Frage von B.DeKid:
Hi folks
I comb times as a matter
How much DPI is actually a video picture?
Is DPI in video images?
Is it possible to calculate - if so how?
Where can I get this stuff to read regarding?
Kann mir da jemand to give a statement?
Würd mich mal intressieren.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von Chezus:
As far as I know has one with the other unrelated.
Check out the article at times
http://generalspecialist.com/2007/08/dpi-in-video-totally-useless.asp
Antwort von Lutz Dieckmann:
Hi,
A video image is generally 72 dpi. That does not mean that you are not with more dpi images can handle.
The output is always 72 dpi.
Greeting
Lutz
Antwort von WoWu:
Television pictures do not have this relationship.
Television images have only one resolution.
On the length of one inch (25.4 mm) will you be on a large television screen shares represent less able than a small monitor.
From this point of view can not be the TV picture, but best if the monitor in PPI (not dpi) can be measured.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Television pictures do not have this relationship.
Television images have only one resolution.
On the length of one inch (25.4 mm) will you be on a large television screen shares represent less able than a small monitor.
From this point of view can not be the TV picture, but best if the monitor in PPI (not dpi) can be measured. Bla bla bla ... As always, only Gelaber and no answer ... People want answers and no explanations how quaint it is not, you will someday understand?
The answer is
72 dpi. MB
Antwort von darg:
Television pictures do not have this relationship.
Television images have only one resolution.
On the length of one inch (25.4 mm) will you be on a large television screen shares represent less able than a small monitor.
From this point of view can not be the TV picture, but best if the monitor in PPI (not dpi) can be measured.
Bla bla bla ... As always, only Gelaber and no answer ... People want answers and no explanations how quaint it is not, you will someday understand?
The answer is 72 dpi.
MB No, but the answer was 42nd Well do not listen to the Hitch Hiker ....
Nee but seriously, there has been WoWu right, and because the number of dots or pixels in the entire picture is fixed, but the size of a role to play, so it not a number. To beantowrten with Bildschirmgroesse must be known.
If you have the 72 only to the "impression" of the image do you have the distance and the size of the familiar. So the answer is 42, but what was the question again?
Antwort von Meggs:
Bla bla bla ... As always, only Gelaber and no answer ... People want answers and no explanations how quaint it is not, you will someday understand?
The answer is 72 dpi.
MB The people want a right answer, your answer is wrong and shows that synonymous you do not know what dpi means.
DPI is dots per inch, ie pixels per inch. Consequently, the dpi value depends a video of 2 factors: The Resolutionund the size of the display device.
On a 22 inch HD monitor with an AND Resolutionhat the same video dpi is more than a 30 inch monitor with HD resolution.
Antwort von TiMovie:
a still image to print - this is your original 1:1 size!
Has always 72dpi - no preference on whether a 30 inch or a 13.3 inch!
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
The people want a right answer, your answer is wrong and shows that synonymous you do not know what dpi means.
DPI is dots per inch, ie pixels per inch. Consequently, the dpi value depends a video of 2 factors: The Resolutionund the size of the display device.
On a 22 inch HD monitor with an AND Resolutionhat the same video dpi is more than a 30 inch monitor with HD resolution. LOL ... That was probably the word on Sunday, it need only look at Wiki Assessment. The speech is of DPI not PPI, continue changing the visible pixels - or dot density is not with the size of the display device or media.
Before the other says she knew something no one should have to look exactly seeeehr, my dear;)
MB
Antwort von Axel:
a still image to print - this is your original 1:1 size!
Has always 72dpi - no preference on whether a 30 inch or a 13.3 inch! ... and then, like you with the Photoshop preset easily can check, in the case of Pal almost exactly the size of A4. The default setting for DIN A4, however, "has" 300dpi. This is the pressure for the relevant reference in the photos still synonymous sharp reproduced. A brochure has a fixed size, just their size, and synonymous fixed viewing distance of ~ 50 cm. A wall poster comes with significantly less dpi, just like a cinema screen, it recognizes both raster / photo grain / pixel, if one is close enough. The resolution of the density at the output is of the size-dependent. In the case of print media are an absolute dpi value for the entire final product is. The basic rule is that the resolution used for a higher or equal graphics to be.
For video, the pixels of the absolute, unchanging value. The default 576 x 756 at 72dpi provides a benchmark, one sees s.besten, in which quality is higher or lower resolution elements in the video presented. If you choose, however, 300dpi, should any material in this or a higher quality is available. Frames from video footage of cruel look at 300dpi. As I said, there are benchmarks.
Antwort von Meggs:
Before the other says she knew something no one should have to look exactly seeeehr, my dear;)
The relationships I know of at least 30 years since, at that time no gabs Wikipedia.
I've still times now reingeschaut what to write:
The monitors can Resolutionvon with the absolute and relative Resolutionangegeben be.
The indication of the absolute resolution is in pixels Width number of pixels times the number of specified length. For example, 1280 x 800 pixels.
The indication of the relative resolution is determined by the number of pixels in relation to the length determined (how many pixels there are per inch).
Thus, monitors with different size at the same "resolution" (actually: pixel count) different dpi values.
Until today, remains stubbornly the rumor, monitors basically operate with a Resolutionvon 72 dpi. This false statement is synonymous today s.Schulen and universities and has its origins in the Eighties, where actually the desktop publishing standard monitors were used, the Resolutionvon with a 72 ppi were operated. This enabled the representation of a design printed in full size, with a pixel exactly one typographical point (unit of measurement in typography (printing)) corresponded.
Antwort von WoWu:
As far as I know has one with the other unrelated.
Check out the article at times
http://generalspecialist.com/2007/08/dpi-in-video-totally-useless.asp @ Meggen
It does nothing, Ballermann with the facts to come .... if he ever video images to print, course he is right ... as always.
Also, synonymous Chezus (above) a very interesting article posted about this.
Sehn times what it now is wrong.
But with reading, it seems not so as to have.
Antwort von Jake the rake:
Let s.72dpi true. Why? Why should a video image with this benchmark be?
Dpi is only relevant for printing. Or I am mistaken?
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Thank you for your answers first.
Basic idea and my question was the following consideration.
"Would a VideoClip in single output, then processed in turn as a staple, with the high number of sets DPI (DPI is not only the pixel ratio) - it would be a better result on screen or as large TV devices.
Hence the question.
Triggers the question was the idea / question of a friend had asked me whether to DV AVI material for the movie to upgrade / edit.
Because although I knew it already films in the movies to see, the SD were rotated, but the step or the DPI resolution did not know, I put this question.
It was me, then to the qualitative enhancement of DV AVI material by frame manipulation and later re-join the writer frames.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von WoWu:
No matter how high you behind, be it on a scan of the closing date or on a projection vergrößerst, and will never produce more image details can be in your Ausgangsmateral through the lens and the Prozessweg are produced. .....
There are simply no more details available spatiale.
Otherwise we could discuss any resolution, whether it comes to HD or UHD or Cinema, a gift, then we would from an image point is a perfect picture can conjure by him later dissolve .....
Antwort von B.DeKid:
@ WoWu
Thank you - read a post does not make sense.
And as SD or HD material for Leihnwand is just "bigger" pulled?
Thus, like Axel said it only makes the gap Leihnwand the difference?
With the scan, do you as material which, for example of the negative film that is subsequently digitized material was / is?
Thank you
MfG
B. DeKid
If anyone knows whether it SD or HD on "movie format" wants to create just the material is new (Pixelmässig) is created? Or it remains in its original format and will be stretched by the projector?
Antwort von TheBubble:
Basic idea and my question was the following consideration.
"Would a VideoClip in single output, then processed in turn as a staple, with the high number of sets DPI (DPI is not only the pixel ratio) - it would be a better result on screen or as large TV devices.
No.. The decisive factor is the number of available pixels.
