Understanding Resolution; PPI, DPI for Print and Digital
Photo Moment - February 28, 2017
Resolution is a topic that many beginners (and even advanced users!) get confused on easily. This discussion aims to clear up confusion around DPI and PPI, native camera resolution, scaling in apps like Photoshop, and more.
For me, I would have avoided this whole confusion if the pixel height and pixel width, were not referred to as the "dimensions" of an image.
I fucking love you for this video man!
Does it matter if you send an image with > 300dpi to the printer?
@@sctm81 you need to ask your lab how they want the file. Communication with the printer is ALWAYS the best advice.
Good question. The printer will downsample and the results may be fine, or may not. You’d have to test with your printer.
You are godsend, thaaaaank you!
Thanks for that SomeHowSomeOne, very kind of you to say
I am GCSE student from UK really thankful I was looking for dpi and ppi topic my school told me to reserch about this topic and I complited my research by looking this video thank you so much
I got it = ppi and dpi i have full hd image which is 1920x1080 pixels which is perfect for display now i have to print with a very higher dpi printer i can print the hole image in side 1 inch with high resolution
To do that i have to increase the dpi until the size is under 1 inch
But if i have to print full 4A paper i have to put the size 8.26772 x11.6929 inch the ppi will be shown if the ppi is under 300 then print or if you want more ppi then teck resample and type the required dpi it will multiply the image pixels as required and then print
To do that i have to increase the dpi until the size is under 1 inch
But if i have to print full 4A paper i have to put the size 8.26772 x11.6929 inch the ppi will be shown if the ppi is under 300 then print or if you want more ppi then teck resample and type the required dpi it will multiply the image pixels as required and then print
I am from Cameroon. thanks for helping me understand how resolution works.
This has clarified something that has bothered me for ages. Thank you.
Wonderful, glad I could enlighten.
What a helpful video. I have struggled to understand this for ages. Thank you so much! :-)
hi this srinivasan from india ...iam a wedding photographer..i have some doubts can u help me to sort it pls revert awaiting for ur reply
Great information! Just to add, I believe Topaz Gigapixel is the best way to upscale an image nowadays since it uses AI to create details that weren't present in the original (lower) resolution.
i am from gujarat...
jai shree krishna
jai shree krishna
Hi there, thanks for video, i understand the difference between ppi and dpi, but somehow noone can answer me my question. When i export photos from Lightroom (raw to jpeg), I have to select “Resolution”:ppi. Which number should i give in there if a picture will be printed at 2,400 dpi (in different sizes - 10x10, 21x21 etc) And also if threre a difference to print at 600dpi or 2,400, or in which cases the difference will be seen?
File resolution for printing depends on the printer. 2400dpi printer doesn’t mean that’s the required resolution of the file. Talk to your printer to see what they want, or if you’re printing at home, read the manual. It’ll give you some guidelines of what resolution to set the file at.
They may be used interchangeably but they are different things, ppi and dpi. They're as different as oranges from apples. I'm so sick of this created confusion!
Did you actually watch the video? Because I made this abundantly clear here.
Imo, I think his approach works for left brain thinkers. I think the best descriptions take a visual approach (instead of a numbers based approach) and then everyone will understand it. The numbers matter but not until you understand (and can visualize) the concepts first. Let's use a real world example. Say I work at a print shop and a customer emails us a file to print into a very large mural. The final print size will be 9 feet wide and 3 feet tall. The image dimensions are set at actual size (9'x3') and also at 300 ppi. But the file is so large (Its 4 gigabytes!) that we have trouble sending it (spooling) to the printer and the program freezes up. So, we decide to reduce some aspect of it (to reduce the file size) without comprising "noticeable quality". What would be the approach to do this? When you know the approach to take then you understand resolution, DPI and PPI.
Poland's here, but I'm on holiday elsewhere hah 🇵🇱
I really am thankful for your info :)
Please give me your opinion :
600 * 600 dpi ( ppi ) with 30 bit depth
Would such resolution be sufficient for a board of directors meeting ?
600 * 600 dpi ( ppi ) with 30 bit depth
Would such resolution be sufficient for a board of directors meeting ?
That's half the information and I don't know what it means to be "for a board directors meeting". I recommend you watch this video about resolution… oh, you already did. Anyway you need to tell me how many Pixels it is and if you mean for print and at what size, or for screen, or how you're using it.
Dude , spent 21 mints to say nothing ,,,, please focus on topics , Thanks
thanks for this joseph - when you demonstrated how all those changes happen using photoshop - can you get similar info tabulated in lightroom (where i do all my printing from) ?
thank you, thank you, thank you. I did not know any of this information and you explained it all perfectly. thank you.
This guy deserves more subs/ views/likes
He is awesome!
He is awesome!
Thank you so much PhotoJoseph! This is one of the better videos explaining Rez/PPI/DPI. I've been in the biz for some years and this subject still gets hairy; until now. Cheers!
FAR too many incorrect references to DPI when he is referring to PPI. The terms should NEVER be used interchangeably.
