Quote:
Originally Posted by RJohnston
Lets say a phone camera produces images at 50 or 72 PPI and a Nikon D200 (My current camera) produces 300 PPI in a raw file.that resolution is specified by NIKON as a resolution unit of 1 inch or 300 Pixels Per Inch... That gives the D200 much better resolution than a phone camera... I believe Nikon would be more correct, they made the camera. So in Photography is always spoken of as Pixels per inch in a photograph and Printers speak of resolution on paper as Dots Per Inch in a printer software...
|
Sorry to dredge up this thread, but I'm still confused on the PPI subject. I just looked at a jpeg (largest size) taken with my Canon dSLR (I normally work with raw files, though) and in Photoshop it says that the resolution is 72 PPI. So, am I to take it that the resolution of my dSLR camera is the same as a phone camera?
On the link that was provided in this thread (where the guy constantly used DPI when referring to PPI), he said that the number in the PPI box (under Image Size in Photoshop) was meaningless. But then I believe you said that you do indeed get better resolution with a higher number - say 300 PPI.
Every time I read something on this subject, people keep contradicting one another. Some say that a photo that has a resolution of 72 PPI will give you worthless prints, or at least worthless beyond 4x6. Then this guy comes along and says that the PPI number is meaningless. That it's only the pixel dimensions that matter.
To cap this all off, I recently had Mpix develop some 35mm film for me and had them scan the negatives. On their site (under film services), they say that they scan at 72 DPI. Of course, they must mean PPI (right?), so even these large companies are getting the terminology wrong. In Photoshop, when I open their scanned images, the PPI is indeed listed as 72. But, if 72 PPI gives such poor results, why is Mpix scanning my negatives at 72 PPI instead of something like 300 PPI? Do they want me to have poor quality prints? Or if it's just a meaningless number, like the guy in the link was trying to say, why even mention that fact at all on Mpix's website?
To tell you the truth, I thought my dSLR gave a resolution of 240 PPI, because when working with raw files, that's how the resulting tiffs and jpegs turned out. It was probably just a setting that I had in ACR that was giving me that resolution(?). Anyway, with all this discussion of PPI, I decided to take a look at a jpeg from my Canon dSLR and was surprised to see 72 in the PPI box.