Antwort von darg:
How to work but DVD player, an upscaling make it on an HDTV to be. OK, the details are no longer, because there no longer can be, but the picture looks better than when it is on a computer monitor viewing, where the Picture is inflated and when the picture rather then Kloetchen generated.
Antwort von robbie:
How to work but DVD player, an upscaling make it on an HDTV to be. OK, the details are no longer, because there no longer can be, but the picture looks better than when it is on a computer monitor viewing, where the Picture is inflated and when the picture rather then Kloetchen generated. that you can only with the same test material.
upscale in DVD players tend to work better than a non-set-pc program, since they are optimized.
Antwort von TheBubble:
What the best results, you must try. There are many methods to enlarge a bitmap, relatively simple to very complex. The starting material for magnifying synonymous has an influence, and partly synonymous subjective assessment of outcome.
Antwort von Axel:
If anyone knows whether it SD or HD on "movie format" wants to create just the material is new (Pixelmässig) is created? Or it remains in its original format and will be stretched by the projector? Most cinemas are limited to two formats: 1:1,85 and 1:2,39 (CS 1:2,35 corresponds with a slight Crop by image mask). 16:9 corresponds with the first 1:1,77 s.ehesten ( "widescreen"). The picture is in this case without bias gefazt, the small crop, the image mask in the projector (which is also synonymous widely 1:1,66 widescreen format will eventually simply mask with 1.85 he presented). A Scope Of Picture, however, is video only, trimmed by wicked and thus under a lot of quality loss to be achieved. It means the same anamorphic distortion. Even quote from an old thread:
The video format 16:9 (~ 1:1,77) is the square of 4:3 (~ 1:1,33)
(16:9) = (4zum square: 3zum square), or otherwise:
1.33 x 1.33 = 1.77.
The trick comes now: With the same factor by multiplying the norm 16:9 Cinemascope!
1.77 x 1.33 = 2.35.
Who is a 16:9 anamorphic picture (16:9 function of the camera, HDV, DV as you capturet) with a 16:9 optical anamorphotic (Century, etc.) again staucht receives an equalized CinemaScope format.
Whether this, however, favorable quality of gecroppten a widescreen picture is different? One would have to test.
Antwort von ulfilas:
... then we would from an image point is a perfect picture can conjure by him later dissolve ..... Yes clearly, that's exactly what we always see CSI and consorts: Take a picture of an individual recording of a cheap surveillance camera in a poorly lit underground shaft, leave numerous ausgekochten special filters to improve image drüber run - and schwuppdiwupp has been on the screen not only the razor-sharp portrait of a person, but you can even the color of his Popel in the left nostril recognize.
And the television but certainly would not lie, or ...?
Antwort von frm:
Have you really done it the ball home to make you speechless. I think not.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Have you really done it the ball home to make you speechless. I think not. No, but the ball home has so synonymous have a job;)
The relationships I know of at least 30 years since, at that time no gabs Wikipedia. 1979 there was no security with digital processing and printing according synonymous no dots, and what it did 30 years ago, there is neither digital video. That's pointless clatter.
------------------
The standardization of 72 dpi is approximately, as an established Durschnittswert from the digital publishing. You need not wiki, but a few years of experience to know what you talking about. Will hot, while for 300 DPI print 4c/Euroskala need to make a rational, normal print density to get - also Appr - equivalent to (equivalent) for this 1:1 figure around 72 dpi s.Computermonitor. The number 72 is (was) no fix, but a value with which a DTPler anything can (could). DTP work in metric or inch sizes, in pixels, while video is ticking. For DTP, the pixel resolution Irrelevant, but only for video, which is synonymous in accordance with the Photoshop settings. I need to Euro 300 DPI scale print them, and 72 DPI for the same Picture s.Computermonitor in a similar size to be able to show, that's all what is at stake.
Obviously it plays no role in Photoshop, if the pixel size of a picture indicating what DPI is. Pixels remains pixels, it is only relevant if you print the picture, because Photoshop uses the DPI specification, to make the printed image to be determined. And looking to hp works with pixel sizes can be sure that the 72 DPI indication of the printed picture about the size of the display corresponds s.Monitor. That's it.
Therefore, the indication of 72 DPI in principle always be true if an illustrated reference to the size s.Screen should be made, because it means just that with the underlying Picture 72 points / pixels / dots / per inch displayed Whatever need to see it in the correct display size. That a 22 "monitor that can be displayed with 90 PPI (pixels per inch) (in 1680x1050) then the uncorrected perhaps too small, is not relevant: There are 72 DPI (DOTS per inch).
MB
Antwort von WoWu:
Safe for all important to know that their video recordings to print.
For paper copies of the videos there are probably synonymous NLEs in the video instead of a resolution, a corresponding adjustment in dpi.
Antwort von Meggs:
The standardization of 72 dpi is approximately, as an established Durschnittswert from the digital publishing.
...
Therefore, the indication of 72 DPI in principle always be true if an illustrated reference to the size s.Screen should be made ... You see, Wolfgang has with his assessment is right.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
So if I understand you correctly, this means the DPI only to print media impact.
Thus, the output frames, which then as 720x576 at 72dpi as available, which can be first on eg 300DPI brings to you then perhaps synonymous to a new ratio of pixels to stretch -
does not. Ok, was just one idea.
Whether you go before it could be improved in order to achieve quality if the material is inflated.
I think persl. this idea in general or the value of kompremieren footage and always interesting and exciting and has been pursued as BinkCodec and the first hours of DIVX all developments in the Sector "Kompremierung and there was the question of whether content is not synonymous times in the other direction could think of - ie appreciation of material.
From section Still Image / pressure, I am aware how many different ways there are ready to print photos to the whispering sea breeze, or what we all can and must respect.
For this, the relatively "childlike question," For my part regarding DPI and pixel ratio of a video frame.
But thanks to you I sincerely for your efforts and some really good links you've collected.
Thank you!
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von Meggs:
Thus, the output frames, which then as 720x576 at 72dpi as available, which can be first on eg 300DPI brings to you then perhaps synonymous to a new ratio of pixels to stretch - does not.
720 x 576 dpi in 72 means: The video is 720 x 576 pixel, on the selected monitor 72 pixel per inch display.
720 x 576 dpi in 300 means: The video still has 720 x 576 pixels. But now you have another monitor, the 300 pixel per inch display. On the video itself and its resolution (pixel count) has
not changed, but it is now much smaller.
When printing, it is equally. The DPI value tells nothing about the number of pixels from a photo. You can be a Still Image, which is only 150 x 100 pixels, without further notice with a 3000 dpi print Resolutionvon. It will then stop very small.
For SD video have actually always been a horizontal and a vertical dpi value, since the horizontal Resolutionhier is smaller than the vertical.
With a simple 3-sentence can calculate that an SD video with 720 x 576 pixels at 72 dpi s.Monitor 10 Inch wide and 8 inches high would be, ie an aspect ratio of 5:4 would have.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
You see, Wolfgang has with his assessment is right. Of course he das Had I written: Most girls have an admin deleted *** of ***, I would have with this assessment correctly located synonymous. And next?
Just as there is no TS sought to learn who has Muschis and who does not want you as synonymous TS do not know why something supposedly can not answer. No, as TS is found on the search for an answer, and I have in the first post where, in the second justification.
This is called ergebnisorientieres action. That's not really hard to understand.
720 x 576 dpi in 300 means: The video still has 720 x 576 pixels. But now you have another monitor, the 300 pixel per inch display. On the video itself and its resolution (pixel count) has not changed, but it is now much smaller.
That is perfect nonsense. A monitor has no DPI, but PPI. A 720x576 pixel s.Monitor Big Picture is always the same size shows only different size prints.
With a simple 3-sentence can calculate that an SD video with 720 x 576 pixels at 72 dpi s.Monitor 10 Inch wide and 8 inches high would be, ie an aspect ratio of 5:4 would have. Such an incredible nonsense, not to act. A 720x576 Picture s.Monitor is always 720x576 pixels in size. Again According to Help: DPI = dots per inch - DOTS, non-PIXEL!
