Help with Canon 20-D

Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when
I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks..

Bob



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

In article ,
says...
Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when
I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks..

Bob



.................................................. ..............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-



The photo IS NOT 72 dpi.. That is an assumption of the software used to
display your picture.

When you go to print the pictures the printer driver will adjust the dpi for
the size of the paper.

THERE IS NO INHERANT DPI IN A DIGITAL PHOTO!

This question comes up ALL the time.

The short answer is NO YOU CANT.

You have to zoom in/out to fit the picture to the screen for viewing.

If you re-size the picture for the screen, save it under a different name so
you still have the original. As you learn more about using the pictures you
take you will be glad you saved the originals un-changed.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:53:53 -0500, Sideshow Bob
wrote:

Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when
I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks..

Bob



................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Simply to add to what Larry said..the camera doesn't set the dpi flag
in the jfif/exif header. You can..in your photo editing software. This
won't effect the raw information (the picture) but rather an
informational section at the begining of the jpg or tiff that simply
tells other things how to display or print it. When you save a file
at 72 dpi..it sets the jfif/exif info in the file header - a flag that
says dpi is set and directs it to the value - 72.

I'm not aware of the camera having the ability to set this flag.

The editing proggy can though. And what-ever you save at-thats what
will be encoded into the file(pic). BUT its not part of the image
itself. It's just telling something else how to look at the pixels in
terms of how many to put in any given area.

Don't know paintshop, but in photoshop..you go to "editimage
size..and reset the dpi..BUT DON'T RESAMPLE. Then when save
it will update the file header of the pic. You can see the effect by
clicking on "show print size" because it will react dynamically to
the dpi info.

I never save over my jpgs. If i am going to output a pic i will save
it in tiff format (no compression). Everytime you edit and resave a
jpg - i beleive you are utilizing a compresion algorith and you are
derogating your pic. I will save to jpg when the pic is in the final
print state..or to distribute - and as larry said - UNDER A DIFFERENT
NAME. Word to the wise...first thing you do when you empty the
camera is to archive and index. Then play with them.

Some filters and applets require a high dpi to work -- one example
being Andromeda screens.

I apologize to the group for the bandwith here-in..mostly non-slr.
The question was slr though..and i'm curious now..though doubtful.

Hope this helps a bit Bob

rgds

Ken








filters that want high dpi's, or

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Sideshow Bob writes:

Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that
when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI?


I suggest you take a look at Q2 in this FAQ:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html

In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some
of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the
resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it
all means!

It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.

Now that I have a fast machine, I will be using RAW even more, and there
it's quite possible to set the output resolution and number of bits in
the conversion to PS format from RAW. And it's no longer a sweat to
create and run an action to set the ppi as I like it.

--
John McWilliams

In article pCopd.150142$R05.116934@attbi_s53,
John McWilliams wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Sideshow Bob writes:

Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that
when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI?


I suggest you take a look at Q2 in this FAQ:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html

In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some
of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the
resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it
all means!

It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.

You're making a very big assumption - that the camera is actually
specifying *any* value for the ppi setting. Last time I looked at
the EXIF data coming directly from a camera there wasn't any value
given. If the software is reporting 72ppi then it's quite probably
a default value being supplied by the software you are using.
(The 72ppi/dpi value, btw, was the default value for postscript)

John McWilliams wrote in newsCopd.150142$R05.116934
@attbi_s53:

In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some
of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the
resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it
all means!

You may wish so. And you might get it - the consumer industry
implements lots of useless things if they think customers want it.

It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.

It probably is not. I would be surprised if the camera outputs any PPI
setting at all. The 72 PPI is probably invented by your editing software.

Now that I have a fast machine, I will be using RAW even more, and there
it's quite possible to set the output resolution and number of bits in
the conversion to PS format from RAW. And it's no longer a sweat to
create and run an action to set the ppi as I like it.

I suggest you go use you time for something more useful. You will
not get better pictures by implementing things not needed.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote:
John McWilliams wrote in newsCopd.150142$R05.116934
@attbi_s53:


In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some
of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the
resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it
all means!


