Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Set the DPI for your screen regardless of what folks say here. (PS CC and likely many other software)
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Apr 11, 2021 15:54:14   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Many folks dismiss the idea of setting the screen resolution in PS CC as 'not needed'

I beg to differ, a simple test will show you why.

Use the Print view
Switch to Actual size
They will not match as the default screen resolution is set to 72PDI (default).
Hint: They should.

What does it matter? When you work on an image seeing the image in real size is more important than anything else.

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 18:40:07   #
a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
 
Not all monitors are 72 DPI. The higher resolution ones are higher DPI. (PPI)
If you set the resolution of a given monitor lower than its native resolution you really don't change the DPI since that is a feature of the hardware. That is why text, for example, looks better on a higher resolution monitor even when the screen is set to, for example, 1920 x 1080 or whatever.

A matter of terminology: the specification is usually given, for monitors, as PPI for Pixels per Inch. My monitor's PPI is 163. A good iPad will have even higher PPI ("retina screen"). My PPI does not change when I set my monitor to 2560 x 1440 to make text easier to see. A different BenQ monitor, 24" 1920 x 1200, has PPI of 94.

As for looking at the whole image at 1:1, for many digital cameras today, you can't. For example, my camera is 6000 x 4000 image pixels. I can either zoom in to see detail or out to see the whole image but I don't have a monitor that can do 6000 x 4000. The newest sensors from Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. are even "bigger". Even if such a monitor were available I doubt I could afford it.

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 19:22:02   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
a6k wrote:
.../...

The full text of this...

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2021 19:57:38   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
80 on my old 27" HP Envy

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 21:52:14   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
For the benefit of the interested public, remind everyone again, how many dots fit in a pixel?

If you like it the other way, how many pixels are in a dot?

How may dots are on your modern pixel based monitor? Hint: none

When you look at your pixel-based image on your pixel-based screen, no matter what you think about dots, there are none involved, only pixels. To say otherwise, no matter the authoritative tone, is to continue a false understanding of the application of physical 'dots' in an all-digital pixel-based world.

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 22:37:02   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
For the benefit of the interested public, remind everyone again, how many dots fit in a pixel?

If you like it the other way, how many pixels are in a dot?

How may dots are on your modern pixel based monitor? Hint: none

When you look at your pixel-based image on your pixel-based screen, no matter what you think about dots, there are none involved, only pixels. To say otherwise, no matter the authoritative tone, is to continue a false understanding of the application of physical 'dots' in an all-digital pixel-based world.
For the benefit of the interested public, remind e... (show quote)


This is a false narrative that has spread for too long.

► A pixel as no size (It is a mathematical formula that determines a color shade).
► A pixel on a monitor is created software that extrapolates or interpolates pixels as needed, giving each pixel a dynamic mathematical value and a physical value as set by the monitor PPI.
► A dot on a print is also subject to the same software calculation to extrapolate/interpolate in order to create a fixed mathematical and a physical value in order to print, according to a printer resolution in DPI.

It is not difficult to comprehend but some folks like to muddy the water deliberately.

This is why setting the screen resolution in important yet blissfully ignored because 'it has no impact in the final product'. Well, it does if you stop pixel peeping and work in what is truly 100% view.

The only time one can ignore PPI is when an image is posted on the web.

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 22:44:58   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Lots of words ,,,, but where is the simple answer to the simple question:

How many dots fit in a pixel?

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2021 22:49:06   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Rongnongno wrote:

The only time one can ignore PPI is when an image is posted on the web.


That's not true. People have been ignoring PPI for many years and probably will continue to do so. Click the shutter, print the picture, send it to Grandma and put a smile on her face. All done without a thought about PPI.

Life is grand if you don't get mired in the minutia.

---

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 22:59:29   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Paul is correct.

DPI is a printing, not a display term.

PPI has no relevance - only the size of the image in pixels matters.

No display has had a 72 PPI resolution since the early Mac computer (because it matched the 72 DPI of the Apple ImageWriter printer). This “default” PPI/DPI myth apparently continues because it appears as a default value in EXIF data, and changing it has no effect on anything.

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 00:00:09   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
TriX: Paul is correct.

DPI is a printing, not a display term. I cited the difference, you did not read

PPI has no relevance - only the size of the image in pixels matters. Not true. You want to see the difference? Use a web page with set images using pixel size. Depending on the display's resolution the same image is visually smaller or greater. If only here, PPI matters - even if out of the publisher's hands..

No display has had a 72 PPI resolution since the early Mac computer (because it matched the 72 DPI of the Apple ImageWriter printer). This “default” PPI/DPI myth apparently continues because it appears as a default value in EXIF data, and changing it has no effect on anything.


Read what is being said, I expect better from you.

In order to create a pixel or dot on any device it is either left alone (if lucky) or changed using compression (interpolation) or dilatation (extrapolation) in order to be shown or printed. If shown (as in displayed) the pixel values will change if zoomed in or out hence dynamic. If printed a pixel is represented as a dot that has a fixed size. In both cases they inherit the device's properties.