MB
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Meggen
Give it to ... against the cackling are you not to.
He can not even read properly and fully what you've written.
Antwort von rudi:
Very briefly times synonymous from the editorial staff, because there is already back under the belt line is. (which I just had blackened).
DPI (and synonymous PPI) is simply a ratio, which describes how gravity (!) The existing pixels are presented.
At 72 DPI 72 pixels on an inch (2.54 cm) depicted.
Let us simplify the whole time only horizontally:
DV would be with 720 pixels at 72 DPI on a monitor with 10 inches Width presented. If it is a monitor that the 20 inches wide, the presentation would have only 36 DPI.
Mind you if the monitor with the Resolution720 x 576 would drive.
DPI describes only the representation, and has nothing to do with the video file itself to do. Only with the size of the output relative to its medium resolution.
So it really is total nonsense to say that video is 72 DPI. (Photoshop only because the times as the default accept)
LG
Rudi
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hello Marc,
Here you will publish your wrong in this context so unperturbed semi and unteachable, synonymous times that I should write something.
That is perfect nonsense. A monitor has no DPI, but PPI. A 720x576 pixel s.Monitor Big Picture is always the same size shows only different size prints. A monitor is perfectly synonymous DPI, only that these dots are (usually) consist of three pixels. So is the case with conventional monitors (flat screen or not) 3 * DPI = PPI Resolutionin vertical and horizontal Ausflösung this number DPI more difficult to define.
Such an incredible nonsense, not to act. A 720x576 Picture s.Monitor is always 720x576 pixels in size. Again According to Help: DPI = dots per inch - DOTS, non-PIXEL!
MB You've probably right when you say that a large 720x576 Picture always 720x576 pixel picture is displayed. But now the times refer to a unit length, if it is a projector that the varying distance from the projection surface! Then come very fast since very different DPI or PPI figures synonymous.
A video can not be due to its capacity with a specified output medium to be linked, no DPI or PPI numbers assigned. This number makes sense only in connection with an output medium (printer, monitor, projector, ...) and its representation degrees.
The DPI is the number of image editing programs so many raped, that such questions are to come out.
The link of Chezus was very good.
Regards
Lars
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Very briefly times synonymous from the editorial staff, because there is already back under the belt line is. (which I just had blackened).
DPI (and synonymous PPI) is simply a ratio, which describes how gravity (!) The existing pixels are presented.
At 72 DPI 72 pixels on an inch (2.54 cm) depicted.
Let us simplify the whole time only horizontally:
DV would be with 720 pixels at 72 DPI on a monitor with 10 inches Width presented. If it is a monitor that the 20 inches wide, the presentation would have only 36 DPI.
Mind you if the monitor with the Resolution720 x 576 would drive.
DPI describes only the representation, and has nothing to do with the video file itself to do. Only with the size of the output relative to its medium resolution.
So it really is total nonsense to say that video is 72 DPI. (Photoshop only because the times as the default accept)
LG
Rudi Strange. Since 19 years I know this issue and have seen the beginning of the 90 in the editorial department of the then largest computer magazine publisher learned that the monitor display with 72 DPI indicated. And now you'll know it and therefore better.
Sorry, but I lach me limply on your "viewing times we played here ....", as fresh moderator but please not the head, that's really garnicht! I would especially point s.deiner times questioning why the PS by default hinschreibt. If there is a company possesses expertise in DTP, then yes probably Adobe. And, not only video is 72 DPI, but the monitor display, as such, this value is "standardized."
Furthermore: 720 pixels are not relevant for your strange statement, but either 768, 1024, 1280 or the 1920th
And by the way, to write that girls are usually a pussy is a simple syllogism although anatomically sees a few inches below the waistline is taking place, but not with certainty be morally offensive and should thus not be considered morally synonymous with the said line is insecure. The word "pussy" to blacken is really very embarrassing.
A monitor is perfectly synonymous DPI, only that these dots are (usually) consist of three pixels. So is the case with conventional monitors (flat screen or not) 3 * DPI = PPI Resolutionin vertical and horizontal Ausflösung this number DPI more difficult to define.
A dot is made up of three pixels? LOL ... Carnival makes it possible.
@ Meggen
Give it to ... against the cackling are you not to.
He can not even read properly and fully what you've written. Be happy but finally you have someone you wet your hands cold keeps the bad ball home ...
MB
Antwort von rudi:
Strange. Since 19 years I know this issue and have seen the beginning of the 90 in the editorial department of the then largest computer magazine publisher learned that the monitor display with 72 DPI indicated. And now you'll know it and therefore better. My dear Marc,
s.Computer emerged as a design, it was actually normal for a monitor display to 72 DPI. But this is, as you yourself specify-some years ago and has nothing to do with video. Also in print or web design you will now no longer find reputable designers who simply assumes that a 72 dpi monitor, because this is simply not true.
Not for ungut, I'm out.
Rudi
PS I've synonymous already 12 years ago usfür the c't written and am already quite a while familiar with the matter.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
You've probably right when you say that a large 720x576 Picture always 720x576 pixel picture is displayed. But now the times refer to a unit length, if it is a projector that the varying distance from the projection surface! Then come very fast since very different DPI or PPI figures synonymous.
I can do synonymous Ruler 10 cm in front of the monitor and keep itself from a distance of 1m read. And what changes you think the s.der resolution? Right: Nothing. That is synonymous garnicht the topic!
I have this synonymous found an interesting article:
http://praegnanz.de/essays/72dpi
There is just that again, what I have written, namely the origin of the claim of 72 DPI from the desktop publishing world, and that only a comparison parameter, since under DTPlern is established forever.
MB
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Gude
So now I have a nice time here Page found some here may be the next and can help some here in the thread fallen synonymous terms or formulas for calculation of factors provides.
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/fotografie/lexikon/index.html
That I have the following matters time compatriots.
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/fotografie/ebv/filme-scannen-03.html
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/cgi-bin/skripte/tags.pl?tag=Formel
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/cgi-bin/search/search.pl?mode=all&q=ppi
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/cgi-bin/skripte/tags.pl?tag=Digitalbild
So in my view a very good small Page regarding many issues not only on the current theme-related.
MfG
B. DeKid
PS: I am always so interested in as far as you. SD material can add value - as it on the larger output devices as the "tube" TV good looks. (In other words, the Page rechneriche interested me, not so much what you progi to use it - and whether this is through the manipulation of the frames is breastfeeding)
Antwort von Meggs:
I would rather err with practice, as with quite ignorant of. (Cicero)
I think you have misunderstood Cicero. The thought is not, at any price rather want to keep and be completely unteachable.
Antwort von MK:
If there is a company possesses expertise in DTP, then yes probably Adobe. And, not only video is 72 DPI, but the monitor display, as such, this value is "standardized."
Well, in Premiere agrees the specified pixel aspect ratio to 720x576 format not synonymous (as is the ratio relative to 704).
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
I think you have misunderstood Cicero. The thought is not, at any price rather want to keep and be completely unteachable. Ah yes, now that you say it. Thanks for the explanation. But, btw, what exactly is true because not s.meinen speech? Which phrase exactly?
MB
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hello Marc,
A monitor is perfectly synonymous DPI, only that these dots are (usually) consist of three pixels. So is the case with conventional monitors (flat screen or not) 3 * DPI = PPI Resolutionin vertical and horizontal Ausflösung this number DPI more difficult to define.
A dot is made up of three pixels? LOL ... Carnival makes it possible.
MB the arithmetic behind it goes like this:
DPI number = 3 times the PPI number
So:
2160 dots = 3 dots / pixels * 720 pixels
Is it not hard, right?
Regards
Lars
Antwort von Meggs:
I have this synonymous found an interesting article:
http://praegnanz.de/essays/72dpi
When you read the actual article, which you left here?