You may wish so. And you might get it - the consumer industry
implements lots of useless things if they think customers want it.

*** see below

It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.


It probably is not. I would be surprised if the camera outputs any PPI
setting at all. The 72 PPI is probably invented by your editing software.


Now that I have a fast machine, I will be using RAW even more, and there
it's quite possible to set the output resolution and number of bits in
the conversion to PS format from RAW. And it's no longer a sweat to
create and run an action to set the ppi as I like it.


I suggest you go use you time for something more useful. You will
not get better pictures by implementing things not needed.

I'd save some time in post processing. That in turn allows more time for
better pictures.

I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
for you.

--
John McWilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282@attbi_s04...


I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
for you.

--
John McWilliams

Oddly enough most Europeans don't have the variable descriptions to words
which English speaking nations have. Consequently, many Europeans who write
instructions in English, misunderstand the inflections native English
speakers take for granted. Roland wasn't telling anyone what should be
important to them any more than Gisle was.

If you read Gisle's blog to grasp the spirit with which it was written, you
will see that Gisle feels many of the often confusing measurements of an
image should be discarded in your mind if you don't understand them because
the *real* dimensions of an image are the pixel density... Nothing else
counts.

I think it is unfair to presume that a document written in English by a
European is telling anyone what *should be* important to them for no reason.
After all, the day someone can define a measurement to a pixel, will be the
day images become precisely measurable too. Gisle is essentially correct
that the Pixels per inch of a camera file are useless to anyone and
everyone. If there was a measurement for say; an array of pixels, it might
be relevant. Hmm. Could that be megapixels, perhaps?

Editing programs like Photoshop are the ones which open an image at the
resolution of a monitor... Deemed (wrongly) to be 72 PPI. Just changing that
to 300 dpi does not alter the size of the image or the fact that it is
displayed at 72 PPI. It is the printer which needs 300 dpi. Monitor's need
72 dpi. Any description of dpi or PPI by other devises is irrelevant at the
point they lose control over them.

Doug

Ryadia wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282@attbi_s04...


I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
for you.

--
John McWilliams


Oddly enough most Europeans don't have the variable descriptions to words
which English speaking nations have. Consequently, many Europeans who write
instructions in English, misunderstand the inflections native English
speakers take for granted. Roland wasn't telling anyone what should be
important to them any more than Gisle was.

If you read Gisle's blog to grasp the spirit with which it was written, you
will see that Gisle feels many of the often confusing measurements of an
image should be discarded in your mind if you don't understand them because
the *real* dimensions of an image are the pixel density... Nothing else
counts.

I think it is unfair to presume that a document written in English by a
European is telling anyone what *should be* important to them for no reason.
After all, the day someone can define a measurement to a pixel, will be the
day images become precisely measurable too. Gisle is essentially correct
that the Pixels per inch of a camera file are useless to anyone and
everyone. If there was a measurement for say; an array of pixels, it might
be relevant. Hmm. Could that be megapixels, perhaps?

Editing programs like Photoshop are the ones which open an image at the
resolution of a monitor... Deemed (wrongly) to be 72 PPI. Just changing that
to 300 dpi does not alter the size of the image or the fact that it is
displayed at 72 PPI. It is the printer which needs 300 dpi. Monitor's need
72 dpi. Any description of dpi or PPI by other devises is irrelevant at the
point they lose control over them.


I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem
to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant,
when (I believe) I understand the ins and outs of resolution and pixel
counts and size of image based on ppi chosen at time of printing.

The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams posted:
The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

--
John McWilliams

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Do you mean
that it would be better if you could program the camera to define a
print dpi into the image file? If so, then I guess I see your point. I
still don't think it would help you much, since the ppi of monitors
vary at different resolutions, so it would be nearly impossible to see
the exact print size on screen at the click of a mouse. The best that
you can (usually) do is to use a DTP program that imports images and at
the same time resets the print dpi to a standard (usually 300). Then,
at least, you can see the image in scale in relation to a given page
size. But even if you have to reset the dpi manually, is it all that
much work? You could always use IrfanView to batch the jobs for you.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos