Unbiased digital camera reviews, advice, and prices
  • Sorry, the guide you were looking for is no longer available. Here's a list of our current guides and editorial roundups.
Panasonic Lumix FZ28
Panasonic Lumix FZ28
B+
HQ Grade: B+
A is outstanding and exceptional, rated in the top 10% of digital cameras.
B means they are good, with some standout features.
C means they are mediocre, and probably more trouble than they are worth.
D & F mean they are absolutely awful or old. Avoid at all costs.
  • 4 out of 5
"Excellent all around"
  • 4 out of 5
"lots of features"
See rating based on 507 user reviews
Submit your own Panasonic FZ28 review!
This camera is ranked
Ask

Have a question about the FZ28?
Enter it here: (You can enter more details in the next step)

Back to List
Question Answered!
Just-Doug (Just-Doug) 0 pts
September 6, 2008 11:31 PM
0 people rated this question helpful, 1 people rated this question not helpful Subscribe for Email Updates for this Question

Are Pics from Lumix FZ28 in high quality and raw image locked in at 72 ppi. I have 2 Lumimix compacts and photos always show res at 72 ppi.

Lumix DMC-LZ6 and LZ7 models and photos resolution when checking the propeties on these photos, are only at 72 ppi, which limits editing. I also 2 Canon cameras and a Nikon L1. With these other cameras my photo res properties come up at 180 to 300 ppi depending on my settings. I emailed Panisonic about this issue and was told these cameras are preset at 72 ppi, thus the hesitation on purchasing another Lumix brand camera. I like the Lumix FZ28 and am considering between this and Canon P5 IS or Nikon P80. I was considering Olympus SP-570 too, but see in reviews it is locked at 72 ppi.
Report Abuse Did you find this question helpful or not helpful?
Answers This question has been answered!
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
September 9, 2008 11:48 AM
2 people rated this answer helpful, 4 people rated this answer not helpful
 
From reading the manual, and review from the FZ28, I'm fairly sure that the resolution can only be set at 72 ppi, just because that is the default setting that Panasonic deemed appropriate. I don't think these type of cameras are the best for editing, because the manual controls and settings are not quite as good as the corresponding Canon and Nikons. I would recommend going with the Canon S series, which should be fairly similar to this camera.
Best Answer
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Just-Doug (Just-Doug) 0 pts
September 10, 2008 11:33 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thank you Aditva D - I was afraid of that being same on all the Lumix cameras. I think I'm going with the Canon S5 IS becuse of the Flip LCD screen and hot shoe features.

I like the Lumix cameras- but dont want the 72 ppi limitation.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
September 15, 2008 10:26 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I want to be sure I understand this correctly. Wouldn't being restricted to 72 ppidefeat the purpose for using RAW in the first place?
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
September 16, 2008 1:34 AM
2 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I'm not really sure what you mean. The purpose of RAW is to basically keep all of the image data without compressing or formatting any of it, making it easier to edit and convert to different formats. This is what mainly gives RAW the larger size, not necessarily that it has any more megapixels, resolution, or ppi. Though in some cameras it might have more resolution, every camera has a limit of ppi, even in RAW. Based on sources from Panasonic it seems that it just so happens that RAW and JPEG formats both shoot in 72 ppi, which isn't so surprising in my opinion.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
The_gooze! 26 pts
October 6, 2008 5:49 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
On checking the EXIF info I noticed 180 dpi for the x and y.

Am I reading the wrong information or have the specs been updated?
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
October 6, 2008 10:14 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thanks for the information. Good shooting to you!
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 7, 2008 9:25 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Sometimes the EXIF data can be inaccurate, check the properties of the file. Or try opening it in Adobe Photoshop and check what the dpi is. Also it could be the specs just need to be updated and the DPI is really 180, but I think the first answer is more likely.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
October 8, 2008 1:15 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thanks, Aditya. I've decided to go for a different model with more megapixels.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Just-Doug (Just-Doug) 0 pts
October 10, 2008 11:47 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thanks for all your info folks. I'm going with the Canon S5 IS.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
JAM (mjavad) 1 pts
October 10, 2008 3:49 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
the resolution of the monitor is 72 ppi. You can set the resolution to whatever you want according to what you want to print. The default is 72 ppi to match the monitor default.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 10, 2008 4:09 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
You're talking about a completely different dpi than they are...
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
JAM (mjavad) 1 pts
October 11, 2008 3:33 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
hey, aditya. can you explain so that i can improve my knowledge
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 11, 2008 11:22 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Alright, well ppi generally refers to pixels per inch (whereas megapixels just refers to amount of pixels), a measurement of density. So when you take a picture with a camera, the pixels per inch is a good indicator of what size you can blow the picture up to, and the amount of picture quality (obviously more dots per inch means more details). Dpi, on the other hand, refers to dots per inch, typically referring to a printer. The way a printer works is by printing millions of tiny dots next to each other to create a picture (as opposed to a way most painter works, but directly applying the paint in lines, etc). You can change the dpi of the printer to get more quality and detali, and/or to save ink, but changing the dpi of the printer won't change the base properties of your picture, with will still have the defined ppi set by the camera. I think that made sense, tell me if you need any clarification.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Just-Doug (Just-Doug) 0 pts
October 11, 2008 10:44 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Maybe this will help too - Photo Information from 3 of my digital cameras when photos opened in Corel Paint Shop XI
From my Nikon D70 - Raw format photo (nef) - w 3040 x h 2014 pixels ( 15.18 in x 10.05 in. ) pixels per inch (ppi) = 200 average file size about 5 mb

