72 PPI Web Resolution Is A Myth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Did you know that only the number of pixels in an image, not the pixel per inch (ppi) setting, determines what an image looks like when viewing it on a monitor, how large the file is and what quality it is? Yep. In this video I explain why the ppi resolution does not matter, despite what we all learned.
Video courses and TK Panels: www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/...
I would thumbs up this video a hundred times if I could. So much confusion exists on this topic.
One hundred thumbs up noted and deposited in your thumbs up account! :-D
Your explanation really makes sense. It's perfect how you explain the context and the relationship of the different parameters.
This is the clearest explanation I have ever seen on this subject and that includes my college print production class. THANK YOU!!!!
I've watched so many videos and read so many books on the subject of resolution and print size and image resizing and i must say this is the most informative video I've watched. Finally got it. Liked, subscribed.
Good news! Glad this helped :-)
@@SeanBagshaw Can't believe that I got a direct and immediate response. Feel really appreciated, wish I could subscribe twice.
I'm so glad I just found this video! You saved me hours of time resizing all my website images because I thought changing them up to 72ppi would improve the load speed. So informative! Thank you
Sean. This is the best explanation on this matter I've ever seen. Thanks and congrats
OMG thank you for explaining this so clearly!!! I was feeling so overwhelmed and confused before I saw this video- thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! This is the best explanation ever :D
I scan my original artwork (pen & ink, colored pencil, watercolors) that are generally large to optimize my printer settings. I had the basic understanding that dpi only referred to printing vs ppi for web, but now I totally get it! Thanks so much for your crystal-clear presentation. Can't wait to check out the rest of your videos as a new subscriber.⭐⭐⭐⭐
Hello Sean,
Thank you for this great tutorial. You are bookmarked, liked, subscribed, and watched at least 5 times since I found you only a week ago. You are my digital hero. Thank you so much.
Great explanation Sean.
I like to think of those pesky picture elements as dots on a balloon and visualize them just getting separated more or less with the volume of air.
Having played with the resample option in PS, I've always sort o known this but your explanation was very clear and understandable for a non-tecchy person such as myself. Thank you.
Thanks for clearing this up! It makes sense now. I REALLY love the sharpen for web feature in TK actions. Would love to see an instruction video on full resolution sharpening please!
christov777 Thanks. Yeah, I know that is one that would be helpful. It’s a tricky topic with a lot of variables so I haven’t figured out how to do it in a video yet. I’ll keep thinking 🤔 on it.
Thanks so much for the quick reply! I’ lovin’ your TH-cam videos and as soon as I upgrade my laptop I’ll be getting your Lightroom video Package. I’ve been photographing since the days of Film processing and have developed a good sense for composition but this technical digital side is slow to come! Ha!
Tks so much for all you quality video work! Amazing stuff!
Thank you, I could see the file size never changed but couldn't explain it properly to my clients why they should not try to print a 72 ppi. Now I can. Great tutorial...
Thanks for being so thorough and making this so easy to understand!
finally, a clear and professional explanation on this confusing topic, well stated!
Thank you so much for this. Simply using common sense I kept coming to the same conclusion that when you have a fixed resolution, the ppi should not matter for display, but with all the false info out there, I kept getting so confused. This makes things so much better
Thank you for making this video! I have been "preaching" this for years in my classes, and it still surprises people. And some of them need to actually test it themselves when I tell them that changing PPI does not change the file size :-D
It is amazing how some ideas stick with us because they just "feel true". And I agree...actually doing the experiment and trying it out for ourselves is often the best way to really get a concept. Keep up the great work!
Happy you made this video. I explained it to people in design school, too. Thank you!
The truth is out there! Keep up the good fight :-D
Sean, you're an absolute life-saver!
Hey thanks Sean, I'm just getting to the point where I might consider printing some of my Astrophotography images and this helped me get things straight in my head. Thanks.
