Long discussion on DPI

[Sin]

Originally posted by denizenx
;p and:
- all bandwidth shall not exceed 33.6kbps

Actually, back in those days, bandwidth was more commonly 14.4kbps.
So all graphics should be less than 10KB to make sure that things download within a reasonable timeframe.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by lyrrad
Aiya... I dun think I dun get it lah. I've been working in web for 8 years now, I'm no expert or guru but I feel I know where I stand.

72dpi for screen became like a standard during the smallish 640x480 displays. As much as we can discuss how it doesn't matter TODAY, it should still play a part when creating web graphics. How can we selfishly assume everyone is using 1024x768 reso on 16bit colour depth on 17" inch monitors?

When web browsers came out in '94 640x480 with only 256 colour displays were the norm. So somehow 72dpi for web and 216 colour has stuck since then, because we're always designing for backward compatability. Alot of us just follow the majority and forget the minority that's out there. Not everyone's on IE, some still even on Lynx.

mpenza - I agree. And I've said it how many times in this thread. On screen DPI doesn't look any different, but when u move to print it's something else. This is where we agree right? How come u guys still thinking I differ from that?

I have been in the web thing when Netscape is still 0.9. 216 colours is the web-safe palette which is supposed to be compatibel across all platforms.

But the 72ppi issue I must clear. It makes sense to say "4 by 6 inch at 72ppi", which translates to 288 by 432 pixels. Just nice for web display. Probably will measure 4 x 6" on the monitors of old too.

But 432 x 288 pixels @ 72 ppi really, really doesn't make sense and is redundant, which is what I am trying to say. That same 432 x 288 pixel image can also be @ 300ppi and file size will reman the same. Just that at 300ppi, that image won't be 4 x 6" anymore.

Too many people are caught up with the 72ppi misnomer because of all the misinformation floating around.

Regards
CK

 

[Zerstorer]

A 72x72 pixel image will only display as a 1" square(72dpi) on a 15"(13.8 diagonal) monitor at 800x600 display resolution.

Any other resolution or monitor size and it will no longer hold.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Zerstorer
A 72x72 pixel image will only display as a 1" square(72dpi) on a 15"(13.8 diagonal) monitor at 800x600 display resolution.

Any other resolution or monitor size and it will no longer hold.

Right. So why bother with "72dpi"? As long as pixel dimensions are supplied, the ppi doesn't make sense anymore!

Regards
CK

 

[mpenza]

Another way of looking at it....

print size x DPI x DPI = pixel dimennsions

print length (in inches) x DPI x print width (in inches) x DPI= #pixels for "image length" x #pixels for "image breadth"


pixel dimensions are sufficient to "describe" an image resolution, there's no need for "inch" or DPI. It does not make any sense to add another "dimension" to it. e.g. a 1024x768 4 inch image makes as little sense as a 1024x768 180DPI image.

another way to describe image is to use printsize AND DPI. saying a pic is 4 inch by 6 inch does not make a lot of sense digitally. (would anyone send a 4 inch by 6 inch image via email? or I bought a high resolution camera that produces a 8 inch by 10 inch digital image). you need to specify the "DPI" for anyone to make sense of the image dimensions. similarly to the case above, it also does not make sense to describe an image as 4 inch by 6 inch 200DPI, 1024, or a web image as "72DPI".

 

[lyrrad]

Last time policeman wear shorts, and my mother still a virgin.:bsmilie:

 

[Sin]

Originally posted by lyrrad
and my mother still a virgin.:bsmilie:

Really?!!!

Then I suppose all the Christians in the world should prostrate before you and call you "Lord"?
:devil: :bsmilie:

 

[lyrrad]

'last time' my mother still virgin.

 

[Sin]

Ahhhh!!


" 'Last time' policeman wore shorts, and my mother still a virgin.:bsmilie:"

:bsmilie:

 

[snowman]

.... a very very misleading thread....

fortunately, i see facts here n there... but not layman enough for the 'confused bees' to understand.....

from what i know....
1)any image @ 72 dpi @ exact document size printed on normal desktop printer doesnt make a difference, and resulting decent prints....unless you are using laser printer or plotter @ higher dpi(A2 n above)... thats when u can use ur fingers to feel the 'embossed' dried ink
2)u can resize any image at any time... but restrict to shrinking only(whether dpi or document size - to decrease file size).... never blow up the image from source.... unless u got the original

and colored pictures newpapers will never be sharp whether the input image is 300 dpi or 1200 dpi.... cus the 'printer' cant print at such high res.....and the paper is not high quality.... if they do... newpapers will cost $5 per copy(good paper to 'hold' the ink and a good printer)....

 

[Jed]

Huh? Now it's my turn to be confused...

 

[mpenza]

Originally posted by snowman

from what i know....
1)any image @ 72 dpi @ exact document size printed on normal desktop printer doesnt make a difference, and resulting decent prints....unless you are using laser printer or plotter @ higher dpi(A2 n above)... thats when u can use ur fingers to feel the 'embossed' dried ink
2)u can resize any image at any time... but restrict to shrinking only(whether dpi or document size - to decrease file size).... never blow up the image from source.... unless u got the original

The two points are very confusing and self-contradictory.... didn't want to say too much but a lot of rephrasing would help.