From: "Curtis Nichols" Received: from mail-ot0-f171.google.com ([74.125.82.171] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 6349882 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 16:32:17 +0100 Received: by mail-ot0-f171.google.com with SMTP id f18so2750441otd.10 for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 08:35:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pcsproductions-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kxszHFAwS1t0nXUz74uCepGMuIhF4ico1DMREySC4ig=; b=I4r8gPjPLBJxbQOIIiVFpJoOm2lLp17dK+oXzRScyzTJK9hQ9eyrWz7QFxWKs5MWH9 cdDGk6Ai/05/gmoOhIh2t6iBdHisYbQuFYDulqkQrzi496w6AxETyqj8uY6m2vkDGWKW o9n04MRX6dep8tuvdsu1RmXCuip4kt95wBmOTcL5auOpuqjPJ7HwAqadDIZ8P8P0TNUo nHxqQK1RIQvbKe3DS3VMCUbvTqd3sCCsAPqxVCBk628Bmc3y4dYwUHzUiyz4eTef4D1n +KaEdxDa8wU0GtF/M46oD1/bjFS0P2Lax5zC3jDOVeZxca/EklN90py1txYq/05qa26q IjaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=kxszHFAwS1t0nXUz74uCepGMuIhF4ico1DMREySC4ig=; b=c52p/q0eCgCrgM1unZIdVnb8o+mtuwkzYoSF+SRQAQWp0nxibSUaCdBVIFdT2JzfvN mFN0xXjHU9vMr+gp+F06b3tAGYz4mBXm8t3NM/8Ua84btkBlubaLkzIDGEFDEU2dGCJT 1GOPlGRizd8Oe07BQgIzZdZoaU6YHOvW/ZKjCaFCDJD8vnAl/0rXCBCcj5pu48YMZc1f Y24rmqy+ISqrm5L46hRKlDtBQg06SXafIfuISjOnQjywENJCeBMOeir1oUTnJLcml4Sp UJ1ysub2H/quaREkfhZtNSBpz849AOPbPlkdHbTnVBfu0IOeKBmUItA+RS7FgICxbJiP yTHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4xXR3og8w5HagTAspcyLa1nhqH2oSe/MVfm8EfG7QOuRu1cIFe L7rayWSmB+Q5T9QzpCj+uqIWh9QaFN4LzyukjdGeFA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R3eW5pUD3J+VWKQNSyoNnXMoM7FQ3xlH1kJs9CdPlAnlJTK02LRrVCXvRqcfVJZkg5sRFXouG4oR053TGoGvQ= X-Received: by 10.157.52.38 with SMTP id v35mr3466026otb.90.1509723307319; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:34:56 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Resolution Mystery To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11414b52713ba6055d15d975" --001a11414b52713ba6055d15d975 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PPI: pixels *per inch*. An inch of what? An inch on a 60" screen? An inch on an iPad? An inch on a 40' projection screen? For HD, all of those are 1920 pixels across. If you put a ruler to them you'll get a different ppi in each screen. That'd be a silly thing to do, but it illustrates the point. Video is measured in pixels, not inches. And BTW, ignore the "video is 72 dpi" claim. Again, an inch of what? On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:18 AM Rick Gerard wrote= : > No - you can=E2=80=99t blow up a 300 ppi image 4 times without loosing qu= ality in > video or the web. > > The samples I showed you are exactly the same number of pixels. The PPI > only effects the size of the printed image on paper. They will both look > exactly the same on the web, embedded in an email, or in a video. > > PPI is completely irrelevant unless you are printing. That is what > controls the size of the printed image. > > If you are scanning a document then increasing the PPI will give you more > pixels per inch of document, but if the image originally is 100 pixels by > 100 pixels then the resolution is 10,000 pixels. PPI has nothing at all t= o > do with resolution in a digital image. > > PPI has everything to do with resolution when you are talking about > scanning or the size of an image sensor. When you are talking about a > digital display you don=E2=80=99t use PPI, you use dot pitch - how many d= ots are > there per inch. > > I hope this helps. When working with images in Photoshop or even creating > vector artwork in Illustrator you should only be looking at the number of > pixels. The only time you need to pay attention to PPI is when you intend > to print that image on paper. > > Hope this clears it up for you. > > > On Nov 3, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Peter Matulavich > wrote: > > Thanks Rick, it worked and how easy! While you don't need to worry abou= t > PPI in the settings, it's good to know how many PPI were in the original > image so you know how much you can blow it up before losing quality, > right? In other words, a 300 ppi image can be blown up a little more tha= n > 4 times. I don't often work with imagery that was originally 300 ppi, so > this really opens some doors when I do. > > Thanks again. > > Pete > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------- > > If you goal is to resize the images so they are at least 1920 X 1080 then > do that by resampling the image Alt/Option + Ctrl/Cmnd + i, then turn > resample on and set the dimensions to pixels and enter 1920 or 1080 in th= e > smallest box. You don=E2=80=99t need to worry about the PPI unless you pl= an to > print the image. > > > -- Curtis Nichols www.PCSProductions.com O: (972) 550-8503 E: curtisn @ pcsproductions.com --001a11414b52713ba6055d15d975 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PPI: pixels per inch. =C2=A0
An inch of what?=C2=A0 An inch on a 60" screen? An inch on an i= Pad? An inch on a 40' projection screen?=C2=A0 For HD, all of those are= 1920 pixels across. If you put a ruler to them you'll get a different = ppi in each screen. That'd be a silly thing to do, but it illustrates t= he point.=C2=A0