I like your exploration of this topic as well. I have long wondered about this ever since the 90's. Sometimes saving an image from the net resulted in a high quality pic, sometimes it didnt. Even photoshop cant fix some images. For example, if an image is physically too small, no matter how many ppi/dpi you set, if you enlarge the said image, it will have bad results. But most of this comes from an older age of the internet. A time when there were very few photo manipulation software options. Before the trendy, super user friendly website development tools that we have today. Before the modern digital cameras. Back then, general consumers only had webcams and pocket cams that might have produced a 4 mega pixel image. This was also when film cameras still reigned king. We would use scanners for everything. Telephonic fax modems. Hahaha. People just dont know how easy they have it now. Great video.
BNIBCD Creative Media Ahh...the good old days. 😆
WooHoo finally someone has explained it so it's understandable. Thanks Sean, great video. Also, I love @Jim in Ashland visualisation method as dots on a balloon, quite intuitive.
Right on Tim. I'm so glad I didn't just confuse things more. That Jim in Ashland is one smart dude, by the way. :-D
@@SeanBagshaw Must be something is the air
Super Helpful video Sean. Much appreciated. Cheers !!
Thanks, clears up my understanding and a great topic of discussion at the next camera club meeting.
Really clear explanation of an often misunderstood topic. I’d value your take on the optimum pixel size for a web image to load quickly and still look good on most displays. Is it that 1500x1000 size in your example? Thx Sean.
The best video by far on this topic. Thank you!
this one save me off my anxiety in exporting file size and choosing the right ppi thanks!
Perfectly explained. This is perhaps the best debunking of this widespread myth.
Muchas gracias. Da gusto ver videos en Yam buena calidad y con explicaciones tan claras.
Nice one Sean. Not seen any of your videos before but if this is anything to go by think I should. Well explained and clearly presented. Tx
Thanks, Neil. I hope you can find additional helpful stuff buried in my ramblings. :-D
This was helpful! I spend the better part of the day worrying about daVinci only exporting at 72 because someone told me that was ruining my stills. I am never worrying about this again!
Excellent video! It does a great job of explaining ppi and dpi.
Excellent Video Sean! Thanks.
Thank you!! Time to send this to my graphic design teacher that fed me this myth in the first place.
btw your photography is breathtaking!
Haha! To be fair...if that teacher was from the way old days, there was a time when it did make a difference.
Wonderfully explained. Thank you!
I’ve been carrying that myth with me since photography collage in the mid 90’s. Thank you for explaining it.
Most welcome! Fortunately, this is one of those times when no matter how you do it there isn't an adverse effect. :-D
Thank you for making this clear, there is so much confusion out there.
Excellent!!!! I have read about this ppi vs dpi in many articles and still never really understood it! Now I do (well sort of!). I’m not concerned with photo web posting but want to be able to print larger images. I’m shooting with a Sony A7rII, 42MB camera so I should be able to adjust the raw developed images to get the size up to where I need it, now that I know how it all works! Thanks much! B
Thanks for your comment! Yeah, with 42 MP you can print quite large. If you look at the image size at 300ppi in PS that will tell you how large it will print at that print res with no upscaling. I find that I can usually up-res to twice the size in PS with good results...so if the native print size is 12x18 at 300ppi for example, going up to 24x36 at 300ppi is good and maybe larger depending on print type and your expectations. Also, using Topaz Gigapixel AI I have been sizing even larger. I just did a large commercial print order of 30x45 and 40x60 all from 23-30 MP cameras and they came out great.
WOW Teacher! You have hereby finally point me in the right direction. I thank you so very much!
the easiest and clearest to follow I've seen to date
A good explanation of this often times confusing topic.
The best explanation so far.
Thank you, THIS WAS SO SIMPLE AND WELL EXPLAINED
Wonderful! Very didactic and well explained.
Excellent content! Thank you!
thank you for this explanation, I always wanted to know about it!
Awesome explanation!!
Thanks very much Sean. This video taught me a lot... I'm the guy who would get the buzzer for the wrong answer. ... And a few minutes later, at 8:57, I was expecting the 72 DPI image to have a much smaller file size: fewer kilobytes/megabytes than the 300 DPI image. ... I will let this fact rattle around, and then hope for the "Aha!" moment.
Right on. I was in that same place years back and had that very Aha moment. One thing that helps me with the Aha is that the number of pixels, file type and compression are the things that determine file size. The PPI setting does not alter any of those.