The biggest is printed in this article the phrase:
What does the scheme 72dpi so in practice? An extremely rough guide, which is also outdated and at 90-100dpi would be increased if it is not generally to be buried.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
The biggest is printed in this article the phrase:
And? I have written synonymous, namely:
That a 22 "monitor that can be displayed with 90 PPI (pixels per inch) (in 1680x1050) then the uncorrected perhaps too small, is not relevant: There are 72 DPI (DOTS per inch).
MB We know everything. You understand it is not, right? It was previously just assumed that a pixel has a fixed size, and then you have the s.irgendeinem reference monitor (which I know what it was) with 72 DPI measured, which was then synonymous exactly 72 ppi - logically! !
A video image is still in accordance with 72 DPI, but 90 PPI, because the words of DPI is still on the (my old) reference monitor applies. Still logical, because a monitor has still not synonymous but pixel dots.
And I have synonymous confirmed that WoWu not wrong, but just read the next above. It's just not relevant, because the question was: What DPI is video, not how much PPI. And they have the beginning of s.with 72 answered synonymous and nothing else in the article as written is synonymous.
Is it so hard to accept that I am right?
the arithmetic behind it goes like this:
DPI number = 3 times the PPI number
So:
2160 dots = 3 dots / pixels * 720 pixels
You should slow time to decide whether you think that a pixel consists of 3 dots (as of now you write) or a dot of 3 pixels (as previously claimed). Sell me but please not stupid, it's especially not the slightest issue with the thread to do so.
MB
Antwort von MHK:
Iss ja trollig what abgeht;) because I prefer to say nothing about this, and before schmunzle me out
PS: I am always so interested in as far as you. SD material can add value - as it on the larger output devices as the "tube" TV good looks. (In other words, the Page rechneriche interested me, not so much what you progi to use it - and whether this is through the manipulation of the frames is breastfeeding) Since I have something at the end of last year rumprobiert. Wanted the cell phone pictures of my friend from the United States leave little value. I am on a different approach procedures encountered.
And although the program was like the 30 consecutive frames and analyzes the new images it is calculated. Eg Do you have Frame No. 240, since you have the frames 225 to 255 with the recalculation of the new frame 240 process.
The result was duchaus convincing, there was a certain sharpness of profit and the synonymous * * shakes the camera was somewhat balanced. All in all, I was by the result quite pleased.
But that was more so a little experiment;)
MfG MHK
Antwort von Plenz:
Iss ja trollig what abgeht;) because I prefer to say nothing about this, and before schmunzle me out .. which is of course synonymous nobody brings next.
A Picture DPI has generally not of nature, it has only a height and a width, in pixels. Who does not believe, should be easy times a Picture with IrfanView open, because you can be any number assign DPI.
The DPI value will only be meaningful if a picture on paper to be printed.
As recently wanted an editing image of a stop print which I had loaded the Wikipedia. You asked me how much the DPI Image Still because I would have and whether it is synonymous with a finer Resolutionzur could provide. And so what professionals want to be ...! I answered, I do not know how large the image of breastfeeding should be printed, it has so and so many pixels, and if they do with 300 dpi print, and it will be so great, is that enough? I already had a discussion feared annoying, but no: they were satisfied with this reply. Na bitte.
Antwort von MHK:
.. which is of course synonymous nobody brings next. exactly why, now, every position X-times represented. There are no more new opinions;) also has been at any point by more or less good links substantiated. There should be enough to get a picture to make your own.
= = = = = =
But back to the times * Image Enhancement History *. There were at least until 05.12.2008 a website, which is called www.fixmymovie.com. I thought you would be online, but the service provider has set so that there can be nothing more upload. We find accordingly, a reference to a new product vReveal (until the beginning of December under the name * Caramel *).
Manufacturers & product info: http://www.motiondsp.com/products/vReveal
Sure screams of suppliers around with pretty loud as "high-end software tool for" CSI-style "video forensics" but I think what counts s.Ende rear comes out. And then I found quite good.
It remains to be seen what course the program will actually times when it makes freely available on the market, because currently I have to not download more quickly found (synonymous but not really looking).
MfG MHK
Antwort von PowerMac:
There is no video DPI, that is pointless. All those who claim otherwise, please go tomorrow morning for a professor of media technology used or to a VTR or video engineer.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
OT - the 5 Season's sake
@ Mark
After 8 liters Alt is quite clear what it is horizontally ;-)
But does nothing, because I tell you later whether you plush handcuffs synonymous with what you had and then everything with the stick could employ ;-)
LoL
? Sach - gabs in D'dorf this year more than Kamelle with you ;-)?
Hellau from Mainz of nem laundered Neusser real!
.................................................. .................................................. .......
@ Powermac
Gude
So I asked the question and yes I was not aware of it "really" no DPI in video or film.
But meanwhile I have received a better, or maybe not?
In any case, it seems somewhat difficult to be upgraded Picture material regarding the quality than the high DPI setting and new pixel ratios s.zu basket.
Exciting, I find the topic nonetheless.
-------------------------------------------------- ---------
@ MIC
So in the IRC were few things NEN / Discussions on the Caramel * * or in terms of technology video enhancement, I will be tomorrow, next search times, maybe yes because there is somewhere ne source code or similar source, because the algorithm würd mich ja mal intressieren . Or. as it was automated / writes.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hello Marc,
It was previously just assumed that a pixel has a fixed size, and then you have the s.irgendeinem reference monitor (which I know what it was) with 72 DPI measured, which was then synonymous exactly 72 ppi - logically! ! Where's your source? I mean other than your memory!
Why do you do then pixel dots at once, or vice versa?
Is it so hard to accept that I am right? Yes, because it would be illogical and wrong. I need an impartial, third source recognized by the DPI-defined number of a video for you to believe. I am all learn.
the arithmetic behind it goes like this:
DPI number = 3 times the PPI number
So:
2160 dots = 3 dots / pixels * 720 pixels
You should slow time to decide whether you think that a pixel consists of 3 dots (as of now you write) or a dot of 3 pixels (as previously claimed). I have never claimed that a small dot of 3 pixels! Because I wrote the unit
D P ots he nch
I (DPI) and not Dot = 3 pixels, or similar!
Sell me but please not stupid, it's especially not the slightest issue with the thread to do so.
MB That was the wording, which brought me to still something to write.
What was your claim:
That is perfect nonsense. A monitor has no DPI, but PPI. thread with the question to do? My answer was only one on this claim! Why should I not allowed to respond?
Regards
Lars
Antwort von Meggs:
A video image is still in accordance with 72 DPI, but 90 PPI, because the words of DPI is still on the (my old) reference monitor applies. Still logical, because a monitor has still not synonymous but pixel dots.
Logically, it should do nothing, the 90 ppi are just as wrong as 72 dpi. The erroneous reference to the reference monitor of time except maybe make you some of the learned someday, but even then did not understand how these numbers memorized come. Correct, it is not.
A Picture DPI has generally not of nature, it has only a height and a width, in pixels.
...
The DPI value will only be meaningful if a picture on paper to be printed.
Just as it is.
There is no video DPI, that is pointless.
So it can be synonymous expression.
Antwort von Meggs:
As recently wanted an editing image of a stop print which I had loaded the Wikipedia. You asked me how much the DPI Image Still because I would have and whether it is synonymous with a finer Resolutionzur could provide. And so what professionals want to be ...! This appears in the Werbegrafikern to be disseminated. I had time to work together with its advertising agency, to me graphics for inclusion in a program should deliver. I made the default 640 x 480 as the image size. The cried with s.and asked how much dpi. I told myself this is no preference as long as the graphic 640 x 480 pixels has - perplexity and incomprehension at the opposite side.
Antwort von WideScreen:
I print a graphical Luftbalon with a let's say 100 dpi. Then I blow a little next to. Hats are still 100dpi? No.. Why should you have a TV, wenns of 8 inches to 70 inches all at the same number of pixels there.
