Save For Web only at 72 dpi

TD
Posted By
Tracy_DuBosar
May 2, 2005
Views
3029
Replies
42
Status
Closed
This might seem like a simple question, but why does the Save for Web feature only produce images at 72 dpi? Is it because web standard is 72 dpi? Seems like enough images are being produced at different resolutions that a choice might be in order. Am I missing something?

Thanks.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

JO
Jim_Oblak
May 2, 2005
You can specify the pixel dimensions in the Save For Web panel. Note that since you are saving for screen display image formats, you are only concerned with pixel dimensions, not physical dimensions (where dpi/ppi comes into play).
TD
Tracy_DuBosar
May 2, 2005
ok, obviously I was missing something. :o)

Where can I set the pixel dimensions? And is this a new feature of CS or has the ability always been there?
JR
John_R_Nielsen
May 2, 2005
You do this in Image > Image Size. To set the pixel dimensions, make sure the ‘Resample Image’ box is checked. Note that you can enter a percentage of the current size (100% = same size) as well as explicitly entering pixels.

If the ‘Constrain Proportions’ box is checked, changing the height or width will also change the other. If the box is unchecked, you can set the height and width independently.
ML
Mike_Logan
May 2, 2005
The ability has always been there. Take a 300dpi / ppi image, go to Image>Image Size – the dialogue should be present.
TD
Tracy_DuBosar
May 2, 2005
I guess I’m not understanding. I know how to change the resolution, but my question is about after an image is run through Save For Web. Let’s say I make an image 96 dpi in the Image Size dialogue box. Then I take the image into to the Save for Web feature for output. No matter what I do in the Save for Web feature, the new image will be read 72 dpi in the Image Size dialogue box (with the same pixel dimensions, of course, which I understand will keep the image the same viewing size). Is there a way for that image to still read 96 dpi once it has been run through Save For Web? For bookkeeping purposes (I work with a large amount of images), I would like my web images to be set at 96 dpi.
ML
Mike_Logan
May 2, 2005
Don’t use Save for Web love…. it optimises it to 72dpi by default. Just save it "as if" and size it for display with the HTML tag with the Height and Width thingies…
ML
Mike_Logan
May 2, 2005
Don’t use Save for Web love…. it optimises it to 72dpi by default.

So… can anyhone tell me why a lot of scanners (including mine) have a preset of 75 dpi ? Where’d that come from ?
TD
Tracy_DuBosar
May 2, 2005
"it optimises it to 72dpi by default."

THIS is essentially the answer to my question. Thank you. But I’m still left wondering *why* there is no way to change the default.

I want to use Save For Web instead of Save As so I have better compression options and all that.
ML
Mike_Logan
May 2, 2005
I’m assuming you are saving JPG files, in which case you SHOULD get a dialogue box which asks for your "preference." If you ram it down to the lowest setting (i.e. 1 – Small file) you may suffer some degredation, but barely perceptible to the naked eye on a web page.

GIF files are a slightly different problem I think.
JB
Jonathan_Balza
May 2, 2005
Hmm… If I save any JPG at the lowest setting, I usually can’t even stand to look at the image, much less say something like the differences is "barely perceptible to the naked eye on a web page." Usually I can’t bring myself to go any lower than around 51% in Save for Web, and around 8 in the standard dialog box. (Unless size is a huge issue, of course.)

As to the resolution question and 72dpi, it’s my understanding that Save for Web strips out any resolution information at all, in order to save on file size. The reason it opens as 72dpi in PS is that 72 dpi is the default resolution in Photoshop. Try opening an image that has been through SFW in another program like IRFanView, and you’ll find the resolution is different. If you open a JPG that has just been through "Save as…" the resolution will be the same.

The question still remains why you are worried about DPI on the web, because browsers ignore resolution entirely. They only look at the physical dimensions of the image.

Mike, as to the scanner question, scanners may default to 75 because many scanners have a native resolution something like 300 or 600LPI. Divide those numbers by 4 or 8, and you’ll get 75, not 72.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 2, 2005
"it optimises it to 72dpi by default."

This whole discussion may be misleading. Most applications do not read physical size from GIF and JPG so dpi/ppi is not an issue. Photoshop can read physical dimensions for JPG but not GIF. Very few applications seem to read physical dimensions from JPG files so unless you plan to keep your JPG in Photoshop, trying to wrestle with varying dpi/ppi in JPG files may be futile.