Very useful - I was in the 72ppi camp for screen, good to know it makes no difference now.
Thank you for a great explanation of this.
Thank you so much for this video, absolute lifesaver
Fantastic. I have been saying this for long time, but never agreed. Hereafter, I am not going to bother anymore whether they agree or not. Thank you for the video.
Best Explanation Vid Ever. Thank You So Much.
Excellent video, thank you!
You are awesome sir. Thank you so much for your explanation. Hope you are doing good in these bad times. Subscribed XD.
Try as I might, this goes right over my head. I wish I could grasp it. All I want to know is settings to use for posting on my website and best settings I need to use for printing to my printer. I'll keep searching for PPI resolution for dummies. Thanks for trying
Very clear explanation. thanks.
Great explanation!
great info...changed my understanding
Great explaination, thank you.
Thank you! Well explained
Big thankfull thanks!!! :3 SO GOOD explained thx!
perfect explanation,thank you.
Way back, at the start of colour screens on pcs, some of the programs that displayed images actually did use the DPI setting from the image to work out how to display the image ... if you got it wrong you could end up seeing only a part of the image on screen! Thankfully, they've all stopped using it.
But, sadly, even today photography competitions will stipulate the DPI and size in megabytes of the image file to submit, instead of the number of pixels in the image!!!!
All true. Apple started with 72 ppi then Windows bumped to 96 ppi...then screens using ppi was abandoned shortly after. Today a 4K, 27" monitor has about 164 ppi, but every screen res and screen size has a different ppi. Plus, images on most websites are now responsive so they scale up or down to fit the screen regardless of how many pixels they contain.
Well there you go, I’ve just learnt something I didn’t realise I needed to learn. So, now my understanding is it’s more an embedded instruction an a setting.
wow man , this video just broke th 72DPI myth into aches , thanks a bunch
Great explanation. love from Bangladesh.
Wow. Thanks Sean
This helped some...I've been researching this for a few months as I prepare photos for a personal web portfolio. Sites that help you create portfolios ask for specific pixel limits ie no more than 1920 px on one side (whatever the PPI). To reduce to this size, ex: in Photoshop using Save for Web, they also recommend reducing the quality so as to further reduce the file size. Say what?? That's where I remain confused. Why spend hours for best image when you then reduce quality just to bring the file size down to open faster?
When you, Sean, reduce your photos for your website, do you also reduce their overall quality? And also, then, what is the general range (or specific) of your photos' File Size? File Size as opposed to Image Size, which is just the photo. I know you know the dif - so do I. ;) That's another bugaboo in all this, however. But thanks for this video - it all helps!!!
Judy Parker glad the vid helps! I don’t know the file size of the images on my site offhand, but they are 1500x1000 pixels. And you can save with a jpeg quality of 8-10 and this will reduce file size a lot with almost no noticeable loss of quality on screen. That’s what I do.
@@SeanBagshaw Okay, that fits with the Save for Web form and what I've read is recommended. Like you said, there's so much out there though. And I've yet to post anything, still working on the photos (night time iron pour events - gah!!) so wasn't sure if doing that was going to be okay. These are dark and grainy to begin with. So I really appreciate your quick reply! Will keep plugging away. ;) Thanks again!!
Well explained!
very cool explained
Thala.... super ah sonninga .. Nandri (Tamil)
I agree, a lot of videos but this is the one that explains and works! Thanks Sean, i'll only make my boss happy LOL
Very helpful!
you are the almighty eye opener god of pixels, thanks
Wonderful presentation -- thank you! Question: ...can you tell me the size and settings you use to archive your images. I shoot camera raw and do not use Lightroom, but like to make large TIFF files for storage. What would you recommend for PPI and target size for anticipation of future use of the image?
Prozoot I don’t change anything about the image dimensions/resolution of the master tif file. When I need to output the image I create a copy and then size the copy for the specific use.
@@SeanBagshaw ...thanks for responding but my question was not very well stated. When your camera raw file is converted to the original TIFF for archiving, what size do you make the master TIFF file in anticipation of future use. Yes, you will want to spin off duplicate files, but I am asking about the master TIFF file that will be placed in your archive. What is the first-generation size that you will create -- PPI and dimensions?