Ned even understand how people can be so upset? * lach * A simple question, and some go from here, like a suppository .... * lol *
* * Helau
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
I print a graphical Luftbalon with a let's say 100 dpi. Then I blow a little next to. Hats are still 100dpi? No.. Why should you have a TV, wenns of 8 inches to 70 inches all at the same number of pixels there.
Is it because with the indication of 72 DPI not your balloon and not your HomeTV intentioned, but the reference monitor of one. It is only to determine that at 72 DPI, the picture on the monitor in about (exactly once) such as the printed at 300 DPI.
Furthermore, it would be much more about the sharpness testify when TV devices with PPI would apply as with "Full HD" and "HD Ready" paired with the diagonal. Überleg times, actually is the size of shitty and PPI would be much more transparent. High PPI number = high sharpness, Small PPI number = low sharpness. Instead, you must first calculator with higher algebra trying to guess whether the picture which might be suitable. And it should be clever?
The point is simply that if you to Werbefuzzi asked how large the picture is it with the claim 72 DPI know it's only for display ranges. The problem here is I think in the first place, which most say to young computer users and even Macianer are. And the use of DPI as meaningless to describe is, unfortunately, and can only be presumptuous of Ahnungslosen come, gentlemen. Presumptuous is synonymous to this nonsense:
(...) The erroneous reference to the reference monitor of time except maybe make you some of the learned someday, but even then did not understand how these numbers memorized come. Correct, it is not.
(...) The Mac was a large gap with the first computer, with which you edit graphics and DTP could operate before it was Windows, the PC before it ever had VGA. The Mac has the beginning of s.with metric sizes and similar works, and to Native pixels and never paid. If you have a Macianer asked what Resolutionsein monitor has came mostly shrug announcement or 72 DPI. The pixels are not interested in him. Why synonymous? Nor is it interested in how many dots the printer in a variety show could just as pointless to know was. The important thing was just how sharp is the thing! 72 DPI monitor is sharp, 300 dpi printing is sharp, 600 DPI is sharpness rats!
Each of the core with a bit of Windows knows, knows that it is synonymous with Windows trying (keyword: TPP = twips per pixel), but not managed to establish. The whole Windows API came in the first versions with twips as size, therefore, while already the following SDKs synonymous IDEs from Microsoft quickly switched back to pixels, because it was not accepted DOSianern.
This is with a reason why it expects an indication of pixels is particularly clever, because you do not know. Klug, however, it is quite garnicht and it is rather a different approach, one Mac / PC and even print / video. And the Mac are two of these random parameters.
Maybe the printer by the success of digital cameras s.Bedeutung a little lost, but I have not yet seen, is not synonymous of you, with me saying he was a wievieln pixels Picture prints. Each of the prints, wants to be a metric size knowledge, no pixels, of course not, because the printer differently to solve, plus silk-screen printing and Co will be the complete futility because the data of pixels absolutely nothing about the image size is specified. So now would be a DTPler with equal justification say: "The indication of pixels is pointless, I want to know whether it is sharp."
It is neither, but the future is that the indication of pixels is again useless. Why? Quite simply, video is always higher dissolve synonymous monitors, digital images do it now. It is now pointless to know how many pixels WxH from a 12 megapixel picture is because it is already larger than the monitor is. So what should I do with this Größenan
Antwort von Meggs:
The point is simply that if you to Werbefuzzi asked how large the picture is it with the claim 72 DPI know it's only for display ranges. The problem here is I think in the first place, which most say to young computer users and even Macianer are. And the use of DPI as meaningless to describe is, unfortunately, and can only be presumptuous of Ahnungslosen come, gentlemen. Presumptuous is synonymous to this nonsense:
If an advertising graphic artist has the info that he is a picture with the Resolutionvon 640 x 480 pixels should be sent, the question of the dpi does not make sense. If you like what you say otherwise, is to reflect that these simple correlations do not understand.
The arrogance (altgr. " U²Á¹Â" hubris; lat: arrogantia, Superbia, arrogance, superiority, arrogance; outdated: conceit - see professional arrogance - or pride) is an attitude towards the world in the value of the rank and own person, in advance of all experience and probation will be highly appreciated. Presumptuous according to this definition are in this thread mainly du
Antwort von Meggs:
The film shows at once bonbon-colored skin and double shade. Next, I did not compatriots. That I leave uncommented, but it speaks volumes about your creativity and your level of competence in your job. Presumably you still use the reference from the 80zigern monitor with 72 dpi and 256 colors.
Videos are also my hobby. Full I am software developer.
Let's. The discussion drifts into some already ne stupid absurd.
Antwort von domain:
I use two monitors, the horizontal image width times I have measured out. The Picture of 40 "is 88.5 cm and that of the 24" 52,5 cm wide and resolve both technically 1920 pixels, so really 1920 * 3 lines in the three additive primary colors. If you have a white vertical line one pixel wide, so you can see with the magnifying glass is very good, that when setting the graphics card 1920 * 1080 actually only three colored lines is composed, in its entirety to a white line fuse.
The total number of pixels displayed is equal to two monitors.
But, and here's the essential difference: the 40 "-he is only 55 DPI (1920 / (88.5 / 2.54)), the 24" he is 93 DPI, although in this case the PPI DPI synonymous correspond.
Picture The impression is of course identical two monitors, if the viewing distance is properly chosen.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
I use two monitors, the horizontal image width times I have measured out. The Picture of 40 "is 88.5 cm and that of the 24" 52,5 cm wide and resolve both technically 1920 pixels, so really 1920 * 3 lines in the three additive primary colors. If you have a white vertical line one pixel wide, so you can see with the magnifying glass is very good, that when setting the graphics card 1920 * 1080 actually only three colored lines is composed, in its entirety to a white line fuse.
The total number of pixels displayed is equal to two monitors.
But, and here's the essential difference: the 40 "-he is only 55 DPI (1920 / (88.5 / 2.54)), the 24" he is 93 DPI, although in this case the PPI DPI synonymous correspond.
Picture The impression is of course identical two monitors, if the viewing distance is properly chosen. Even. That is what I mean. The words of DPI or PPI is a measure of the sharpness of the image on the respective medium, no preference whether a printer or screen. Thus - and especially with the scaling of picture or video - gets an indication of the pixel density by a meaning.
Finally a constructive contribution.
@ Admin: Thank you.
MB
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hi Marco,
Even. That is what I mean. The words of DPI or PPI is a measure of the sharpness of the image on the respective medium, no preference whether a printer or screen. exactly. Da hast Du recht. But as you write, here is a medium and not the content that appears on the media output.
Thus - and especially with the scaling of picture or video - gets an indication of the pixel density by a meaning.
MB This in turn is related to a DPI specification for the content (video) an improper conclusion.
Regards
Lars
Antwort von blip:
@ Admin: Thank you. I assume that the thank you is that I have several posts in the OT had sorted, in which it was irrelevant - not least of synonymous Dir nice that we agree that when discussing a certain degree s.Respekt and restraint in the sound is required.
@ all: So, please (if it is synonymous sometimes difficult) are not personally ...
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
This in turn is related to a DPI specification for the content (video) an improper conclusion.
Regards
Lars I do not understand. Why?
Would their Plasmas and LCDs with a PPI rather than provide an indication of the picture with diagonal Full HD + or meaningless "HD-Ready" claim would at first sight clear whether the thing is sharp or not. A single value would suffice. Likewise, my phone, but it gives me no preference whether the part 160x80 or 500x300 or 600x800 pixel has the merits, it shows what looks good. Again, would such a PPI claim more than the commission Pixelgefasel.
MB
Antwort von Commanderjanke:
PPI is a value of Relations alone pretty much has no explanatory power.
Only in relation with the output value of this medium has meaning! (Just as the Full HD statement, which brings me full HD at 6 meters Biddiagonale? Nothing is blurred anyway!)
