From: "rendernyc" Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.213.48] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 6349922 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:13:25 +0100 Received: by mail-vk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v3so2391554vkb.8 for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:16:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=l8aRWc8OM2ea/eQJCJNSSru1y/YzhD+QNj4u25YwZt8=; b=KKWJ83f5wjZRzvsfwCOzqGA17ljszXbdGw3pp+wbYcZam/JMUOFgFzrBIPAjbcTu7n nxXPVq/5HDK4CHlcmdDikVcTgReagLXOuEoXzYKtHiB87iaPUdzwojXnsL3yj0xvfd67 O6iqHY0IQthCJeykRMrbDoHMNSk8EI1qfBo8PrbIpNbkpBdx4GI6wLEpYQCb6/L6Z/sV PFAhaj6RLfSdJvzphS1+C0Lik7KVrG/UlF1oUwgI8EU/emLT1Wea7P+OVPq7i1MyJ0Pi 07OuqjCM2S1hrr6iNt1G78XD+4QGN6EPU2AFL3Aqst4pR9GiFPXju2wn46lgGn6fkJ+S zG8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=l8aRWc8OM2ea/eQJCJNSSru1y/YzhD+QNj4u25YwZt8=; b=qWbXe3RYy8AGDoKH6nVKJT48YoJnQE+pdOtfchHWET7tz1DgxFW4pATyE+NG2eNO9P cEgU1kjZihUcG9XswU/+ZwiGOKeZFfpfok/TLpjK1TDcp3u75tVvTd3P5JXtu8CHB6Kw Aekk5yuhvlDOAeMrcZ5dI8iyASm53Y7THuTEcaD0+fAoMlLcMLonutJpMUWek0u16BKA dc48qwKLg8Yjt326jhN6iIR0ofbvL3ihzlCx+xWI+yuKiI9i0/pRzfGi/ImnBwjhGM5H v3n+YIBTmSvow7Vtlt3jU9chSqe5dkSUl7JrKXdQaKUD+FLY+6y0nkHliUDGUnu420AN u7/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXXV1IWgsitIxnXgOiVwfMMSJKiPh24SiCUKXmlNvKWlC7h4cDa 69gbR+cZaDYRX47CQmY0CHmwP7rEjCc0qMCUaWgbew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SDNrrHt/d4yp927IVHCm2e9iDN2OQMTif/a9x+jAZusJaMx3UDeDarNT65n6yptOxCiP7UhYYzUyI2+JxAhSg= X-Received: by 10.31.124.73 with SMTP id x70mr5603925vkc.8.1509736575918; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:16:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.55.194 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:16:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:16:15 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Resolution Mystery To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14c7d64fe7ec055d18f0c5" --94eb2c14c7d64fe7ec055d18f0c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable placebo effect On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Peter Matulavich wrote: > 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 th= e > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > > --=20 danny princz vimeo.com/rendernyc --94eb2c14c7d64fe7ec055d18f0c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
placebo effect

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Peter Matulavich <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
I can't argue with you = logic, but I'm loving the results!=C2=A0 I downloaded a roughly 1500 x = 800 image which shows up in Photoshop as having 300 dpi. =C2=A0 =C2=A0Size = alone, unusable for full screen HD motion graphics. I then changed the size= to about 3840 x 2160 and saved the image.=C2=A0 When I reopened the image = it was the larger size and as razor sharp and finely detailed as the origin= al image! =C2=A0 No loss of quality at all.=C2=A0

= 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.=C2=A0 I= tried resizing that to the larger 3840 x 2160, and it totally fell apart a= s you would expect.=C2=A0 So for me, PPI most certainly IS relevant.
<= div>
Bottom line, it may not make sense but it's working = fabulously for me!

Thanks again for your original = tip.

Pete


=
-------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------=

No - you can=E2=80=99t blow up a= 300 ppi image 4 times without loosing quality in video or the web.=C2=A0
The samples I showed you are exactly the same number of p= ixels. The PPI only effects the size of the printed image on paper. They wi= ll both look exactly the same on the web, embedded in an email, or in a vid= eo.=C2=A0

PPI is completely irrelevant unless you = are printing. That is what controls the size of the printed image.=C2=A0

If you are scanning a document then increasing the P= PI will give you more pixels per inch of document, but if the image origina= lly is 100 pixels by 100 pixels then the resolution is 10,000 pixels. PPI h= as nothing at all to do with resolution in a digital image.=C2=A0

PPI has everything to do with resolution when you are talki= ng about scanning or the size of an image sensor. When you are talking abou= t 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 Illustr= ator 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 pape= r.

Hope this clears it up for you.

<= /blockquote>



--
--94eb2c14c7d64fe7ec055d18f0c5--