Prozoot Sorry about that. I open the starting tif file at the pixel dimensions of the camera that took it. I don’t upsample or downsample pixels in this file. The PPI doesn’t matter until it is time to print so it can be anything you want. PPI only changes the size the pixels will print but has no affect on pixel count or file size. When I create a print copy then I size the image and set the ppi of the copy to match the particular print output. I hope that makes sense. 😁
@@SeanBagshaw ....Sean, thanks for trying to explain, but the process still escapes me. I wish you had been specific, listing settings and numbers (..."for example"...) that would help form a mental picture. I have no idea what you mean by, " I open the starting tif file at the pixel dimensions of the camera that took it." Are you talking about megapixel rating of the camera?? Do you have a YT video that goes into this stuff with detail? If you don't, I would love to see you make a "Camera-to-Computer Image Process" video that talks about options, settings, objectives, limitations, and issues, as applied to both Internet display and printmaking. I can't find anything online that is clear and comprehensive.
BTW, your photography is unbelievable. These are the best dramatic landscapes I have ever seen! You are a man of tremendous patience and drive. Great accomplishments.
@@Prozoot Sorry that it is difficult to communicate this in writing. There are literally no settings that need to be changed. If you open an image in PS from LR, there is no setting available and images automatically open with the pixel dimensions that the camera recorded. For example, my 30 MP Canon EOS R has a sensor that captures raw files that are 6720 pixels by 4480 pixels. So when I open an image from that camera from LR as a tif in PS it will be 6720 x 4480 pixels and I just leave it at that size. If you open a raw file using Camera Raw instead of LR there is an option to upsample or downsample the pixel count but unless you have changed it, it defaults to the number of pixels in the original raw file. Both LR and Camera Raw do allow you to set the ppi when opening in PS, but as I explain in this video, until you are ready to print the ppi number makes no difference in the image file. I think both LR and Camera Raw have a defualt ppi setting of 300...but it doesn't matter at this stage. As long as you set the ppi of the print output copy before going to print then that's all you need to do for that setting. Regarding a comprehensive "Camera-to-Computer Image Process" tutorial, that's more information than I can fit in a TH-cam video. It is something I cover in some of my longer Photoshop courses, however.
Thanks :D. I finally got it!
I never did understand why people say 72ppi for web. I’ve been arguing with people about this for many years. Ive always done 300 and never really cared about it for the web.
actually, its for the load time
As I have a different understanding to this, I just a simple question in this slightly older thread.
If you print a 10in x 20in print the dpi matters as the print has physical size and therefore the dpi over the 10in x 20in print will set the quality of the print itself.
Then if you look at a computer monitor, the monitor also have a physical size right?
If a resolution is 1280 x 800pxl on a 13in screen or if the resolution is 1280 x 800pxl on a 24inc screen your file/image will show accordingly to this pixels as you describe in your video.
However as the screens have a physical size as well the dpi/ppi have to be taken in to the equation, which takes us to that the percentage on the file/image will be different between the situations no?
Only as the dpi has an effect on the physical size/area where the pixels are shown within.
A screen will always have a physical size which normally based on an aspect ratio then there is an amount of pixels set for that area which is the resolution and that sets the dpi/ppi for that screen.
I hope to get some clarification in this, best and kindly Lowe
I think you are on the right track. Yes, the physical size of the monitor does affect the apparent resolution of the monitor. For example, 1920x1080 pixels on a small screen (like a phone or iPad) will appear to be sharper or "better" resolution than 1920x1080 on a 30 inch monitor because the pixels of the 30 inch monitor are so much larger. When you have two monitors with the same pixel count, the larger monitor has the lower number of pixels per inch. The difference is that with printing you can change the print size by changing the ppi but with monitors, you are stuck with whatever the pixels per inch actually are.
What keyboard are you using in the video?
Phenomenal explanation, thank you so much for this one
Thank you very helpful
I work mostly in print but am occasionally asked to provide a version of an image for a website. I ask them what pixel size they need and they say "72 ppi"... They don't get that I'm looking for #x# dimensions. The next complication is even if they get back to me with something like 300 px x 250 px (for a little banner ad), and I provide the image, they'll double-click on it, view it in something like Preview, and tell me it looks really bad and can I increase the resolution...