The horizon of many people is a circle with radius zero - and they call her position
Antwort von WideScreen:
Likewise, my phone, but it gives me no preference whether the part 160x80 or 500x300 or 600x800 pixel has the merits, it shows what looks good. Again, would such a PPI claim more than the commission Pixelgefasel.
MB Yes and there lies the problem. Because it's just a question of the size of the display is whether it looks good or not. And because not every home has a standardized Television, is holding the "quasi" DPI indication at each other.
One might therefore have to say that any monitor with 42 inches and 1920x080 DPI Resolutioneinge fixed number has. But that video has not yet s.für. Is that so hard to understand?
In your opinion, you could then say yes synonymous, the cameras are no longer with 10 Mpixel be given but with DPI, and this is nonsense.
If you want to have a statement if a picture looks good at the TV, you must be synonymous with the distance involved, because the picture should be with increasing size increase, and thus the subjective sensation of sharpness offset. So that's your mobile phone display the same focus, as a 50 Inch Flat .....! subjective!
Faith 5 such threads at once and Slashcam collapses. * lach *
Your nick but nothing with the ball home to do so, oda?
Antwort von PowerMac:
It is a philosophical discussion. Ballhaus and phenomenologically argued empirically, because he thinks the devices Resolutionan. He suggests that what is happening in the world. The other more transcendental argument, they argue "s.sich" or that "video s.sich" could have no DPI.
Antwort von robbie:
Your nick but nothing with the ball home to do so, oda? I think it would not enter the discussion.
Honestly ... WTF dpi has to do with video?
And for the Lord Ballhaus, in another thread of my comments has estimated:
Tell me some times, what difference in these two pictures when viewing on a PC monitor or a TV in 1:1 would be?
Picture 1, 72dpi, Picture 2, 300 dpi.
Antwort von DWUA:
It is a philosophical discussion ... LOL
Sub specie
opportunistic infection. ;))
Antwort von Meggs:
Picture 1, 72dpi, Picture 2, 300 dpi. For a graphics file, the dpi value in the file header and claimed a few bits. That's all. The data are otherwise identical. We can all picture file any dpi value without assigning any s.den what the actual image data to change.
Each image viewer ignores the dpi information. They are relevant only to the printer.
When a video file are nowhere dpi for information on a stored value, because the would not make sense.
Antwort von Commanderjanke:
Picture 1, 72dpi, Picture 2, 300 dpi.
For a graphics file, the dpi value in the file header and claimed a few bits. That's all. The data are otherwise identical. We can all picture file any dpi value without assigning any s.den what the actual image data to change.
Each image viewer ignores the dpi information. They are relevant only to the printer.
When a video file are nowhere dpi for information on a stored value, because the would not make sense. Unfortunately, this value is too often misunderstood as Qualitätsmasstab. Some graphic just throws a glance at the "dpi" value of an image and then to confidently proclaim: "this picture has only 72 dpi. That can never print." It is the picture in question, perhaps 7,000 x 10,000 pixel.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
PPI is a value of Relations alone pretty much has no explanatory power. No way! The number of pixels an image has no explanatory power, it says nothing about how large a picture can be displayed, because the output medium is not known. PPI, however, there clearly how sharp an output medium density and is in relation to himself: Pixels Per Inch.
One might therefore have to say that any monitor with 42 inches and 1920x080 DPI Resolutioneinge fixed number has. But that video has not yet s.für. Is that so hard to understand?
Of course not. But, please what is "Video s.sich"? Video requires a picture area to be seen, "video s.sich" is something that is so but there garnicht!
I interpret it so that (digital) video natively on a monitor is seen only in the second step on the phone, screen, etc. So, because it is on the screen of the computer takes place, please sophistry times turned off, corresponding it is synonymous to the native Resolutiondes performing, and so the benchmark of 72 DPI ... synonymous if more recent LCDs to bring over 100.
But PowerMac has not entirely wrong when he says that this discussion is philosophical, I must admit.
MB
Antwort von Axel:
Unfortunately, this value is too often misunderstood as Qualitätsmasstab. Some graphic just throws a glance at the "dpi" value of an image and then to confidently proclaim: "this picture has only 72 dpi. That can never print." It is the picture in question, perhaps 7,000 x 10,000 pixel. The last is totally unlikely. Why is it so difficult to accept a target? If it is,
in a pancake belong to three eggs 50 g flour, then should we despair over the question, what weight class exactly correspond to the eggs? I quarrel so synonymous quite happy, but in this thread were a few currants gekackt so small that it is no longer funny. Go-between synonymous times s.die fresh air!
Antwort von Commanderjanke:
Why is it so difficult to accept a target? It's not difficult, but the problem is that this discussion is no indication, either 72, 90 or 100dpi \ ppi. That is always depending on the output medium.
72dpi (dots so well 72 - well, probably more pixels). That's a very good average, but that is not always exactly right can be is obvious, and finally shrinks a monitor with no car, when someone has a lower Resolutioneinstellt.
dpi (dots per inch) refers to the number of pressure points (dots) per inch English. There is thus a measure of the Resolutionvon printers. The larger the value, the better the printer (of course as always is not the only Qualitätsmasstab) because more (ie finer) printing dots per inch printed paper can be accommodated.
ppi (pixels per inch) refers to the number of pixels per inch, and is suitable for the Resolutionz.B. a scanner indicated.
The crucial difference is that only pressure points either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, while a single pixel can contain any shades. Sozuagen pixels are "worth more" as pressure points, so synonymous with their relatively low resolution of 50-100 ppi * produce usable images, while printing with several hundred or thousand dpi work (have to).
The dpi and ppi happy and confused as "synonyms" are used, but the slightest problem - so everyone knows (about) what is meant. The real problem is the dpi / ppi for printers / scanners Qualitätsmasstab is (the more, the better the device), with digitally stored images is not. Since the output medium is a monitor, this is the Resolutioninterressant.
ok, new example:
A Picture is only 320x240 pixel resolution. But since it grossartigerweise "300 dpi" has a monitor and only 72 or so of me from 90 dpi is required, it can be without loss to something fourfold increase, if it is on the monitor will display.
This example is based on the reasoning that a pixel, so to speak, more pixels could contain it or "300 dpi - pixels" that are worth more than "72 dpi - Pixel". All not true. 320x240 pixels are just slightly, and so the picture is broken down roughly.
For all digital media, has no relevant DPI!
on the basis of the "dpi" Size-value calculated is a proposal, next nothing.
This value is only "for the sake of completeness" and serves mitgespeichert (if ever) only for a purpose: the basis of "dpi" value and the number of pixels of the image the size of the scanned original image to be reconstructed.
Only when the transfer to a print medium THEN DPI has a right!
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Bzgl.
Advertising Graphic Artist - Question number DPI
If he is not on the number of the 640 DPI image X480 would ask one he fired.
Dignity of the young
Web designers are called now, then it would really be no preference, because he wanted 72dpi eg *. jpg files to embed in web pages.
Accordingly, the question of DPI, the
advertising graphics entitled. Only if he knows what "medium" the graphic is used, it can work properly synonymous.
Durck media are between 72 150 300 DPI located. Anything over 300 Dpi is either for thermal printing processes, for example, or is "interpolated" pressure - see ThermoDrauck plotter and screen printing processes.
My plotter is as synonymous photos on auto "Interpolate" but this is not to compare with extra PROGIS / plugins or the preparation of hand - then called the appreciation pressure.
This is done in the Picture you some excerpts aufwertet.
.........................
As for video I would not "IMAGE" have (ie film grain), but "digital data" was holding me the question (or us) that would have video Picture DPI.
Because "we call it times print density" of an image I find very important.
As an example out my idea
3x 1 / 3 inch 800,000 pixels CCD - Canon XL2
3x per 1/3-Inch CCD with 1.67 megapixels - Canon XL H1
first times go, I now believe that I am about the "double" to "resolution / quality" get.
Now I was holding the question - could not if the quality in which one aufwertet "DPI" is high, the picture improved.