These image formats store the number of pixels wide by the number of pixels high. These formats are not typically used for specifying physical dimensions in dpi/ppi. You need to save to another image format that allows you to specify physical image size. Dpi/ppi is determined with physical dimensions and pixel dimensions. How can you calculate dpi/ppi if the GIF and JPG file formats do not support physical dimensions in most applications?

The only thing that you can specify in ‘save for web’ is the height by width dimensions. The end users’ display, whether set at 72, 75 or 96 dpi will determine how large the image is on screen. You don’t really have much control over dpi/ppi when saving in JPG or GIF.
P
Phosphor
May 2, 2005
The "WHY" is because on the web, resolution means NOTHING.

REPEAT: The ppi value means NOTHING for images to be viewed online.

The only thing that matters is absolute pixel dimensions in height and width.

When you create a web page, you have no idea what monitor resolution visitors to your page will be using.

Sooo…just build your page to look good. Test on several browser at several monitor resolutions. Get it to look as good as you can, then just put it out there.

As for using "height" and "width" attributes: DO NOT use HTML to resize images. Create the images and optimize them at the size they will be used in your page’s layout. The ONLY "height" and "width" values that you should use are the ACTUAL absolute pixel dimensions.

WHY? Becuase using HTML attribute tags to resize can only have the following 2 consequences, neither of which will result in an optimal visitor experience:

Β•1) Using "height" and "width" attributes to scale an image up will make that image look pixelated and fuzzy. If you want to present an image that looks good and clean, you don’t want to do this. If you want an image to display at 800 X 600 pixels, create and optimize it at that actual size. Don’t try to use attribute tags to scale up a smaller (say, for example: 200 X 150 pixel) image.

Β•2) Using "height" and "width" attributes to scale an image down can only result in a file size that is larger than it needs to be, and thus will take longer to download. Nobody wants to open a page with a 1 MB image that displays at 200 X 150 pixels, only because you used the size attributes to scale it down. If you want an image to display at a small physical size onscreen, create and optimize it to that size from the start.

Is this starting to make sense?
DM
dave_milbut
May 2, 2005
thank you phosphor! saved me a bunch of typing! πŸ™‚
TD
Tracy_DuBosar
May 2, 2005
"The question still remains why you are worried about DPI on the web, because browsers ignore resolution entirely. They only look at the physical dimensions of the image."

I am not working in an HTML environment. I handle a large catalogue of images that are used in a computer display that is NOT the Internet. And as I said, I stumbled upon this because my records weren’t matching up once I used the SFW feature. I did not realize that a resolution setting was basically stripped from the image and that one is only assigned when opened in an imaging program. Very interesting. Thanks to all for clarifying.
V
viol8ion
May 2, 2005
If you are saving images for a desktop dispolayt environment and not the web, then don’t use "SFW", which has a very specialized use, which is, as its name implies, for the web. "SFW" is designed to minimize file size for web viewing.

Your best workflow would be to use "save as" so that you can specify dimensions, DPI, PPI and whatever, since file size is not critical in your application.
DJ
David_J
May 2, 2005
Macromedia Flash is an example of a web application that uses the dpi setting – Flash varies this parameter to determine the scale at which to display an image. If you import an image into Flash at a different resolution, it appears zoomed when placed on the Flash stage.

So saving for the web at 72dpi is quite helpful for Flash authors.
PH
Photo_Help
May 2, 2005
Jim,

"The end users’ display, whether set at 72, 75 or 96 dpi will determine how large the image is on screen".

It is PPI not DPI. PPI is only used when printing and has nothing to do with how it looks on screen. Their screen resolution will determine how large or small it looks on the screen. Windows browsers default to 72 and I believe Mac is set to 96 (correct me if I am wrong). The setting simply determines what size an image on a web site will print from a web browser. Either way PPI will NEVER influence the way something looks on screen.

Tracy,

I believe it has been said before by a few people, but was mixed with other comments. SFW creates smaller files because it is stripping the very information you need. To put that information in would bring the file size back to a standard "save as" anyway so you might as well just use "save as".

Depending on what you are doing with these images you may want to use a lossless format like TIF or PSD if you are modifying and re-saving them often.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 2, 2005
Photo Help,

While ‘ppi’ has become the preferred term, others still refer to ‘dpi’ (whether incorrectly or not) so I combined the two acronyms in my posts. We all know what we mean here so distinction between the two is not truly necessary. Pixels, points, dots are all the same on screen.