Nikon Cool Pix L1- Jpeg format -w 2816 x h 2112 pixels ( 9.387 in x 7.04 in ) ppi = 300
Average file size about 3.3 mb

From my Lumix DMC-LZ7 - full resolution Jpeg format - w 3072 x h 2304 pixel - ppi = 72

All three cameras are 6 mp

So from my Lumix photo I want to increase the resolution. This is time consuming and sucks up a lot of memory on the pc. Using the Corel Paint Shop XI to increase the ppi
My results are - Original Lumix photo at 72 ppi = File size = 2.77 mb
Made 2 identical copies of original photo. Incresed 1st copy to 300 ppi and saved as high quality Jpeg file
(this has slowed my old P4 computer to a crawl now because of the memory draw to process the photo)
File size is 24.9 mb. I could not finish the 2nd one because the first took up most the ram on the pc.
So even on a newer PC to change these photos up to 200 or 300 ppi you would need to be rebooting your PC after just a few photos.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 11, 2008 11:53 PM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Well, changing the ppi after the picture is taken kind of defeats the purpose in some ways. This is often used by many people to remove pixelation from blown up pictures. What it essentially does is splits pixels and tries to match in more pixels based on color. In my experience, it reduces pixelation, but the increase in detail is hardly noticeable. You're much better off just taking the picture with a camera that has more ppi if you're going to edit it. If you're looking for 4 x 6 and 5 x 7s you don't even need to worry.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
October 12, 2008 9:33 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Aditya,

Thanks! That's the clarification I'm looking for. I'm going for 12x9 prints. I appreciate it a lot.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 12, 2008 11:14 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
No problem, if you have any other questions feel free to ask.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
October 12, 2008 3:11 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thanks, I will.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
arsh (327ytr) 1 pts
October 12, 2008 6:20 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
hey aditya what abt canon sx10 IS ,u r writing for manual control canon and nikon are good then panasonic.Will u please tell me which one to favour b/w panasonic fz 28 and canon sx10 is ?My preference will be for manual controls b/w this two ultra zoom cameras.
I am new amature photographer ,which like to have manual control also,Does ,not having hot shoe for flash will have any effect on my photos.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 12, 2008 8:07 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I would definitely prefer the SX10 for manual controls; if you can get the SX1 by spending the extra money, it has many more controls and options and is well worth the money. The SX10 also has a much better processor, so you'll get better pictures, plus be closer to an SLR type photo.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Johnny D 5 pts
October 17, 2008 10:30 AM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
IMPORTANT UPDATE

The Lumix DOES support sizes other than 72dpi \ 72ppi. Read this link for further details http://photo.net/learn/resize/.

What it boils down to is this:
The dpi and ppi is NOTHING to do with the camera. Any old 1megapixel camera can be worked on at 300ppi and printed at 300dpi, but the printout will be small.

SO you can print a 10megapixel image at any dpi you like, and manipulate it at any ppi you like.

Hope this clears up the misinformation others have been posting!
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Johnny D 5 pts
October 17, 2008 10:50 AM
2 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
And to clear up why "Just Doug" had so many problems:

He says he 'saved the 72dpi photo as 300dpi and high quality jpeg' ...which increased the file size 10 times to 24Mb.

The cause of the file size increase was NOT saving at 300dpi, but instead making the fatal mistake of *saving as high quality jpeg*. If he had taken the same image, not changed the dpi setting and saved it as the highest quality jpeg *it would still have been 24Mb*!! Why? Because very high quality jpeg actually makes files bigger!

