[bart_hickman]

Oh, yeah, he doesn't change them. That is how they come out of the camera. Pentax sets the files to come out of the camera at 72 dpi, don't ask me why. Other camera companies set it differently. Phil is not changing anything.

Once again, I do believe that DPR is biased, but this issue is a non issue.

It's irrelevent to this discussion, but FYI, 72 dpi is a typical dot pitch for computer monitors. Some programs do read the dpi value. For instance MS Word will scale the display of imported images according to the dpi value (higher DPI means the image is displayed smaller). A value of 72 dpi tell MS word to show the image at 1:1 size.

Bart

[chrisman]

Excellent thread! Nothing like a good slanging match to liven up a mid-week discussion...

Having got to page 3 I'm all DPIed out..

[davemdsn]

It's irrelevent to this discussion, but FYI, 72 dpi is a typical dot pitch for computer monitors. Some programs do read the dpi value. For instance MS Word will scale the display of imported images according to the dpi value (higher DPI means the image is displayed smaller). A value of 72 dpi tell MS word to show the image at 1:1 size.

Bart

Yeah, Word is a common program used by photographers to view their photos. I forgot to even consider that.

[mattdm]

Yeah, Word is a common program used by photographers to view their photos. I forgot to even consider that.

More seriously, many desktop publishing programs also use the dpi number as a cue when loading images.

[kmccanta]

I think the point of those programs is to give a print preview. WYSIWYG and all that cool stuff from the 20th century.

Another thing to consider is that if you view a photo on screen at anything other than 100% it is scaled, and the photo viwer software matters!! Different programs use different interpolation routines.

[mutley]

Two generations of cameras may produce the same file size but the newer one may have fewer artifacts, or both may produce an equal magnitude of artifacts, but the newer camera could create the image using less space/more compression.

That is one possibility, but the camera examples I pointed out are of the same generation.

[RiceHigh]

As many have pointed out already. The dpi EXIF field has nothing to do with image quality. But instead, it affects how the pictures are displayed or printed on certain monitors and printers.

I think Pentax needed to update the field to 300dpi as 72 dpi is for the old days of sub-one megapixel DCs. For a 10MP camera, 72 dpi simply means to print in 50" x 33" in size but with very low resolution in the output!

[Falcons]

I'm with codiac DPreview is definetly biased in their reviewing. What they have to fear from Pentax is a mystery to me - maybe phil askey is just a fanboy for the duopoly, who knows who cares.
Well I suppose camera companies do care since this web designer managed to con his way into making thousands believe he is an accomplished photographer (Yes I know he doesn't state that he is, but he doesn't put much effort into denying it either - so back off you phil askey fanboys) and that his rating makes or breaks a cameras sales.

I'm no tech geek and I dont really care about dpi etc and I accept what has been said about dpi & IQ - but at the very least Phil Askey should of pointed out the difference and crop factors etc - actually I'm suprised he didn't take the opportunity to sink the slipper in about Pentax 72dpi out of camera.

As I said the tech geek stuff doesn't interest me (I'll leave that to the nerds) but marketing fascinates me and DPR as a marketing tool for photography has been a success (that is an understatement) but it has definetly been a tool used to manipulate the market into continuing the duopoly.

I probably have a bent for supporting the underdog rather than the champ so I see what DPR does in a different light as well as how I view entax as well.

But as a marketting person I think it is fascinating how the market has taken a camera brand and turned it into a team sport.

[MnR]

Hi,

That site always went to where the money was. Never beleive everything you read. Do you own research and comparisions. Their reveiws are only good for a starting point.

Besides the site has been sold to Amazon. There are other place to get better reviews on equipment.

Rudy

[attack11]

OK, while I agree that the reviews at DPReview are HIGHLY biased, "dpi" means nothing on a monitor. DPI is a print issue, a monitor only cares about total pixel width and height. Now, if they were cropped unfairly that would be different, but dpi won't effect an on-screen image review.

Few, if any, of the on-line camera reviewers do print tests, which is where image quality really counts. It is also where Pentax really shines.

i don't mean to nit pick this topic, but the first few replies are basically misinformation. dpi matters. these are raster images, not vector. period.

dpi also matters on your display, as well as dot pitch. if you have a monitor with a large dot pitch, you're going to see a lower quality image than someone viewing the same image (lets even say the same room/calibration) with a smaller dot pitch.

defaultly windows is running at 96dpi for viewing distance compensation. macs used to be 72dpi, dunno what they are set to today.

[mattdm]

i don't mean to nit pick this topic, but the first few replies are basically misinformation. dpi matters. these are raster images, not vector. period.

The dpi or ppi at which your image is displayed matters, yes. The dpi value in the file, however, is just a hint for how the file should be displayed. It doesn't change the actual pixel dimensions of the image in any way. Although as mentioned, some applications do follow the hint for default view, that isn't relevant at all to the amount or quality of data in the image.

defaultly windows is running at 96dpi for viewing distance compensation. macs used to be 72dpi, dunno what they are set to today.

This is even worse. The DPI value in your OS is supposed to match the actual ppi of your monitor. Since Apple had control of the hardware, it in fact did. Before modern monitor connections where the info can actually be probed, Windows had to guess. Since the guess was often wrong, it alloweds you to change the value. Then people got in the horribly habit of using this as a way to change the relative scale of their fonts, and a big mess ensued. I assume this is the "viewing distance compensation" you mention. Don't do that. Set your operating environment's setting for the monitor's dpi/ppi correctly and leave it.

[attack11]

72 is not the proper dpi for an lcd, it depends on the panel size and pixel density. usually it's in the 90-96 dpi range.

[attack11]

anyways, dpi for viewing doesn't mean much but for post processing it does. once you substract data you can only manipulate the size within the dpi of the raster image, otherwise you're scaling and the results aren't so great.

[davemdsn]

We have come too far from the original issue. We are talking about dpi settings in a photo editor and then in a web browser. The discussion is not about Word, desktop publishers, or any of that. It is not about a 72 dpi monitor or 96 dpi monitor because the viewer will be seeing both sample on the same monitor. Dpi does make a difference in some areas, just not this one.

If I take the same photo, open it in Photoshop, duplicate it, have one set at 72 dpi and the other at 300 dpi (without changing total pixel count), and then have Photoshop zoom both to "Actual Pixels" I will get the exact same view. Sorry, Word is not a photo editor and those of you who use it as such should get with the program.

If I cut them both down to 800 pixels wide to fit on a web page, leaving them at 72 and 300 dpi respectively, they will display exactly the same on the web page.

If you think that this is not the issue at hand, remember that we are talking about what Phil is doing, and this is exactly what he is doing. He has an image from one camera that comes out as 72 dpi and one from another camera that comes out at 240 dpi. He then sets both to 100% in Photoshop (Actual Pixels, not print size) and then resizes/crops for web.

[attack11]

right. the original gripe is valid because all cameras and file settings are not the same. regardless of the sensitivity difference of the sensor or the general lack of understanding of dpi; the fact that he doesn't test with a lens available on all systems and keeps the bodies at the same settings negates the validity of his results for comparison.

there's no control.