Citing ’72’ for Windows and ’96’ for Mac is pointless as displays can be easily adjusted. Do we get 72 dpi/ppi when a monitor is set to 640×480, 800×600, or 1024×768? What is the standardized base resolution for a monitor? Such distinctions between platforms are irrelevant.

Screen display only relies on pixel dimensions. Unless we all use the same monitor and display drivers, discussion of linear meaurement (dpi/ppi) is irrelevant. That was the intent of my initial reply. I apologize if I was not clear.
PH
Photo_Help
May 2, 2005
Jim,

They are not all the same. Dots are physical on a printed page, pixels are digital representations of what you will print when the scale (PPI) is established (72, 180, 300, 360, etc…).

Citing ’72’ for Windows and ’96’ for Mac is pointless

Again these numbers are not for display they are default print resolutions.

discussion of linear measurement (dpi/ppi) is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. It is only irrelevant when discussing content that will not leave the digital world. DPI establishes the quality of the print assuming that the resolution (PPI) is high enough to deliver that quality.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 2, 2005
Photo Help,

I apologize for misdirecting my discussion with you. I now see why you are continuing this discussion: you did not read my first post.

Windows browsers default to 72 and I believe Mac is set to 96 (correct me if I am wrong).

You are wrong if one user is using a 17" monitor at 640×480 resolution and another user has a 17" monitor at 1024×768 display. Which user is really looking at a 72 PPI image?

…It is only irrelevant when discussing content that will not leave the digital world.

This is exactly what this thread is discussing. Debating DPI/PPI definitions is irrelevant as we are not leaving the digital world in the context of this thread. We are not printing: We are displaying on screen. To best discuss physical size on screen, Tracy would need to explain further his display device and the software used to present these images.

If you choose to debate the definition of PPI/DPI further than what I explained in my first post, consult a dictionary that will define a pixel as a dot on a screen.

pixel < http://wordnet.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&wo rd=pixel>

n : (computer science) the smallest discrete component of an image or picture on a CRT screen (usually a colored dot); "the greater the number of pixels per inch the greater the resolution" [syn: pel, picture element]
DM
dave_milbut
May 2, 2005
Macromedia Flash is an example of a web application that uses the dpi setting

it’s also vector based and therefore cares about resolution. it scales internally. by the time you see it on the screen, it’s resolution independant (x pixels by y pixels only).

here’s a test:

<http://aikodude.tripod.com/difResTest.html>

sorry for any ad’s – it’s tripid, a free web server…

top image is 72ppi, bottom one is 300. any difference?

not on screen. not until you download and print them. both are 800×600 pixels and that’s exactly what you see on screen.

hth, dave
P
Phosphor
May 2, 2005
I will forever maintain that it is incumbent upon those of us who know better to specifically make the differentiation between d.p.i. and p.p.i. in our communications here.

There IS a difference between the two units of measurement, and we should be mindful of that when we are in a position to mentor those who might not know the difference. When we use the terms interchangeably we are no better than the fithy vermin who turn in those nasty MS Word and Publisher files and expect to see a National Geographic-quality book produced from them.
PH
Photo_Help
May 2, 2005
Jim,

I did read you first post and everyone elses. I don’t make posts without reading all the posts first. DPI was incorrectly used in the OP and never corrected. In Photoshop it is PPI.

You are wrong if one user is using a 17" monitor at 640×480 resolution and another user has a 17" monitor at 1024×768 display. Which user is really looking at a 72 PPI image?

I am not wrong. I never once said it would display to scale on the screen. What I said was "Windows browsers default to 72 and I believe Mac is set to 96 (correct me if I am wrong). The setting simply determines what size an image on a web site will print from a web browser."

You missed the point of that paragraph which was simply to correct your statement that "dpi will determine how large the image is on screen", I said "PPI will NEVER influence the way something looks on screen". You were correct in post one when you said overall pixel dimensions, In post 11 your statement was incorrect (even if you had said PPI instead of DPI).

The fact that the word dot appears in that definition of a pixel does not in any way mean they are even close to the same thing. DPI is very different from PPI. You can print 360 PPI image to a 2400 DPI printer and in most cases get the best possible print from that printer. To say they are the same confuses many users into thinking they need a 1:1 ratio when printing. We spend countless hours on this forum re-training users simply because people interchange two very different terms.

Unfortunately you give the appearance of talking about 3 different things as if they were all the same thing.

First there is the Physical screen CRT or LCD, not at all what I was talking about and not something most people ever need to concern themselves with. LCD monitors are making people more aware of them simply because you can now use the native resolution and work at a 1:1 ratio.