Video is= measured in pixels, not inches.=C2=A0

And BTW, ignore the "video is 72 dpi" claim. Again= , an inch of what?


On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:18 AM Rick Gerard <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
No - you can=E2=80=99t blow up a 300 ppi image 4 tim= es without loosing quality in video or the web.=C2=A0

Th= e samples I showed you are exactly the same number of pixels. The PPI only = effects the size of the printed image on paper. They will both look exactly= the same on the web, embedded in an email, or in a video.=C2=A0
=
PPI is completely irrelevant unless you are printing. That i= s what controls the size of the printed image.=C2=A0

If you are scanning a document then increasing the PPI will give you mor= e pixels per inch of document, but if the image originally is 100 pixels by= 100 pixels then the resolution is 10,000 pixels. PPI has nothing at all to= do with resolution in a digital image.=C2=A0

PPI = has everything to do with resolution when you are talking about scanning or= the size of an image sensor. When you are talking about a digital display = you don=E2=80=99t use PPI, you use dot pitch - how many dots are there per = inch.

I hope this helps. When working with images = in Photoshop or even creating vector artwork in Illustrator you should only= be looking at the number of pixels. The only time you need to pay attentio= n to PPI is when you intend to print that image on paper.

Hope this clears it up for you.


On Nov 3, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Peter Matulavich <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

Thanks Rick, =C2=A0it work= ed and how easy!=C2=A0 While you don't need to worry about PPI in the s= ettings, it's good to know how many PPI were in the original image so y= ou know how much you can blow it up before losing quality, right?=C2=A0 In = other words, a 300=C2=A0ppi image can be blown up a little more than 4 time= s.=C2=A0 I don't often work with imagery that was originally 300=C2=A0<= /span>ppi, so this really opens some doors when I do.<= /div>

Thanks again.

Pete
-----------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------

= If you goal is to resize the images so they are at least 1920 X 1080 then d= o that by resampling the image Alt/Option + Ctrl/Cmnd + i, then turn resamp= le on and set the dimensions to pixels and enter 1920 or 1080 in the smalle= st box. You don=E2=80=99t need to worry about the PPI unless you plan to pr= int the image.

Curtis Nichols
<= /div>



=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A03D""=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
--001a11414b52713ba6055d15d975--