Try it yourself right now- use google image search for an 'extra large image' about 3000 x 2000 pixels, fire up photoshop (or your image editor of choice) and try saving at 72dpi in jpeg at the highest quality. Then see how big the file is after. You'll be surprised..

In summary: NEVER save jpeg at their highest quality. If a 6mp photo is over 4Mb, your jpeg setting is too high.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
JAM (mjavad) 1 pts
October 17, 2008 6:17 PM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
hey, johnny, you are the man. I was looking for something like photo.net page to explain then. i hope they have understood, if not, here more data , :)

http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/hiresprinting

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

;)
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Johnny D 5 pts
October 17, 2008 7:10 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Thanks buddy, I was really excited about the lumix until i saw this post so I did some digging and found that info. It saved me passing up what was a spectacularly specified camera.

Hope I've helped.

Johnny
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 17, 2008 10:32 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Just some clarifications, extra fine mode is actually a good mode to shoot on, because even though the pixels are the same between the modes, it saves more of the original picture data. This is especially good if you're doing a lot of post processing with heavy editing. That's also the reason a lot of people shoot in RAW, it helps the color, the white balance, sharpness, etc by preserving more of the "original" image and doing less in-camera processing. As for ppi and megapixels, they're basically different ways to measure the same thing. Megapixels alone is just a number, it doesn't tell you how good a picture will look at a certain size, so 6 megapixels at a 5 x 7 level will not look the same as 6 megapixels at a 25 x 35 level. Ppi kind of helps this if you're trying to figure out detail at a picture size. But using just ppi, its hard to determine up to what size you can blow the picture up to and retain detail. So advantages and disadvantages to both. But either way a ppi or megapixel measurement essentially use two ways to measure very similar properties.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Johnny D 5 pts
October 18, 2008 5:19 PM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Aditya, on the basis of your answer, you should get the 'best answer' at the very top of the thread amended.

If megapixels and ppi are 'basically ... the same thing' then for you to state in the 'best answer' that the 10megapixel lumix is limited to 72ppi is inherently wrong. The two statements cannot both be true or 300ppi won't be around until 30megapixel cameras are out!

As you seem to say at one point, megapixels and ppi actually work in conjunction to define the final picture size.

However far from clarifying, this means your statement that megapixel count 'doesn't tell you how good a picture is at a certain size' is VERY confusing, as you later state that ppi helps if you're figuring out detail at a certain size. Isn't 'detail' and 'how good a picture is' the same thing?

To attempt to properly clear things up: are we agreed that ppi is defined solely in software to determine print size.

E.g. if you want a print 12 x 8, with a 10megapixel image your print has to be 300ppi. If you were to print that same image at 72ppi the print size would have to be a whopping 54 x 36 inches, or put another way 4.5 x 3 feet.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 18, 2008 6:00 PM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I didn't say they are the same thing, I said they're two ways of saying the same thing, in fact the original quotation was "basically the different ways to measure the same thing." By putting in the "..." you basically changed the whole meaning. And no, ppi is hardly defined solely in software, as you can see from the discussion above, ppi is defined by the original camera which took the photos, which can then be altered by software artificially.

Either I worded my answer above a little awkwardly or you missed the meaning. Megapixels is one million pixels, whereas ppi is pixels per inch. Megapixels is a pretty unchanged number it measures the number of dots that are in an image, Pixels per inch, on the other hand, measures resolution; the number of those dots that you have in a certain area. You can make your dots bigger and smaller, but unless you use software you can't add more dots, thus you cannot change the number of megapixels. The smaller your dots, ie the more dots you have per unit area, the more details you'll have in your picture.

Now, say you want to print a 12 x 8 like you said, with your picture having a resolution of 300ppi. This gives you a 2400 x 3600 pixel image, pretty common, the total megapixels being approximately 8.64. You can't go arbitrarily defining megapixels and ppi with different image sizes, like I said before they're two ways of measuring the same thing. They are dependent on each other, you can do the math to get from ppi (if you have a certain size of picture like 12 x 8) to megapixels, or get to megapixels (again, if you have a certain size of picture) to get to ppi. So your alleged picture would be 8.64 megapixels, not 10. This gets a tad bit confusing, because yes, we said that an image shot by a good camera has a ppi of 300, but it also has a set dimension (bigger than 12 x 8). So, when you shrink the image to smaller than 12 x 8, you actually increase the ppi past 300 (if you're shooting with a 10mp camera).

Now for the second example you quoted, ppi to 72 with the size of picture, the total pixels you'd get would be 10.08, or approximately 10. The megapixels have to say set, your picture can't magically change from 8.6 megapixels to 10.1 megapixels.

