72 dpi
-
I was doing some website work at the local coffeeshop tonight. I was working on one of the buttons when the webdesigner next to me mentioned that Macromedia Fireworks could does a great job of creating buttons. He noticed that my button image was 96dpi and he says to me that I should set all my images to 72dpi because 96dpi takes more memory, which slows down loading times. I tell him that for web development, dpi is totally irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the number of pixels. A 100x100 (pixel) image at 72 dpi takes exactly the same amount of memory as a 100x100 (pixel) image at 96dpi or 1000dpi. I tell him that dpi is only relevant when printing and scanning because paper needs an inches to pixels conversion - i.e. a 1 inch x 1 inch image takes a lot more memory at 300 dpi than a 1 inch x 1 inch image at 72 dpi. We get in a very long discussion about whether dpi is at all relevant to designing webpages, and neither of us changes our opinion. He says that every professor that he's had told him that web images should be set to 72 dpi. I just shake my head and tell him that they are wrong, too. I still can't believe that so many people believe this 72 dpi stuff. ( Quite a few webdesigners seem to believe this myth[^]. At least there are some who refute it[^]. ) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
I was doing some website work at the local coffeeshop tonight. I was working on one of the buttons when the webdesigner next to me mentioned that Macromedia Fireworks could does a great job of creating buttons. He noticed that my button image was 96dpi and he says to me that I should set all my images to 72dpi because 96dpi takes more memory, which slows down loading times. I tell him that for web development, dpi is totally irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the number of pixels. A 100x100 (pixel) image at 72 dpi takes exactly the same amount of memory as a 100x100 (pixel) image at 96dpi or 1000dpi. I tell him that dpi is only relevant when printing and scanning because paper needs an inches to pixels conversion - i.e. a 1 inch x 1 inch image takes a lot more memory at 300 dpi than a 1 inch x 1 inch image at 72 dpi. We get in a very long discussion about whether dpi is at all relevant to designing webpages, and neither of us changes our opinion. He says that every professor that he's had told him that web images should be set to 72 dpi. I just shake my head and tell him that they are wrong, too. I still can't believe that so many people believe this 72 dpi stuff. ( Quite a few webdesigners seem to believe this myth[^]. At least there are some who refute it[^]. ) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Reminds me of a joke I read once about a Manager suggesting to someone who was running low on disk space that he open all his word docs and set the font size smaller so they'd take up less space. Mention this to your webdesigner friend and see if he sees the idiocy of that statement ;) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Phoenix Paint - back from DPaint's ashes!
-
I was doing some website work at the local coffeeshop tonight. I was working on one of the buttons when the webdesigner next to me mentioned that Macromedia Fireworks could does a great job of creating buttons. He noticed that my button image was 96dpi and he says to me that I should set all my images to 72dpi because 96dpi takes more memory, which slows down loading times. I tell him that for web development, dpi is totally irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the number of pixels. A 100x100 (pixel) image at 72 dpi takes exactly the same amount of memory as a 100x100 (pixel) image at 96dpi or 1000dpi. I tell him that dpi is only relevant when printing and scanning because paper needs an inches to pixels conversion - i.e. a 1 inch x 1 inch image takes a lot more memory at 300 dpi than a 1 inch x 1 inch image at 72 dpi. We get in a very long discussion about whether dpi is at all relevant to designing webpages, and neither of us changes our opinion. He says that every professor that he's had told him that web images should be set to 72 dpi. I just shake my head and tell him that they are wrong, too. I still can't believe that so many people believe this 72 dpi stuff. ( Quite a few webdesigners seem to believe this myth[^]. At least there are some who refute it[^]. ) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Windows pixel/screen size ratio is based on 96dpi so if you choose say a 12 point font it will be scaled correctly on the screen. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Windows pixel/screen size ratio is based on 96dpi so if you choose say a 12 point font it will be scaled correctly on the screen. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
This one is moderately useful (though old). It boils down to the fact that a good many images have bogus target device information (dpi, color space, ...), or none at all... and that browsers tend to ignore such information anyway. BTW - anyone else notice how broken IE's support for EMF files is? You'd think, given how numbingly easy it is to support EMF files on Windows, that The Browser would do better than to rasterize them at some random DPI and then scale them... :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
-
I was doing some website work at the local coffeeshop tonight. I was working on one of the buttons when the webdesigner next to me mentioned that Macromedia Fireworks could does a great job of creating buttons. He noticed that my button image was 96dpi and he says to me that I should set all my images to 72dpi because 96dpi takes more memory, which slows down loading times. I tell him that for web development, dpi is totally irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the number of pixels. A 100x100 (pixel) image at 72 dpi takes exactly the same amount of memory as a 100x100 (pixel) image at 96dpi or 1000dpi. I tell him that dpi is only relevant when printing and scanning because paper needs an inches to pixels conversion - i.e. a 1 inch x 1 inch image takes a lot more memory at 300 dpi than a 1 inch x 1 inch image at 72 dpi. We get in a very long discussion about whether dpi is at all relevant to designing webpages, and neither of us changes our opinion. He says that every professor that he's had told him that web images should be set to 72 dpi. I just shake my head and tell him that they are wrong, too. I still can't believe that so many people believe this 72 dpi stuff. ( Quite a few webdesigners seem to believe this myth[^]. At least there are some who refute it[^]. ) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Boys, Girls, gather round and listen to the master. You are correct, Brit-san. The DPI is irrelevant for the web design, and is used to determine the image density/size on a different rendering surface, e.g. printer, fax, screen, all at different resolutions - since the image will be a different size on each surface. So why does the unknown Samurai insist that his wise master requires 72 dots per inch? There is a reason - an ancient and revered one. In typesetting, you are aware of a unit called the 'point'? We specify font sizes in this unit, no? Well, a point is 1/72 of an inch. Yes, this is a device independent unit; it has an actual physical dimension, regardless of the DPI of the rendering surface. It is 72 dots per inch. For finer detail, we use twips - a twentieth of a point (tw'p), which is 1440 DPI. So, 72-DPI is point-resolution and represents the scales of a character grid. But this does not mean that you should use this DPI-setting for your raster images, Brit-san. No, your reasoning is correct. Now students, your assignment is to meditate on the actions of the unknown Samurai who spoke from partial knowledge, meditate on the response of Brit-san, who also with partial knowledge resisted the memes of the unknown Samurai, and then tell me, please, which is the better position. :confused:
-
Paul, see my response to the original post.