From: "Peter Matulavich" Received: from sonic303-26.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([98.137.64.207] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTP id 6349919 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:10:24 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ameritech.net; s=s2048; t=1509736394; bh=tBor9z2kBviETDHl7fs5VaQEhEe/bibGvvgizK8d37c=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=LH4ECX09j37k4+vpS9Ktiooz4xcAffsYCxlvNHXLLVfnR2y2j932K1tv6qVGtpmlevu0YI6Q7PW8o5attzN7GZIGVplwgT/Sw4za4uEw+4KO2Eh/OEfq/UktBVSnaeFw7NZEbB+LJehwNn9EeUIu5Hhb5ExkePhU0M4pipnWaIVhxZHlyRCS1sVXsaVM1YIK7Q+unbfL7E7aZuZWZpi5Hg4Qgje4MurUZTpK4zuT3KWkYF1PxsL0LH8BQGLy/30NXi6/mxOsjUF3YQn4D3khF+0aSUxc4PKBYjCBdgRB20V1YxeImIPFCX3V+0IwNWiKILGq97Mqv3HrHov+BzfkUQ== X-YMail-OSG: vPEEun4VM1lz8ROqmTpLMPJSoqaHuZaoolygM.2MToQN95kC_2wdzH0l1oOJZHc AQBNeG6qouGBMLF51K_hn4zm40_n6RcC_CwgVhN56VrJM.cPwDOOauP1IGGeUTiibPQ0eSd.IDE1 z2U5ceFndXI7.tWNHFQJ96PRbIjitdZl1G1J_Uv3BAKF_tPdMe_QLMKMdnF731kWMAiv9W_rM5Tn lCeTG9H7W9CLwKbWl9Dt_FV.5comoZyuCpXIRc97RCqR3GAuu6c7p2RIsdktFroJ0eQuzeOm9McF lVOClmyZsJl0nHwK7hWLEJhjjYzl9Ax_uQKfa6c5L0sw8Khqz78rEro7Lv2ch8jucNImUVRN_wuC nARWmuk5yRKX0JaPXy1cJzRpD59LN73YWNqtuMKUpjOAuGJEg7jkwMCjNuY1OnlXFotjlSkeuPqe mGTpegAb.Ed.dFBZZ3s3hPJfjt2TGZluA5dVxCbz1JGlL5R1PuUO_Wf8hXlWYM0GtYIwq161lyFk QRCmlwEFOe5QAvHCgfyJfSPZ30bEmmuzmKrfy.RnCgV3KtheIFgtYVKFZs8o4Dw-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic303.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:13:14 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp111.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Nov 2017 19:13:12 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 213664.40358.bm@smtp111.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: vPEEun4VM1lz8ROqmTpLMPJSoqaHuZaoolygM.2MToQN95k C_2wdzH0l1oOJZHcAQBNeG6qouGBMLF51K_hn4zm40_n6RcC_CwgVhN56VrJ M.cPwDOOauP1IGGeUTiibPQ0eSd.IDE1z2U5ceFndXI7.tWNHFQJ96PRbIji tdZl1G1J_Uv3BAKF_tPdMe_QLMKMdnF731kWMAiv9W_rM5TnlCeTG9H7W9CL wKbWl9Dt_FV.5comoZyuCpXIRc97RCqR3GAuu6c7p2RIsdktFroJ0eQuzeOm 9McFlVOClmyZsJl0nHwK7hWLEJhjjYzl9Ax_uQKfa6c5L0sw8Khqz78rEro7 Lv2ch8jucNImUVRN_wuCnARWmuk5yRKX0JaPXy1cJzRpD59LN73YWNqtuMKU pjOAuGJEg7jkwMCjNuY1OnlXFotjlSkeuPqemGTpegAb.Ed.dFBZZ3s3hPJf jt2TGZluA5dVxCbz1JGlL5R1PuUO_Wf8hXlWYM0GtYIwq161lyFkQRCmlwEF Oe5QAvHCgfyJfSPZ30bEmmuzmKrfy.RnCgV3KtheIFgtYVKFZs8o4Dw-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: EcDW2a2swBB9hFO65S9OhozNocWo6fjqQAGm5CKel5poc8vyhQ-- Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_42C72E00-E9E4-458A-A206-267EB15760B5" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Resolution Mystery Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:13:10 -0400 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) --Apple-Mail=_42C72E00-E9E4-458A-A206-267EB15760B5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I can't argue with you logic, but I'm loving the results! I downloaded = a roughly 1500 x 800 image which shows up in Photoshop as having 300 = dpi. Size alone, unusable for full screen HD motion graphics. I then = changed the size to about 3840 x 2160 and saved the image. When I = reopened the image it was the larger size and as razor sharp and finely = detailed as the original image! No loss of quality at all.=20 For a comparison, I went back to the same site and found another roughly = 1,500 x 800 image but this one showed up in PS as having only 72 ppi. I = tried resizing that to the larger 3840 x 2160, and it totally fell apart = as you would expect. So for me, PPI most certainly IS relevant. Bottom line, it may not make sense but it's working fabulously for me! Thanks again for your original tip. Pete = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------- No - you can=92t blow up a 300 ppi image 4 times without loosing quality = in video or the web.=20 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.=20 PPI is completely irrelevant unless you are printing. That is what = controls the size of the printed image.=20 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 to do with resolution in a digital image.=20 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=92t 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 attention to PPI is when = you intend to print that image on paper. Hope this clears it up for you. --Apple-Mail=_42C72E00-E9E4-458A-A206-267EB15760B5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
I can't argue with you = logic, but I'm loving the results!  I downloaded a roughly 1500 x = 800 image which shows up in Photoshop as having 300 dpi.   =  Size alone, unusable for full screen HD motion graphics. I then = changed the size to about 3840 x 2160 and saved the image.  When I = reopened the image it was the larger size and as razor sharp and finely = detailed as the original image!   No loss of quality at = all. 

For a comparison, I went back to the = same site and found another roughly 1,500 x 800 image but this one = showed up in PS as having only 72 ppi.  I tried resizing that to = the larger 3840 x 2160, and it totally fell apart as you would expect. =  So for me, PPI most certainly IS = relevant.

Bottom line, it may not make sense = but it's working fabulously for me!

Thanks = again for your original = tip.

Pete



----------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------------
<= br>
No - you can=92t blow up a 300 ppi image 4 times without = loosing quality 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 to 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=92t = 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 attention to PPI is when you intend to print that = image on paper.

Hope this clears it up for you.