Finally, a 72 ppi image is something found on the internet, hardly of good quality, while a 300 ppi is what a lot of lower end SLRs shoot at, decent or good quality. So yes, you can take your picture and blow it up to as large as you want to, but your resolution starts going down, and at some point its just not worth blowing it up because you lose too much detail. Where you draw that point is up to you. Hope this helps to clarify everything.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Johnny D 5 pts
October 20, 2008 7:51 AM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I think I can see where the confusion has arisen. Grammatically speaking 'two ways of saying the same thing' does equate to 'the same thing'.

If you'll excuse the analogy, take temperature in Fahrenheit and Celsius. 100F equals 38C (give or take). That's two ways of saying the same thing (how hot it is), but 10megapixels doesn't equal 300ppi. Ppi is independent of megapixels, and you can have 72ppi or 300ppi while the image is still 10megapixels. But if the temperature were to change from 38C, the temperature in F would not remain the same.

I will take your point that the default ppi value CAN be set by the camera, and it may be that the Lumix will only set this to 72ppi as a maximum. However, as has been shown on the links provided earlier, changing this to a more acceptable 300ppi is a very, very trivial matter which is possible entirely in software.

This renders your initial answer misleading (though technically accurate) and I feel warrants at least an update to say something like 'while the lumix is limited to 72ppi out of the camera, any decent image editing software will be able to adjust this to 300ppi with no difference in quality than if it was able to set it at 300ppi natively'.

On a side note, I realise my ppi figures about print size were a bit out- I was rounding for ease of comparison. The ppi to get a 12 x 8 image at 10mp would in fact be about 325ppi. However my point still stands- ppi and megapixels are two entirely different measurements of two entirely different things.

Let me put it another way, megapixels measures how many pixels there are in total. Ppi measures how densely packed those pixels are.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Jaffer sultan (jaffersultan) 21 pts
October 23, 2008 8:40 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Hey Guys ... lets leave this and please guide us non experienced Digicamera seekers to straight path. Having to choose between Lumix FZ28, Canon Sx10 or SX1, Olympus 565UZ and Nikon P80... which one you prefer... do consider the pocket... I also want to know.. which one is closet to SLR image quality (and excuse me from math, i am talking about asthetix effects)...
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Aditya D (Adhere) 7462 pts
October 24, 2008 10:37 AM
1 people rated this answer helpful, 1 people rated this answer not helpful
 
The SX1 is probably the best camera out of that line up, especially with the highest price tag. Then, the SX10, then the P80, then the 565UZ. Of course this is my personal opinion, but after comparing the pictures taken by each camera, I believe this is a reasonable order to put the cameras in, in decreasing picture qulaity. The SX1 will therefore have the image quality closest to an SLR (even better than some lower end SLRs).
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Jaffer sultan (jaffersultan) 21 pts
October 24, 2008 10:22 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Guys please let us make more knowledgeable ... talking in layman terms which camera among the following gives you image quality and effects closer to DSLRs
1. Nikon P80
2. Olympus SP 570 UZ
3. Olympus SP 565 UZ
4. Canon SX10 IS (or SX1 IS)
5. Panasonix Lumix FX28K

I am considering the asthetics and technical parameters. Let me say it this way. If a very experienced photgrapher takes a picture of very eye catching events (1) landscape (2) Sports/action (3) potrait (4) indoor with similar settings, which camera will give the better results.......

Also talking about movies... does 640 x 480 at 30 fps gives you a reasonable DVD or SD quality video... if so then why to spend more on SX1 and buy SX10....
thanx
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
JOHN F. BIHARY (mindtrvlr) 25 pts
October 31, 2008 12:22 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
I was just going to ask the same thing as i want to buy Panasonix Lumix FX28K, but am also interested in the Nikon P80. Thanks. This is a very good and informative site.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
James Ponder (Arizona) 1 pts
October 31, 2008 9:08 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
Glad you like the discussion, John.

Now I've got another question for everybody: I've heard about some sort of interpolation software that allows you to enlarge images well beyond their original dimensions with no loss of quality. Does anyone know what it's called, how well it works, and how difficult it is to use?

Thanks!
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
CheapSkate2 0 pts
January 24, 2009 9:50 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
72 dpi is totally unacceptable in anything but images posted to the web or sent via email regardless of how how big the picture is. Any printed image needs to be at least 260 dpi to look good.

You can talk ppi, dpi, megapixels, this x that blah blah blah all you want but in photoshop these pics are all 72 dpi which means blocky and pixelated. Same goes when their printed out. Increasing dpi after the fact with pc or mac software does nothing to change this fact.

