Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Need help with a statement in the Understanding Resolution tutorial  (Read 1161 times)
geezer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: January 03, 2013, 07:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

At the very beginning of the tutorial is a description of the properties of an image.

I understand how an image 2160 pixels wide would yield an image 9" wide at a resolution of 240 pixels/inch.

I understand how that same 2160 pixel wide image could yield an image 6" wide at a resolution of 360 ppi.

Now I fall off the path of understanding. The tutorial states:

"Now, let's say you want to make a larger print — say one that was 14 inches wide. You would then end up with an image that was about 9.3 inches wide but more importantly one that would only have a resolution of 155 pixels / inch. This is not enough output resolution for a high quality print, as we'll see below."

Ok, I understand how spreading that 2160 pixel-wide image over a width of 14" would mean the resolution would have to drop to about 155 ppi. (2160/14=154.2 ppi).

But what does "You would then end up with an image that was about 9.3 inches wide " mean? The image is 2160 pixels wide. At 155 ppi, the document's width is 14". What does "an image that was about 9.3 inches wide" have to do with anything?

Maybe I'm just incredibly thick (my wife sometimes thinks so), but I can't follow this.

Thanks in advance.

Tom

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2013, 07:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is not enough output resolution for a high quality print, as we'll see below."

Basically, the threshold of minimum resolution (and this depends on the printer) is somewhere between say 180ppi and 200ppi. Of course you can use less pixels per inch but quality suffers. In the very, very old days (1992 or so) the very first contone printer I used was a Kodak XL-7700 dye sub. It had an output rez of 203dpi (you sent it 203ppi). Back then, that was still a big file for a 10x10 print. Why 203? Well Kodak found that was close to the minimum data needed to make a good print. Today, with a decent ink jet like an Epson, you can get away with 180ppi and at viewing distance, it will look fine.

Quote
At 155 ppi, the document's width is 14".

I get 13.9 so our math is damn close. Typo?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636


« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2013, 09:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Would presume it is a typo. I think it should read "and that was about 9.3 inches high". I think he/she is assuming a 3:2 aspect ratio with an image that is 2160 x 1440 pixels.

Brian A
Logged
geezer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2013, 10:23:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Aha! 9.3 inches high! Yes, that's it.

Making a 2160 pixel image 14" wide would make the 1440 pixel image height 9.3" high.

Thanks a lot.

Tom
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1960



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2013, 10:37:23 AM »
ReplyReply

You're not thick - the statement is garbage, it makes no sense at all. Ignore it. Other aspect of the tutorial may be useful, but this part is not. It's a result of people who think they are smarter than they are publishing stuff without peer review or copy editing.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4903



« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2013, 12:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

You're not thick - the statement is garbage, it makes no sense at all. Ignore it. Other aspect of the tutorial may be useful, but this part is not. It's a result of people who think they are smarter than they are publishing stuff without peer review or copy editing.

Is there something in the water today that is making people bitchy, turning a typo into a rude attack?

This is the third posting today of this sort.

Is civility going to be dead in 2013? If so then I'll shut this whole fuck'n place down.

Michael
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2013, 02:08:09 PM »
ReplyReply


Is civility going to be dead in 2013? If so then I'll shut this whole fuck'n place down.

Michael

If they are US citizens they have been watching too much of our Federal legislators in action.  The Canadians are a much more civil lot!
Logged

Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139


« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2013, 02:12:26 PM »
ReplyReply

If they are US citizens they have been watching too much of our Federal legislators in action.  The Canadians are a much more civil lot!

Not based on Michael's comment!    Roll Eyes

Later,
Johnny
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad