| ||||||||||
| On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: > Why are we arguing about this? I thought we settled this question ten years ago. It was. But I'm concerned you (or others under the impression "72 dpi" has anything to do with video) didn't get the right memo. > Have you researched consumer HDTVs lately? There are two other another scaling factors: Dot Pitch and Pixel Pitch. Viewing is a different discussion. When you are prepping images for use in AE, FCP, et al (regardless of how the image will ultimately be viewed), the only "resolution" number they're looking at is the number of pixels. Therefore, I think it most efficient to be focusing on that number, rather than indirect ways of deriving it such as altering the DPI with resampling turned on. That's the only point I was trying to reach. If you still disagree, you may do so - or you can run some tests where you have one batch of images with the same number of pixels and different DPI, and another batch with the same DPI but different numbers of pixels, and see how they are handled by your video apps. BTW, there was a slight misstatement in my earlier post; the magical 72 DPI number is both related to early displays, as well as the 72 points per inch traditionally used by typesetters. Which is another fine reason to use it for video (smile). signing off from this thread - Chris |
