I beg to differ with you; but I am not going to get into a food fight with you over it. In the case of RAW, you are correct the dpi is somewhat irrelevant in that raw files do not contain any reference to resolution per se only to the size of the image X x Y pixels; however, if you save to a standard non-RAW format, resolution does matter in that it is made part of the file metadata which is used to instruct applications how to render the image in the image file. However, in terms of the camera, there is not specific settings that use the terminology or provide for options in ppi or dpi terms per se. The frequently set the effective resolutions in terms of the maximum umber of pixels along the longest side that are captured but assume that is will be divided by 300 dpi when written to the standard non-raw file format. This is what allows them to point to print sizes that can be produced at different quality levels depending on the quality level/file format combination selected.
But more importantly, many if not all cameras do put resolution limitations on what can be saved when it is being saved to standard non-RAW files. The two Nikon digital cameras and the Kodak pro 14/n that I own will not allow one to save images to Jpeg file formats with resolutions certain maximum effective resolution; wherein the TIFF format permits the highest ant the JPEG format allows for lesser effective resolution depending on the compreesion level selected. To wit, capture an image at each of the available quality and format combinations your camera allows (except RAW) and open each image without any manipulation in Photoshop and check the resolution of the opened image in the Photoshop Image/Image Size box in the Resolution space. I think you will find that they will have different resolutions (dpi/ppi). This is not after any resampling or after the image has been through the printer and produced as a hard copy but as it is rendered on the monitor display in ppi directly as imported from the camera flash card. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals????? The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the "dpi" setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals????? > > > Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; > but I assume > that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your > images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but > capturing them > at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also > be good, as > long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to > work with them > prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a > TIFF (or PSD if > you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and > edit them image > editing programs like Photoshop, including using > interpolation if necessary. > The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious > pictures is to > capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting > exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot > prints. Even if > those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I > would shoot at > maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with > lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality > original possible; > You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg > for use on the > internet and you can always downsample the image resolution > to 72 dpi after > the fact (both of which I would save as different working > copies of the file > so as to retain the original file. > > In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make > a working TIFF > copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would > make any jpeg > files. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals????? > > > Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals????? > > > I use the program frequently; and find that for most > upsampling within the > > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from > Photoshop's Bicubic > > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that > the difference > may > > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with > quality, why are > you > > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which > uses lossy > > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you > save captures > at > > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to > capturing at > > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to > be saved at > 300ppi > > resolutions. > > > My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw > format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion > give me the benefit you mention ? > > Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg > format is used so > > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming > that they will > > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will > only be printed at > 4 > > x 6 sizes at best). > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > ------------ > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title > or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body