72 is a default NOT THE REALITY. You must enter your screen PPI in the setting in order to have a true display that shows the final product as inches on centimeters on the ruler when using 100% view. Do that, and you will see that regardless of your printer DPI setting after that both images will be the same and if you take a ruler to your screen the screen ruler will match.

Too many folks send images to print w/o realizing what control they have on the output and the opportunity to correct something that maybe invisible otherwise like banding, muddy colors - among other issues -.

Same goes for the web displays. For example to create great thumbnails on UHH, just uses the limits (width=600, height=no known limits) imposed by the site and edit for it.

I am getting exhausted of the ignorance being presented as gospel. Display PPI and printer DPI matter. Not including them in post-processing because of ignorance, laziness or poor choices of information's sources is not acceptable regardless of the final product.

A final word: When the display PPI is set using 'Actual size' shows the image with each pixel represented w/o interference from the software. Using 1:1 pixel view does not offer this opportunity.

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 00:57:24   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Ron, you're understanding just enough to not yet understand that you're missing the real details.

Internet images are sized to pixels, not pixels per inch. A screen has a pixel resolution. It doesn't matter how many inches big or small the screen is, the length by width in pixels is all that counts because that pixel resolution says now large an image can be displayed without any resampling.

A webpage has a geography. The pages also are transmitted and loaded on target devices using a bandwidth for transmission. Large files transfer slower and load slower. The page designer decides how 'big' they want an image to appear within the page sizes of their site. If the embedded image should display at 300 or 600 pixels or any size smaller than filling the entire target screen, the actual images should be sized to the specific pixel dimension. There's no relevance of the "inches" nor "pixels to inch" in this question.

You mention the dynamic change when you zoom into an image. This 'magic' is not magic beyond understanding. If your screen is 1920x1080, a larger pixel resolution image (say 6000x4000) are magically / dynamically resized to show a view that is 1920x1080 pixels. Nothing about the image changed. The hardware / software dynamically resampled the image to match the pixel resolution of the screen. No hocus pocus.

When you click on the image and zoom to the 1:1 pixel level details, aka 100% zoom, again nothing about the image file changes. Instead, you now see an unsampled crop of the image at the pixel dimensions of your screen at a 1920x1080 resolution. No hocus pocus.

Now this part takes the cake:
Rongnongno wrote:

I am getting exhausted of the ignorance being presented as gospel. Display PPI and printer DPI matter. Not including them in post-processing because of ignorance, laziness or poor choices of information's sources is not acceptable regardless of the final product.


You're preaching from the wrong book. PPI is relevant to printing, not screen displays. And at most levels, DPI doesn't matter at all. The printer can be adjusted to print at more or less DPI. But, that is an attribute of the printer, not the images sent to the printer. Read this again, because this is the part you're missing: DPI is an attribute of the printer, not the images sent to the printer.

If you up your printer from 300 DPI to 600 DPI, it doesn't print the same 1200 pixel image to half the size. No, it just uses more ink for the same sized output.

If pixels had anything to do with dots, you'd be able to provide a simple answer to a simple question: how many dots are in a pixel?

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2021 09:50:44   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Many folks dismiss the idea of setting the screen resolution in PS CC as 'not needed'

I beg to differ, a simple test will show you why.

Use the Print view
Switch to Actual size
They will not match as the default screen resolution is set to 72PDI (default).
Hint: They should.

What does it matter? When you work on an image seeing the image in real size is more important than anything else.


What is “real size” in reference to the display? And why is it more important than anything else? In general, no matter the size and resolution of the display, or the resolution of the camera, what I want to see is the image filling as much of the screen as possible. And sometimes I want to zoom into sections and see part if the image in 1:1. I don’t need to set a printing property to see that.

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 11:12:54   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Read carefully...
What is being described first...

Pixel size
► A pixel as no size (It is a mathematical formula that determines a color shade value).

How a pixel display is created Hint, fixed size, dynamic color shade content.
► A pixel on a monitor is created by software that extrapolates or interpolates pixels values as needed, giving each pixel a dynamic mathematical value and a physical size as set by the monitor PPI.

How a printer dot is created Hint, fixed size, fixed color shade value.
► A dot on a print is subject to the same software calculation to extrapolate/interpolate in order to create a fixed mathematical and a physical size in order to print, according to a printer resolution in DPI.

From there, knowing how to use a display PPI and printer DPI visually while doing post-processing is critical.
PS CC offers two specific viewing modes:
→ Print mode
→ Real mode
These are different from 1:1 pixel peeing viewing mode.


It is not difficult to comprehend but some folks like to muddy the water deliberately.

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 11:22:16   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
How many dots are in a pixel?

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 11:23:32   #
Hip Coyote
 
All of this is interesting. I am surprised there is controversy over what is most certainly established science...kinda like the earth is round (maybe?). Perhaps an article by an established authority to review for us ill informed?

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.