There are image pixels where the overall dimensions determine the quality of the image and how it will display on monitors based on the screen resolution or how it will print based on PPI.

Then there are dots to determine print resolution for consumer printers, more dots equals more detail and a better color range.

It is clear to me that you understand the difference and again I was only correcting one line in post 11. Sorry for any confusion.
PH
Photo_Help
May 2, 2005
Phosphor,

My point exactly.
PH
Photo_Help
May 2, 2005
Tracy,

I am not working in an HTML environment. I handle a large catalogue of images that are used in a computer display that is NOT the Internet.

What are you working on? You may still be better off using SFW. I use "Save For Web" whenever preparing presentations simply because the file sizes are smaller. I have seen bad file optimization lead to 100 Mb presentations that after I optimized them resulted in file sizes under 1 Mb with no noticable quality loss. As dave pointed out in is example, resolution is not going to change the way your images are viewed. It may affect the way they are imported and add an extra step or two. If this is the problem and file size doesn’t matter go with "Save As" to save time. If you know the display resolution and you are using the images full screen just make sure the two match. For a kiosk set to 800×600 use 800×600 images. That goes for Director, Authorware, Flash, Power Point, etc…
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
May 3, 2005
The 72-Windows, 96-Mac pixels/inch "standard" is based on early 1980s standard display technology on the two platforms. The Windows figure of 72 pixels/inch corresponds to a 640×480 display with a usable diagonal screen size of 11" (i.e., a 12" diagonal CRT). Very early DOS graphics figures, way pre-windows. The Mac had higher resolution, but a smaller screen. Take a look at an early Macintosh: real small bw screen. That’s an easy way to get high per-inch resolution.

As display cards got better and screens got larger, these figures stayed about the same. A 13" usable diagonal screen (14" CRT) yields about 75 pixels/inch at 800×600, which became relatively common only in the 1990s.

Both Macs and Windows machines can now use much larger displays — the same ones, in fact. And their graphics cards come from the same companies, mostly nVidia and ATI, with a sprinkling of others. And the displays and graphics cards for the most part determine the pixels per inch that are displayed by either operating system.

Now there is a significant variation in display sizes and resolutions. However, the prevalence of LCD displays means that most monitors’ pixels per inch, at native display resolution, depends largely on LCD capabilities, not OS. This means that the prevailing standard at native resolution varies widely, but is well above 72 pixels/inch. A 19" LCD, at 1280×1024, is about 86 pixels/inch, for example. An Apple 30" Cinema Display, at 2560×1600, is 101 pixels/inch. A 16" laptop LCD, at 1680×1050, is 124 pixels/inch. These figures apply whether a given screen is used in Windows or Mac, because an LCD works best when used at native resolution. There isn’t any current Win/Mac split involved in the resolution figures.
PH
Photo_Help
May 3, 2005
Michael,

Exactly. It looks like you remember the old days first hand as well. It is odd that web browsers haven’t established a standard cross platform print resolution. I guess no one wants to change to match the competition.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 3, 2005
Dear silly gooses that insist on pointless controversy over definitions:

At what point did I say that DPI applied only to screen? You are making an issue out of nothing. This thread is neither about DPI nor PPI. ‘Save for Web’ does not respect this measurement. The discourse over the appropriate use of an acronym is pointless.

The setting simply determines what size an image on a web site will print from a web browser.

No it does not. You would be wrong here. There are so many other settings in the browser print preferences and the printer driver that make it useless for a designer to attempt to define exacting PPI/DPI measurements in web graphics.

This is why Save for Web does not save DPI/PPI data!

This is why this DPI/PPI definition discussion is irrelevant in a thread about ‘Save for Web’!

If you are adamant about beating the dead horse of the great DPI/PPI definition debate, Google for ‘dpi site:adobe.com < http://www.google.com/search?q=dpi+site%3Aadobe.com&btnG =Search>’ and turn up an article like this one <http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/329831.html>. Even the graphic gods at Adobe refer to DPI for screen resolution in some cases. Where is your god now? This acronym debate is misused by self-exalting graphic purists that have nothing more to do than to debate proper definitions of terms. Such debate means very little.

You may also note that the referenced Adobe Support Knowledgebase document cites a DPI of 96 for Windows XP. Perhaps we might be misinformed about 72 DPI/Windows and 96 DPI/Mac OS assumptions.
PH
Photo_Help
May 3, 2005
Jim,

No it does not. You would be wrong here. There are so many other settings in the browser print preferences and the printer driver that make it useless for a designer to attempt to define exacting PPI/DPI measurements in web graphics.