+Myron Achtman I get it. I know the difference between a pixel and a dot. But if I said in the beginning of the video (and pretty sure I did) that I may use the terms interchangeably, then that’s my excuse. Like I said, I’ve been doing this since before PPI was a term. So forgive me… old habits are like Bruce Willis… they DIE HARD 😁
+Myron Achtman Well, they are used interchangeably. I did this video a long time ago but IIRC I did say that I would use them interchangeably throughout. I come from a time where DPI was the only term used.
Exactly. I don't understand why some people don't get this.
Finally, after hours of looking I stumbled on some good stuff. At least someone knows what he is talking about
5 minutes in and i think it would be great if you were a teacher at my university
+Gargoyle Senior Thank you! Talk to your university about bringing me in as a guest speaker :-) I've done lots of work with schools; I love it.
I had a similar resolution argument on the Aperture forums a few years ago. Oddly it was with one of the forum's prolific posters who was otherwise an expert on Aperture. Some people just can't be convinced but I applaud you for trying.
I have the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens mentioned near the end. It does not have image stabilization built in so you will need to rely on the camera body IBIS. I think it will work great with the GH5. In fact I hope to try it some day. One feature that won't work is the Depth from Defocus on the GH5 that speeds focusing. It only works with Lumix lenses whose bokeh characteristics are in the camera's built-in database or with newer Lumix lenses that have the lens bokeh information in the lens firmware.
Similarly, some of the Olympus body features won't work with Lumix lenses. One example is the Pro Capture feature of the OM-D EM-1 MKII. It continuously captures frames while the shutter button is half pressed and retains the previous 14 frames when the shot is taken so you don't miss fast moving subjects. But it only works when using an Olympus Pro lens.
The take-away is some features require tight integration between camera and lens so using the same manufacturer body and lens will always have advantages.
I have the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens mentioned near the end. It does not have image stabilization built in so you will need to rely on the camera body IBIS. I think it will work great with the GH5. In fact I hope to try it some day. One feature that won't work is the Depth from Defocus on the GH5 that speeds focusing. It only works with Lumix lenses whose bokeh characteristics are in the camera's built-in database or with newer Lumix lenses that have the lens bokeh information in the lens firmware.
Similarly, some of the Olympus body features won't work with Lumix lenses. One example is the Pro Capture feature of the OM-D EM-1 MKII. It continuously captures frames while the shutter button is half pressed and retains the previous 14 frames when the shot is taken so you don't miss fast moving subjects. But it only works when using an Olympus Pro lens.
The take-away is some features require tight integration between camera and lens so using the same manufacturer body and lens will always have advantages.
+Thomas Emmerich Thanks for the clarification Thomas, and yeah… resolution… so weird. I feel like I'm watching that video where the guy is trying to convince his girlfriend that cutting a pizza into fewer slices doesn't mean there will be less to eat.
It is wonderful to see you responding with an entire video to a user question! Thumbs up!
I also think those EXIF-PPI-values are rather arbitrary. I had a quick look and found Olympus E-M5 mkII and E-M1 (both mFT 16MP) with 350PPI, Panasonic G85 (mFT 16MP...) with 180PPI, Pentax K-1 (FullFrame 36MP) with 300PPI, Fuji X-T2 (APS-C with 24MP) with 300PPI and my own lovely Olympus E-520 (FourThirds with 10MP) with 314PPI. I also have a scan from a 6x9cm slide with 17.8MP at 1588PPI.
I remember when I started digital photography I had viewer that showed the image size in cm... And today I finished a cover of a book in inkscape, had to import a jpeg and inkscape asked me if I would use the NATIVE PPI for the embedded size of the image in the svg. So there might be some use cases where applications query the resolution of a photo not by megapixel but by its "resolution in PPI".
But for printing all this really shouldn't matter. Printers don't care for noise or captured detail in the image. They just map pixel count to print size... As long as you don't resize the image all should go well.
I also think those EXIF-PPI-values are rather arbitrary. I had a quick look and found Olympus E-M5 mkII and E-M1 (both mFT 16MP) with 350PPI, Panasonic G85 (mFT 16MP...) with 180PPI, Pentax K-1 (FullFrame 36MP) with 300PPI, Fuji X-T2 (APS-C with 24MP) with 300PPI and my own lovely Olympus E-520 (FourThirds with 10MP) with 314PPI. I also have a scan from a 6x9cm slide with 17.8MP at 1588PPI.
I remember when I started digital photography I had viewer that showed the image size in cm... And today I finished a cover of a book in inkscape, had to import a jpeg and inkscape asked me if I would use the NATIVE PPI for the embedded size of the image in the svg. So there might be some use cases where applications query the resolution of a photo not by megapixel but by its "resolution in PPI".
But for printing all this really shouldn't matter. Printers don't care for noise or captured detail in the image. They just map pixel count to print size... As long as you don't resize the image all should go well.
+Franz Fellner Thanks, and I love answering user questions via video! Let's face it; with a daily show, I'm hungry for content :-)
Comments from YouTube