Preuss
wrote:

in article , Xalinai at
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.

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

On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:45:06 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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….

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:46:44 +0800, screwface
found these unused words floating about:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:35:13 -0400, Brian wrote:

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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.

Yes, this may be true, but the *printed size* (not the resolution) of the 300dpi image will be smaller than the printed size of the 72dpi image. Wont it?

However the OP specified the same number of pixels at the different ‘dpi’ markers! IF it hadn’t been snipped …

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:11 +1000, "Not for Publication" 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 1200×1600 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" wrote in message

Brian wrote:

d’Oh! 1200×1600 to 1200×1600 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.

It takes a while for some people to understand that concept and all they need to do is think about it logically.

Stuart

Voivod wrote:

The funniest part is you STILL think you’re right….

LOL!!

On Thu, 27 May 2004 00:26:42 +0800, "Red Ant" found these unused words floating about:

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:24:11 +0800, "Red Ant" 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"

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.

in article c97nuc$r11$
wrote on 5/28/04 12:01 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

I have been following it, with some interest.

wrote in message

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

On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:28:06 -0400, Larry Preuss
found these unused words floating about:

in article c97nuc$r11$
wrote on 5/28/04 12:01 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

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.

"Red Ant" wrote in message

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.

In article <FaPtc.1621$>, "aka 717" wrote:

"Red Ant" wrote in message

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.

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.

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" wrote in message

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

This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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

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" wrote in message

In article <FaPtc.1621$>, "aka 717" 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$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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..

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" wrote in message

In article <_XVtc.15963$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

In article , "Not for Publication"
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.

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.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803

Rather daunting, isn’t it?

jjs 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.cfm?name=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%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jjs 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.cfm?name=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.

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?

On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:48 -0500, (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.cfm?name=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.

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:48 -0500, (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.cfm?name=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.

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 6×7 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 6×7 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 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.

On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:21:27 -0500, (jjs)
scribbled:

Voivod 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

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.

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" wrote in message

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.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?

In article <nucuc.17432$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

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

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <nucuc.17432$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

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

"Stephan" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <nucuc.17432$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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.

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.

"Stephan" wrote in message

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

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

Or a droplet.

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:02:15 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 06:53:11 +1000, "Not for Publication" 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?

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.

Until then, the only process of measuring an image for printing is in dots or lines. To print a 1200×1600 72 dpi image at 300 dpi requires the image to be interpolated up to that size.

The process of printing a 1200×1600 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 16.67×22.22 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

Wilder and Wilder 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?

Well, I do know manufactures are using digital images to help sell their products. Also, it’s not uncommon to see advertisements in magazines that use digital images, too. You can always spot them and their jaggies.

🙂

Uni

"jjs" wrote in message

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.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
Rather daunting, isn’t it?

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:13:15 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Well, I do know

You of all people should never start a sentence with those four words.

"aka 717" wrote in message

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.

I won’t correct you.
All I know is that every day (in other states than Arizona), photographers produce digital files that get printed in high quality, glossy magazines. These guys are living in the past and/or are film snobs.

Stephan

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:13:15 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Well, I do know

You of all people should never start a sentence with those four words.

Oh, you, again!

Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?

Windows Paint group, That Way!! —->

🙂

Uni

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:13:15 -0400, Uni found
these unused words floating about:

Wilder and Wilder 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?

Well, I do know manufactures are using digital images to help sell their products. Also, it’s not uncommon to see advertisements in magazines that use digital images, too. You can always spot them and their jaggies.

Yah … right … dream on – those are only from the cheapies issued to their ‘reporters’.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?

Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 6:41 PM:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?

Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?

I like how you are still confused about who Uni is.

hahahaha.

Tell me how smart you are again.

":^) ®

Pardon me Stephen but who said GF was better than SA?
Certainly not me.

"Stephan" wrote in message

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

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

Not for Publication 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…

Amen, brother! GF can’t be beat!

http://community.webshots.com/photo/42670345/47515893EPZDBe

🙂

Uni

But then my python

must surely be bigger than yours because of all the snake oil, eh?
"jjs" wrote in message

In article <_XVtc.15963$>, "Wilder and
Wilder" 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 wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?

Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

🙂

Twerp.

🙂

Move along.

🙂

Uni

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:42 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Why not situate yourself in a group where they use software that you can handle?

Why aren’t you bragging about how great a ‘graphics guru’ you are like you were in other groups? Oh, that’s right, Mike, you’re the laughing stock of usenet. Didn’t you also used to claim to be an engineer?

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

🙂

Twerp.

🙂

Move along.

🙂

Uni

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

hahahaha.

"Wilder_4_awhile" wrote in message

Pardon me Stephen but who said GF was better than SA?
Certainly not me.

Anyone stupid or mis-informed enough to buy it of course.

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message

"Not for Publication" wrote in message

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

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com&output=gplain

hahahaha.

And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&output=gplain

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain

That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.

Aratzio wrote:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.
hahahaha.

He’s not too bright.

🙂

Uni

On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:43:33 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain

That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.

Odd how you cut out the link that mates Uni and ArtistMike into one being….

Here, I’ll put it back in:

And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&output=gplain

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:43:33 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax.com &output=gplain

That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.

Odd how you cut out the link that mates Uni and ArtistMike into one being….

Here, I’ll put it back in:

And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&output=gplain

Sheesh, you’d make a lousy detective.

🙂

Uni

in article , Uni at
wrote on 06/01/2004 9:54 PM:

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:43:33 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/31/2004 3:15 AM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:01:53 -0700, Aratzio
scribbled:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 05/30/2004 10:10 PM:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:32:12 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Boring People, That Way!!! —->

I don’t think anyone really would want directions to your house, Mike.

I like how you are still confused about who you are writing to.

Odd, you yourself claimed Uni was ArtistMike just a short while ago…
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gjqd805pc5qk1j18c28ape2qug n5vqer77%404ax. com
&output=gplain

That was the fake Aratzio writing that message.

Odd how you cut out the link that mates Uni and ArtistMike into one being….

Here, I’ll put it back in:

And wasn’t this your proof for it?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BA7C92F3.37843%25mike%4 0artistmike.com&o utput=gplain

Sheesh, you’d make a lousy detective.

🙂

Uni

What do you expect from a goofball on Usenet.

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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 ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..

🙂

Uni

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:02:57 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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 ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..

And you’re back to having to edit people’s posts to get anyone to pay attention to you. Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed, pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:02:57 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:19 GMT, "Wilder and Wilder" 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 ounces (brain included) it’s…. me, Void..

And you’re back to having to edit people’s posts to get anyone to pay attention to you. Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed, pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?

Excuse me, don’t you have a bone to chew on?

🙂

Uni

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 06/05/2004 1:00 PM:

Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?

You really have no self control, do you.

Geri Panties wrote:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 06/05/2004 1:00 PM:

Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?

You really have no self control, do you.

Void lives in a fantasy world.

🙂

Uni

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:33:07 -0400, Uni
scribbled:

Geri Panties wrote:

in article , Voivod at
wrote on 06/05/2004 1:00 PM:

Did you start off trying to be the most ridiculed,
pathetic troll on usenet or did that just happen as you realized you have no social skills whatsoever?

You really have no self control, do you.

Void lives in a fantasy world.

Coming from someone who proclaims himself to be a ‘graphics guru’, a ‘professional engineer’ and a ‘usenet manager’ that’s really rich.