Web sites are not an exact science in any way. It is difficult to know what the user will see based on OS, Screen Res, Color Depth, Version numbers within the browsers. Etc… Printing from browsers is the same way. For the average user if you put an image up that is 360×360 it is safe to assume it will print 5"x5" unless the user specifies otherwise. If you want to be sure it will fit on the page it is best to assume 72 PPI from the browser that way if it is printed from a Mac it will be smaller (3.75"x3.75" in this case) yet still fit on the page. The browser doesn’t read the EXIF data and could care less what resolution you saved to, but the majority of browsers will print 72 PPI unless told otherwise.

Your sample <http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/329831.html> article is correct. Windows does refer to DPI for the font size in the display settings, Photoshop does NOT. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Using a term incorrectly no matter how inconsequential it may seem to you can cause problems and confusion for the OP.

Now I think I am going to go buy one of your 2400 PPI printers and set my resolution in Photoshop to 300 DPI and get a 12 Megadot digital camera. πŸ™‚ Hmm… strange I can’t find any printers, cameras or a DPI setting in Photoshop. Sorry but your way doesn’t seem to work real well.
P
Phosphor
May 3, 2005
"Even the graphic gods at Adobe refer to DPI for screen resolution in some cases."

They’re wrong. Though, truth be told, that was probably written by a copywriter who has had it wrong in their heard forever. Same with any of the web content proofreaders, if there are any.

"Where is your god now?"

In the Wrongedy Wrong Wrong Hall of Wrongness, doing hard time for being wrong.

Regardless of whether there should even be a debate about resolution VALUES for onscreen display, the FACT remains:

DPI IS NOT THE SAME AS PPI. Never was. Never will be. I don’t care which emperor I have to point and laugh at and tell them they’re wearing no clothes.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 3, 2005
Yes, apples and oranges… You are trying to bring oranges to the apple basket in this particular thread. πŸ˜‰

In the world of screen design DPI and PPI are interchangeable. Check your display driver settings: my Nvidia card is citing ‘DPI’. What does your display card say? You are coming from the print world where it is appropriate to discern between PPI and DPI. But in the video/web/screen design world and where output is only intended for screen display, it is common for DPI and PPI to be interchanged. Live with it like the rest of us do.

If you disagree with the interchangeability of DPI and PPI in the screen design world, complain to the manufacturers (Microsoft, Nvidia, etc…) that misname DPI instead of PPI. I am only reporting what common software displays: ‘DPI’. Please don’t shoot the messenger of the way it is, whether right or wrong.

A ‘Canadian dollar’ is a ‘dollar’ in Canada. Do I, as a US citizen, get upset that those crazy northerners say ‘dollar’ when it is not my dollar they are referring to? Likewise, a screen designer is permitted to say ‘DPI’ interchangeably with ‘PPI’ because his/her design world only deals with dots (dpi) or pixels (ppi) on his/her screen. Print designers live in a different world than screen designers and are required to make the disctinction between DPI and PPI.

The whole concept of PPI/DPI for screen display is absurd as it is no real measurement if one has the slightest understanding of the varied monitor resolutions we all use. Video artists are not worried about DPI/PPI, they worry about 720×480 pixels or whatever format that they prefer. I don’t care if an image is 300 ppi in a web page layout: I only want it to extend 100 pixels wide by 25 pixels tall.

Likewise, a discussion about PPI/DPI in a thread about ‘Save for Web’ is pointless. Screen designers only need to worry about the number of pixels wide by high. PPI is a useless measurement..

In answer to the OP, the reason why Photoshop reads a ‘Saved for web’ JPG as 72 dpi is because ‘Save for web’ does not save any DPI/PPI data. Photoshop defaults to open any undefined JPG image as 72 PPI. Before you opened the image in Photoshop, it had no DPI/PPI.

I am sure that the OP is well aware of what he is doing and is not confused by PPI and DPI since he said he is designing for screen display, not print. He probably referred to ‘DPI’ because that is what his software uses to define physical size.

My issue has not been with the debate of DPI/PPI definitions. It has been with the debate of PPI/DPI in this thread as it has no relevance in the ‘Save for Web’ function.
PH
Photo_Help
May 3, 2005
Jim,

In the world of screen design DPI and PPI are interchangeable

No, They are not. If you believe this you are confused.