The PC from a red pixels only a second red pixels do I knew. Even the one pixel different looks on the PC than the pressure - I was aware synonymous.
I am concerned only and solely a matter of whether I am working through a "digital" picture quality to today by the PC may increase.
Because for me is a picture mosaic of a microscope - and if the stones are only more and then I stretch I get a better magnification.
Say would have been "raw" video footage SD DPI really only 72 - but I could from 72dpi to 300 DPI, but would leave the material in the pixel values, but only double, but that would have a better overall picture sharpness which?
So we came here to discuss what I out you my question.
I know the pressure it gives the company a day with this DSLR material to make it "Large" to print.
(PS: One has zb EOS 400D in RAW mode only 240 DPI - in jpeg mode, even just 72 - is the pressure difference with the naked eye - especially in color - let alone when the images bigger than DinA5 prints.) We know how s.Anfang already mentioned of "Upscale" in TVs - where so often only read the Picture pixels high to be set. (eg DVD s.Plasma HD Ready Monitor)
Everyone knows the DVD in a DVD format remains, but observers say (device dependent) "Yes, the picture was better"
Say - here, there seems to be already in the "Live" Upscaling Function of TV or DVD players to give differences. Or other method / way bill.
So I think it would be a relevant to wonder whether if I have the pixel ratio of a file maintained, but the DPI increases I might not get better material.
As hard as this can be thought but do not understand, right?
So now your allowed to say "no idea and full of distinctive **", but sometimes come to us here at the way rumsitzen questions, and only here, where I is a collection of "like" I can probably find an answer s.ehesten.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von TheBubble:
The dpi specification is a measure of a number s.Abtastpunkten (samples) to a unit length applies.
Bzgl.
Advertising Graphic Artist - Question number DPI
If he is not on the number of the 640 DPI image X480 would ask one he fired.
The question of a dpi or ppi claim for a bitmap is superfluous, unless a 1:1 reproduction of an existing and in inches ausmessbaren submission be made to its digital representation is the existing bitmap. In this case, the dpi number synonymous with information about the maximum achievable quality of reproduction.
If no scale is observed, then there is no preference as to whether the issue with 10dpi or 1000dpi replies: The bitmap remains the same, the possibilities of use remain the same.
The dpi specification is a supplementary information from which can be determined how large the representation of the bitmap, eg on paper or to be there once was, for example, if one wishes to produce 1:1 reproduction. It is therefore the scale of the bitmap.
If no such standard exists, it must sometimes simply an arbitrary be adopted in order to further processing steps to allow. This is eg necessary if the layout of a Magazine in cm or inches interpretation: It intends that the bitmap to be printed on the paper occupies a certain area. We use a coordinate system with the layout, eg with centimeters as the length unit of the axes. Now, according to the bitmap to be included and you have to know what a pixel size of the bitmap has. Did not the pixels, one must accept a failing.
Anything over 300 Dpi is either for thermal printing processes, for example, or is "interpolated" pressure - see ThermoDrauck plotter and screen printing processes.
For example, there are laser printers, which have Resolutionvon 1200dpi.
As for video I would not "IMAGE" have (ie film grain), but "digital data" was holding me the question (or us) that would have video Picture DPI.
The answer is yes, there were many times: Normally, no. If you have control over the display area of the output device, you can you like of course a dpi value for this device out, the videos are related Resolutiondes and then displayed as drawings, which are then on the output device to scale appear. If the output device, but only minimally smaller or larger and it is still within his picture all pixels of the video is, then the scale of the drawing up there.
The few programs indicate 72dpi is for display s.Screen currently irrelevant. For the presentation s.Screen have this information only be relevant if the issue is to be made to scale.
An indication dpi is required if a conversion of the image dimensions in a unit of length is to be made and additional processing steps (eg, scaling) to relate this length unit. If the bitmap is not based on scale or is one of those no preference, then this can be synonymous but the bitmap as well just assign different dpi values.
Now I was holding the question - could not if the quality in which one aufwertet "DPI" is high, the picture improved.
No.. The dpi is only an indication of the scale, in the form of a resolution stating per unit length.
Antwort von tommyb:
Now I was holding the question - could not if the quality in which one aufwertet "DPI" is high, the picture improved. Still NO!
If both cameras her clips in the same Resolutionabspeichern (eg 720x576), then you can by the mere use of high DPI values can not upgrade.
That would go, if we as a 35mm film have. These buttons from our higher (as we would scan it). Then you can either scan with higher values or with lower. Only in this case is not expected with DPI but with pure resolution (4K, 2K, etc.). Why? Weil s.sich is not usual. However, one could still something to DPI and convert Bla (required but not human).
Your picture can not be processed only in one pixel doubled. Then did you stop and finished doubled pixels. Then it just looks like in Super Mario Land, as there are not so subtle gradations interpolated. Even lines that go across the picture are simply doubled.
So it is not possible using any of DPI values in a better picture quality to bring it in its pure digital form COMPLETELY DIFFERENT quality characteristics must. The Resolutionnämlich.
Antwort von Meggs:
Unfortunately, this value is too often misunderstood as Qualitätsmasstab. Some graphic just throws a glance at the "dpi" value of an image and then to confidently proclaim: "this picture has only 72 dpi. That can never print." It is the picture in question, perhaps 7,000 x 10,000 pixel.
The last is totally unlikely. Why is it so difficult to accept a target? That is not unlikely. Some graphics editors take when you save as the default 72 dpi.
Why should you work with a guide, not the states, if the only relevant value, the number of pixels, white?
Each image file of up to 1 pixel hard drive full "may have entered 300 dpi. What does the value of the print in a certain size? Bichts!
Antwort von Meggs:
No way! The number of pixels an image has no explanatory power, it says nothing about how large a picture can be displayed, because the output medium is not known. Someone who wants to know the printing output device: his printer. The dpi value in a Still Image synonymous always refers only to an output device: the printer.
If you only know the one value: the number of pixels, you can with a 3-set any time the maximum output size at a certain dpi value can be calculated.
If you only know the dpi value, you can say nothing binding on the issue size.
If a 12-megapixel still image, when the accident 72 dpi are registered, you can use it without conversion or quality loss in A4 size output.
If only the Still Image 100 x 150 pixels and it has 300 dpi are registered, you can forget it.
Antwort von Meggs:
If he is not on the number of the 640 DPI image X480 would ask one he fired.
No.. Image size 640 x 480 pixels says it
all. If I have a metric size would indicate, for example 4 x 6 cm, then I would have also the dpi value.
Antwort von ArnAuge:
If I did not see, me missing an important aspect - that is, if we have the theme in full range, including the printing ausdikutieren want.
How many here have rightly said, can be obtained by increasing the amount of pixels of no better quality. But there are cases where an extrapolation is still much more useful and there is the type of extrapolation is crucial.
Example: I have a digital image in postcard size with 300dpi print resolution. When I got this picture now on 100x150 cm print would, I could as a single pixel tiles see. So leave the Picture highly expected.
Photoshop offers several possibilities. Right here would be the algorithm "Bicubic" (which is now in PS for the different use cases are 3 versions). Here, the pixel quantity increases by the pixel with its neighboring pixels are verschwurbelt. This will naturally feel the sharpness of the magnified image diminished, although this balance, that this larger picture naturally synonymous from a larger viewing distance considered. (Benchmark: distance at which it is "sharp" must look = diagonal).
Another example: I have a screenshot, in native screen resolution, which I, for example in size DinA5 wish to print. Here, the bicubic extrapolation too blurred faded result. Because the screen image so little from sharp tiles (pixels) and geometric elements, to get here at a much better result if the extrapolation of the algorithm pixel repetition chooses.