If all you want is pictures to send via email or post online then a cheap under $100 camera will do just fine.

If you want standard def video for like an old crt style tv then 640x480 @ 30 fps is ok. If you want HD quality for pc or flat panel you'll need an HD video camera with 16x9 and 720p or 1080p specs.

IMO read professional reviews because most consumers leaving reviews are only taking pics for the web and don't know anything about image quality for printing purposes. A lot of times the consumer reviewer has had the equipment only a very short time and they post a review before they have used even half the features or had a chance to experience all the bugs and shortcomings. Instead check out the photo/camera related forums for what people are trying to find fixes and workarounds for so you know what to avoid.

Considering how much this camera costs it is a disappointment. My 5 year old nikon has much better quality. I have a few panasonic electronic consumer items and I figured I'd give their camera a try. Mistake... Will stick with Nikon and Canon from now on.

BTW - I work at a professional printing co. (magazine, catalog, brochure printing) so I have experience with printing images.
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Genome 0 pts
May 27, 2009 10:40 AM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
cheap skate - taht is compeltely wrong. I have been a graphic designer in the print industry for 7 years and im supprised you got this wrong.

if an image is 3000 x 2000 pixels and 72 dpi printing it out will look rubbish. this is because of the ppi. Upping the ppi to 300 will make it print out perfectly because this is the standard that most printers use. At least its an industry standard. Also the file size wont change at all.

what will change is the print size.

at 72 ppi it would print out at jsut over a meter wide, to be exact
1058.33 mm x 705.56 mm

change the ppi to 300 and it will end up roughly a quatar this size
254 mm x 169.33 mm

what you are making the mistake of doing is not changing the pixels back to 3000 x 2000 when you up the ppi

in photoshop when you change the ppi it changes the pixel count to compensate rather than the print size. what you need to do is change the ppi then reset the pixel size back to 3000 x 2000. this in turn will shrink the print size and leave you with a perfectly printable picture

try it and you will see.

of course just changing the ppi without resetting the pixel count will create a pixelated image because your trying to print 4 x the amount of pixels that originally existed.

So from someone who has a lot of image and print experience take it from me. what ever the PPI your camera produces effects nothing of its quality. A camera that produces a shot with 10 million pixels produces just that. upping the ppi doesnt magically add more pixels. its still 10 million pixels whether you like it or not.

if you had 2 cameras. one produces 10 mp 72 ppi images and the other 10mp 300ppi images the pixels size will be exactly the same on both. However the print size on the 300 ppi image will be 4 times smaller. All its doing is nothing that cant be done manually in photoshop or similar programmes
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?
Accidentally Here 0 pts
June 14, 2009 7:15 PM
0 people rated this answer helpful, 0 people rated this answer not helpful
 
In sum: PPI = DPI = data used for properly scaling (a) screen display and (b) print ONLY. For a picture of any given pixel dimension, it is freely assignable in software without changing the actual image in ANY way (e.g.: using Photoshop). In other words, PPI is just a number that is stored alongside your image. It has nothing to do with the image itself. Exploration of Photoshop and other image editing applications will verify this.


And an aside about RAW:

"RAW" is NOT the same as "uncompressed." RAW refers to images that have been captured with a Bayer pattern sensor (as opposed, say, to a CMOS) whose image data has not been converted into a viewable or printable color space (e.g.: RGB, REC709, YUV, CMYK).

RAW images CAN be compressed (even highly -- as with, say the RED motion picture camera). So do not make the mistake of thinking that "RAW" means "everything the lens saw" or "uncompressed." The value of RAW may be that software, tuned to this kind of image capture, can offer one or two further avenues of control through post-processing -- not because it's uncompressed, but because the interpolation of a Bayer pattern adds ways to manipulate color and sharpness. For a good primer and debunker, see this article (geared towards the film industry):

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

For DIP, PPI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

...and look for the subheading "DPI or PPI in digital image files."
Report Abuse Did you find this answer helpful or not helpful?

This Question is Answered. If you have further information you may add it here.

Need to add formatting or links? Use BBCode.
Spell-check
Start Here!
Most Popular
  1. Panasonic FZ35
  2. Canon SD1200 IS
  3. Canon 500D
  4. Canon A1000 IS
  5. Canon SX20 IS
  6. Panasonic FS15
  7. Samsung SL30
  8. Canon 50D
  9. Nikon D90
  10. Canon SX120
Camera Brand
Price Range
Camera Type
Camera Line
Megapixels
Hands-On Reviews
Latest Cameras
Top Searches
Our Other Sites

Close
Loading