Well, this is certainly something that I didn't really understand (or perhaps,
think about), either - untill this discussion!
I WAS use to defining resolution as dpi - dots-per-inch - taken in the
context of photo-mechanical transfer technology (PMT's), as defined by the LPI
(lines-per-inch) ratings of the transfer screens.
So, a relatively course 85 lpi screen will of course give a lower resolution
output (suitable for printing on newsprint) than a magazine quality 135 lpi
screen. In either case, though, the output size is still the same - whatever
the input size was (without scaling). The only difference is the resolution -
the quality of detail in the image.
In the back of my mind, I've still been thinking that a higher PPI rating
means more detail - instead of, "more detail for a given print size but a
larger physical size on screen".
John M.
>>>><<<<
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 00:06:09 -0700
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: Stolen images for sale on eBay
khen lim wrote:
> Apparently, Chuck, she DID not post high-res photos. She was adamant
about
> this on her forum site (
>
http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/
> )
>
> It's here:
>
> 1. rebekka Says:
> May 17th, 2007 at 4:40
>
am<http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/#comment-4508>
>
> for the millionth time, i have *NEVER UPLOADED ANY HIGH-RESOLUTION
> IMAGES TO FLICKR *
>
> 72dpi , always.
>
> just wish people would get this one detail straight.
>
Piers Hemy wrote:
> I don't know what "high resolution" means. I don't know what "72dpi"
adds
> to the argument. The resolution of the photos in question is 1800 x
1200
> pixels.
Unfortunately, Rekekka, whatever her other talents, does not understand
what resolution is. Like others here before (one hopes) Chuck's
clarifications, she thinks dpi means something about resolution by
itself.
1800 x 1200 is 2.16 megapixels, the size of images from many early
digital cameras and certainly high rez for the purpose at hand. The
Nikon D1 images size was 2000x1312, for 2.6 mp, for example, and the
Canon D30 2160x1440 for 3.1 mp. These were very expensive, professional
cameras only a few years ago.
1800 x 1200 is sufficient for an excellent 8x10 without any tricky
uprezzing at all. With quality uprezzing software or RIP, and printing
on canvas, it should give good results up to 16x20 or so.
Whatever she may think, and I do feel for her upset, she did indeed
upload high resolution images.
Moose
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|