Conclusion: pixel extrapolation may well make sense. Crucially, this algorithm with what is happening.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
Can we maybe hold together:
1. The words of DPI or PPI said without further information only about the image quality of the device, so sharpness of the printer, screen, etc. (Example: 300 DPI printer, Screen has 92 PPI)
2. The words of DPI or PPI for a picture is only meaningful if synonymous manner, the size is specified (example: Picture has 300 DPI at 4x6 cm)
3. Video has 72 DPI as a benchmark, because the native imaging medium is a monitor;)
So, I'm out.
MB
Antwort von tommyb:
Item 1 +2: Yes
Item 3: No
Antwort von Commanderjanke:
Item 1 +2: Yes
Item 3: No Jep as it looks!
But well, I would say it is slow to the topic then synonymous durchgekaut!
Antwort von domain:
Example: I have a digital image in postcard size with 300dpi print resolution. When I got this picture now on 100x150 cm print would, I could as a single pixel tiles see. So leave the Picture highly expected.
This is an important clue to me but so far I've verkniffen because actually saying.
There are in addition to the actual image information, which is interpolated to a higher number of pixels can not change, a very undesirable synonymous, namely the visibility of pixels themselves
And it is true that in such cases, a scaling to higher amounts of pixels in an entirely different impression Picture deliver, especially if a subsequent image sharpening is not available, but according to the scaling is carried out.
MB:
"I prefer to err with practice than with fairly ignorant to keep" Where are the Wise Men? :-))
Your 72 DPI as a benchmark are historically seen enough, but today with the 1920-he monitors, they are already obsolete, even as thou hast detected and thus 92 more in the PPI area is 24 "offering.
Besides, a PPI figure for television, monitors, etc. marketingmäßig probably counter-productive, because actually a reciprocal wrong idea suggerierend quality. Everyone picks rather then to 92 PPI monitor, when in fact the 55 PPI monitor much bigger and nicer maps.
And then when times 4K monitors and Television, then vote all such "quality information" abruptly as the reference benchmark and do not show up.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Gude
So for me is a unteranderm
HP DesignJet130NR
Sofern bleibe Ich dabei, ein Werbe Grafiker wird / muss immer nach DPI fragen besonders im Druck Bereich kann man nicht with "nur" Pixel Angaben arbeiten.
Ist jetzt aber synonymous no preference , da man DPI ja ohne weiteres hochsetzen kann - was nicht bedeuten muss das man die Pixel Resolutiondazu hoch setzt.
Ist quasi die kleinere Sorge.
.............................................
HP DesignJet130NR
Sofern bleibe Ich dabei, ein Werbe Grafiker wird / muss immer nach DPI fragen besonders im Druck Bereich kann man nicht with "nur" Pixel Angaben arbeiten.
Ist jetzt aber synonymous no preference , da man DPI ja ohne weiteres hochsetzen kann - was nicht bedeuten muss das man die Pixel Resolutiondazu hoch setzt.
Ist quasi die kleinere Sorge.
.............................................
HP DesignJet130NR
Sofern bleibe Ich dabei, ein Werbe Grafiker wird / muss immer nach DPI fragen besonders im Druck Bereich kann man nicht with "nur" Pixel Angaben arbeiten.
Ist jetzt aber synonymous no preference , da man DPI ja ohne weiteres hochsetzen kann - was nicht bedeuten muss das man die Pixel Resolutiondazu hoch setzt.
Ist quasi die kleinere Sorge.
.............................................
Antwort von KrischanDO:
...
Conclusion: pixel extrapolation may well make sense. Crucially, this algorithm with what is happening. Yepp. My Large impressive colleague swears to "Qimage".
Since the pixels are not only Bicubic interpolation, but synonymous with fractal algorithms are analyzed and extrapolated.
Regards
Christian
PS: It would be really cool if not every second thread to a virtual "Who's the greatest (which is always synonymous)" would Geplärre degenerate.
Antwort von WoWu:
Since the pixels are not only Bicubic interpolation, but synonymous with fractal algorithms are analyzed and extrapolated. That you can when you allow individual images synonymous, but the asymmetry in terms of computational effort for the image compression and image reconstruction is at 50 frames / sec hardly defensible.
Also do you have then the problem of the DWT in your (mostly DCT) material ....
Antwort von WideScreen:
Wow. So the question of the DPI must be at the video I remember. That creates jobs. * loool *
Antwort von KrischanDO:
...
Also do you have then the problem of the DWT in your (mostly DCT) material .... Watt is datt denn? DWT - DCT?
Let me not die stupid! ;-)
Christian
Antwort von deti:
Watt is datt denn? DWT - DCT? Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet-Transformation#Diskrete_Wavelet-Transformation
Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskrete_Kosinustransformation
Deti
Antwort von KrischanDO:
Hi!
Thank you! Have my views, but I am a real understanding of just how far away with others of "DWT" abbreviated phenomena. ;-)
Regards
Christian
Antwort von deti:
In short, there are two different methods to light-dark transitions, which mathematically as a superposition of vibrations can be expressed efficiently encode. While the DCT since the beginning of the digital image compression used DWT based algorithms are only in the last few years in fashion. The latter requires significantly more computing power, however, provide better results, leading to less artefacts and smaller amounts of data in the encoding leads.
Remains to mention that in both MPEG4 DCT as synonymous DWT can be used, while only the MPEG2 DCT is used.
Deti
Antwort von Meggs:
If I keep it, is an advertising graphic designer / DPI must always ask, especially in the field of pressure can not be with "just" pixel information to work.
Maybe he should not always ask dpi, but when it comes to print it. In my case, he knew that he had a graphic for the screen makes.
Conclusion: pixel extrapolation may well make sense. Crucially, this algorithm with what is happening.
And that is exactly what I am holding my synonymous! It is synonymous in the pro. Pressure processing an everyday posturing. Why should it not synonymous with video / film work?
Certainly there is an SD video for HD optimize if the upscaling is not the TV leaves, which must be made in real time, but the previously targeted by the software with the optimal algorithm does.
Antwort von DWUA:
... of real understanding as far as ... Hello Christian!
By Wolfgang (WOWU) his breakfast coffee drunk:
http://jendryschik.de/michael/inf/dct/#top
What it actually would be considered would be the
title "What DPI is video?"
If one permits
"What has my bicycle chain with a sack of potatoes to be done?"
2200 there would be no
calls. @ B. DeKid
Du bist ja anglers, but with this title you have with network
fished - and thus the biggest catch of your life made.
:)))
Antwort von KrischanDO:
Hi,
herzlichen for information on DWT and DCT.
When I was in school at the "binomial formula" Feierabend, therefore, is of the deeper access difficult. But I understand what it is and how well it goes around.
I am not without reason has become a photographer. ;-)
Thank you!
Christian
Antwort von Meggs:
What it actually would be considered would be the title
"What DPI is video?"
He might at times mirror and various newspapers and to call the title as a profitable headline verscherbeln.
Antwort von DWUA:
Many are yet s.dem title stuck.
Approx. 20.
As the flies s.einem tape, which depends of the ceiling.
Perhaps it was the TS simply following information:
www.fh-jena.de/contrib/fb/et/personal/ansorg/ftp/kodierung/sld005.htm
;)
Antwort von WoWu:
Hi,
herzlichen for information on DWT and DCT.
When I was in school at the "binomial formula" Feierabend, therefore, is of the deeper access difficult. But I understand what it is and how well it goes around.
I am not without reason has become a photographer. ;-)
Thank you!
Christian Hi Christian ...
Problem is just that DWT with still images excellent results, but due to moving the temporal filtering tends to blur. That alone would still not so bad, because many users the somewhat "soft" look like.
Does it all but then again a DCT to perform the blurring to a high burden in the motion estimation and thus a Codierabbruch of course, primarily in the flat parts of the image by block forming impact. Block formation, in which one had not Originalmatierial and in different Transpormationen their cause.
Each method alone produces reasonable results. In cascade is no longer.
Where, however, mention must be synonymous, that the IDCT in MPEG-4 used in several score of the DCT, in MPEG2 applied differs.
@ DWUA ... true .. There is nothing more important than morning coffee.