*Sean Bagshaw* Your video helped me a lot to clarify this topic. *But after the first impression, the following details and facts confused me:*
1. If PPI is Pixels *for the screen* and DPI for the Printer, then why Imaging apps are using the "PPI" for Printing (instead of DPI)? See minute 1:41
2. When i scan my 35mm negatives at 300 DPI the image is a small file. When i scan them at 4800 DPI, the image is huge as a file and as a
number of pixels. I use Epson V350 Photo, with Auto Film Loader.
3. I printed a poster twice, at the same lab. The first time the photographer, printed it at 300 DPI and the second time at 200 DPI (both times in
the front of my eyes. Not only do both posters have exactly the same size 70x100cm, but the 300 DPI poster had a better quality.
4. Another time, in another lab, the photographer printed a high-quality photo (as a poster) at a lower DPI (not at 300 as i first thought).
I told that to a photography teacher and he said this was wrong and that he should print it at 300 DPI.
5. Years ago, i remember a Canon Printer that allowed me to change the size of the image on the paper (on-screen), as i do with Windows on
my desktop. And this, just a step before clicking on Print, i.e. the DPI settings haven't changed.
So, what is going on here?
1. DPI and PPI are two different things. Screens and camera sensors have pixels so PPI. DPI stands for dots per inch. This is the number of ink droplets the printer can put down in an inch. This number is different than the number of pixels. For example, a Canon printer can put down 1200 dots of ink per inch (dpi). If image pixels in a print are 300 ppi, then each printed pixel is 4 dots of ink wide.
2. With scanners you are scanning film, so the resolution is related to the actual size of the photo you are scanning. If you scan a 35mm slide that is only 1.5 inches wide at 300 dpi, then you have a digital image that is only 450 pixels across because 300 dpi x 1.5 inches = 450 pixels. This equates to an image taken with a 0.135 megapixel sensor. When you scan at 4800 dpi x 1.5 inches = 7,200 pixels which is more like a 35 megapixel camera.
3. 300 ppi pixels will make a better print because the pixels are smaller, giving better detail and if 300 ppi matches the printer's native print resolution then this will also give cleaner results. If two different prints were printed the same size at different ppi, then pixel resampling is being done somewhere in the process. The only way to print the same size with larger pixels is to have fewer pixels.
4. This video is about screen resolution, not print resolution...but I do agree with the photography teacher.
5. Not sure what you are referring to here.
Im not sure if uve made a video about this, but i have a question i really wanna know the answer to. I have a picture, its 1200x947 with 96dpi. I want to send this in and get it printed on a canvas thats around 120x80 or 160x120cm. I want it huuuge! its gonna hang on the wall and gonna be right behind me. So my question is. Can i go to image size and just change it to, lets say 7200x4800 and 300dpi or maybe even more than this. Will it change the picture and make it crisp or will it not do anything and stay the same as it was earlier. Because a 1200x947 and 96dpi on a 160cmX120cm canvas wount look good. So i need an answer and maybe a little explanation to why it does or doesnt work. Cuz i have a feeling it doesnt work at all. And i dont want to waste a few hundred dollars on a canvas thats gonna look like garbage! Thanks! And great video btw!! xD
Are you able to explain why if I create a 500px by 500px document in Photoshop at 72dpi and import a 500px by 500px logo at 300dpi, it's much smaller than the artboard (if drag it in and leave it at 100% according to the free-transform details in the tool bar). But if I create a 500px by 500px document in Photoshop at 300dpi and import the same logo, it's the same size as the artboard? I can't get my head around it. I keep thinking it should either be the same either way, or larger than the artboard if the artboard is at 72dpi, not smaller?!
Hilarious! And awesome! Thank you😄
Thanks for the video! So as long as the pixels at 6000 x 8000 with 300dpi the image will print just fine? Even if it looks a little pixelated on my computer screen?
An image that has 6000x8000 pixels has 48 million pixels, which is a lot. At 300 ppi it will print 26.7 inches on the long side (8000 pixels divided by 300 pixels per inch) without any enlarging. However, the quality of the print still depends on the quality of those 48 million pixels. If you are seeing noise, artifacts or pixelation on your screen then that will probably show up in the print as well.
Hey Sean, hope you are well.
I have been facing an issue I had created a mockup to which was a larger pixel, I need to scale it down to smaller pixels, is there a way to do that without losing the quality/details of the image.
I'm not sure exatly what you mean by "scale it down to smaller pixels". Do you mean fewer pixels or more pixels per inch? Are you making the final image larger or smaller in size?
thank you for this video.i have a question:
I am Graphic Designer and i want to design my ideas for various screens like cellphones, laptops and monitors by high quality in illustrator. for example i want to design with 4k resolution for all various of screens.if i want to design for 30inch monitors or 6.7inch cellphones or 17inch laptops,how should i setting pixels in my artworks?should i redesign those same photos in 1080p screens?
The size of the screen technically doesn't matter. 4K refers to the number of pixels, not the screen size. A 4K phone screen and a 4K 30 inch monitor both have the same number of pixels (3840x2160). If you want full 4K resolution then those are the pixel dimensions you need. The difference is that a 4K phone screen have much smaller pixels than a 4K 30 inch monitor. However, because the pixels on smaller 4K screens are smaller, you can get away with lower pixel dimensions without a visible loss of sharpness. Because the pixels on phones are so small, it gets difficult to see the difference between 4K and lower pixel resolution. Also, there are some 4K phones, but it isn't the most common. My iPhone 14 Pro has a resolution of just 2556 x1179. The larger Pro Max pixel resolution is 2778x1284. So, sizing to 4K isn't necessary for most phones, but it would ensure that it covers all phones and also allows for zooming in a bit and retaining sharpness. But 4K images take up space and bandwidth. I size my images for social media to just 1500 pixels wide and they look fine on my phone as far as I am concerned.
Very good video. But given your knowledge of files, printing and so on I am sitting here wondering why you upload images with a file size of 4,5MB to your website, that seems almost not compressed at all given the small resolution of 1,5MP...
You could easily store them as 800kb files and one could (probably) not tell the difference with that little resolution
I haven't been in photoshop since adobe 5. Though ive just got back into it and accidentally changed this setting the other week and now im worried lol. What standard should it be without me meddling with it for anything specific other than printing???
Dale Martin Not to worry. The PPI setting only comes into play when printing. The rest of the time what you have it set to doesn’t matter.
I mostly publish at ten PPI. Just because.
Both your media and your screen have fixed sizes, I don't understand a difference. If I order a print, I give the print shop all the pixels I have (because I can), and tell it what sized print i want.
Thank you!
Thank you for this! So many questions answered but I do feel more confused in some ways now.
How do I ensure I have a sharp image on a screen then, for example when creating a digital document in InDesign?
If I load an 800px wide image into a 800px wide InDesign document, it looks crappy. Is there a marker I can stick to, like 1.5x the pixel size I'm exporting at (ie. shoot for 1200px wide for the image in this case)? Or on a web page, if the image is going to sit in an 800px wide placeholder, load in a 1200px wide image? (And then what happens if the placeholder isn't static....ahhhhh am I over complicating things??)
I don't have experience with InDesign, so I can't really help you out with that. Sorry.
Indesign has quality preview settings, that might cause your problem.
@@thimoestroll Thank you for the reply - sadly that's not it. It's once exported (I use InDesign a lot for creating quick graphics for Insta for example).
litreally cleared all my doubts
Thks a lot!
whats the recommended size and resolution to store personal pictures in a HD so I can save space in disk and keep good quality for the future?
I store my original master files at their full native resolution with all the layers. This doesn't save space, but I never want to lose my original image information. For copies that I make for viewing on the web, I typically size them to 1500-2000 pixels wide which is large enough to fill the screen on standard HD monitor. Saved as jpegs, these are much smaller in terms of how much space they take up on a hard drive, but these are in addition to my original master files.
Exactly right. Most people don’t print at home. If you did you’d figure this out pretty quick