Most of my work is entirely digital and I rarely do print work. I still use the terms correctly and that is no excuse for your misuse. The sample you gave, as I pointed out, was directly quoting the display properties dialog for clarity. You will also note that the screen resolution in the display settings is in pixels. Again in Photoshop you will not find a single setting for dots relating to the size or resolution of images.

only need to worry about the number of pixels wide by high

Exactly, the number of pixels, not dots. You may finally be getting it.

I am sure that the OP is well aware of what he is doing and is not confused.

If that were the case they wouldn’t care what the resolution is set to or in this case that it is not set at all, but for some reason they do and we have yet to find out what that reason is.

it has no relevance in the ‘Save for Web’ function.

No PPI does not matter in "Save For Web" but if the OP wants 96 PPI images it does matter.
P
Phosphor
May 3, 2005
In life, it’s evidence of wisdom when one learns to choose their battles carefully.

What matters will change, depending on each person’s own sensibilities.

One of the small battles I have chosen to take up is an inexorable determination to always use the correct designation regarding dpi vs. ppi, and to try to school anyone who uses them incorrectly or interchangeably.

The more people who know the difference and use the terms correctly, the easier things will be on all us who have to deal with such matters on a daily basis.
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 3, 2005
Phosphor, then why do you promote software <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bb8a6ee/4> that refers to DPI when you export bitmaps? πŸ˜‰

As I said, I am only reporting the prevailing definition, whether it is right or wrong is up to you to debate endlessly on your time. If what is right equated to the prevalence of opinion, would Bush be a 2-term U.S. president? Would we need Hinduism, Judaism and Catholicism?

It sure would be nice of there was a standards organization that properly defined graphic design acronyms so we were all on the same page.

If Photo Help is truly a graphics old-timer, he would recognize that the term DPI stems from defining both screen display and print with a dot matrix printer. The early days of bitmap graphics produced 1-bit imagery composed of dots, both onscreen and in print. It was only with the advent of the varying types of printers and better than 1-bit imagery that we had to come to define differences between DPI and PPI. For the designer that does not need to present his work in print, there is little need for him to change his old terminology to the newer ‘PPI’.

Regardless of symantics, everyone in this thread knows what everyone else is talking about and continuing a definition debate is senseless, especially since I have always been in agreement that PPI is preferred over DPI in referring to screen display. I would never complain if someone did not make the distinction properly when speaking of screen design.
P
Phosphor
May 3, 2005
" Phosphor, then why do you promote software that refers to DPI when you export bitmaps? πŸ˜‰ "

Even acknowledging your winkie, and acknowledging that the thread is going sideways from its original intent, I’d like to ask that you not divert the matter we’re discussing with a red herring like that.

I might be touting the coolness factor of Expression, but you know damned well I have no control over how the authors have hard-coded their terminology, and couldn’t possibly have any effect on how the present owners might label something in a future iteration, no matter how many emails I send or how loudly I protest in some online forum.

Except for not wanting to digress even further afield, we might also begin discussing exactly what they’re referring to as "bitmaps." Do they mean "bitmap" as a reference to generically-named Windows file format of *.bmp for raster images (the way it’s come to live in the minds of most Windows users), or do they mean to use "bitmap" to refer to a 1 bit/pixel imageΒ—more specifically correct, the way Photoshop does?
JO
Jim_Oblak
May 3, 2005
So without a standards committee, we must accept the varied ways that pixels are measured onscreen.

….and now I am hungry for fish for some reason.
JJ
John Joslin
May 3, 2005
I like fish too.
JJ
John Joslin
May 3, 2005
Just had some barbecued Sea Bream (locally caught).

<Homer>Mmmmmmhhh! Sea bream</Homer> πŸ™‚
DM
dave_milbut
May 3, 2005
, whether it is right or wrong is up to you to debate endlessly on your time.

no, it’s up to those of us who understand it to use it correctly, and to correct those who don’t, then maybe they’ll understand it and pass it on and so on, until the manufacturers say: "hey, these people ain’t so dumb. huh. whaddya know. we better start using the right terminology in our products."
DM
dave_milbut
May 3, 2005
kinda like the monitor people got away with selling 17" monitors for so long without telling people there was only 15" viewing area.

sometimes stuff like ppi vs. dpi at the manufacturer level is a concious marketing decision designed to obfuscate facts and confuse people.
JJ
John Joslin
May 3, 2005
And sometimes (mostly) the marketing people are so ignorant that they don’t even know themselves that they are misguiding the public!
DM
dave_milbut
May 3, 2005
or don’t care…

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups πŸ”₯

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections