|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
> The problem is that the printing industry is so steeped in the use of DPI
> that they often don't understand what's really going on. So when they give
> you a DPI value and an image size you simply multiply them to give the
> right number of pixels. So for your example 300DPI at 213mm is
> 300 * 213 / 25.4 pixels
> or about 2500 pixels.
As a member of the pre-press industry, I'm going to take extreme
umbridge at that! We do understand exactly what's going on. After all,
it's our livelyhood.
The problem comes from non-printing people not understanding what we
mean by DPI (and therefore by default, it is our fault for not
explaining ourselves fully).
These days the correct term is PPI (pixels per inch). It defines the
number of pixels of data we get in every inch in some output format.
We ask for an image to be at 'at least 300ppi' meaning that we need the
image to be at 300 *effective* pixels per inch (eppi). That means that
the internal file tag may say that the resolution is 300ppi but the data
is all still pixels.
We LIKE the image to have this internal tag as it makes it easier to
deal with the image once it comes into our page layout application. If
you provide an image tagged at 72ppi (or untagged), and we need to lay
it into the page at an eppi of 300dpi, we need pull out our calculators
and work out that 72/300 ... = 0.24 .. so we can't place the picture any
larger than 24%.
Later we come back to the layout to make the picture larger (for some
design reason) and notice that it's at 24% .. so, forgetting that it's
untagged, we figure we can make it 4 times as large without any
problems. But of course, we can't. That's why we want the image at the
correct ppi from the start.
Cheers!
Rick Measham
Post a reply to this message
|
|