10 x 8 recommended pixel count

[Blank_Canvas]

Can anyone please advise me on the optimum pixel count for a 10 x 8 image?

Many thanks.

 

[Nod]

Using the oft quoted "industry standard" 300 dpi print resolution, 3000px x 2400px should be what you're aiming for. That's 7.2MP but and odd aspect ratio - most DSLRs are 3:2 rather than 5:4, so taking 2400 as the short side pixel dimension of the sensor, you'll be wanting a 3600 x 2400 or larger sensor which would be 8.64MP. In the real world, you can usually get away with a lower pixel count. (The above assumes you mean 10" x 8" not feet!)

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Thank thats very helpful. I find the whole subject of resign, sharpening and sizing a quite complicated in photoshop CS6, I'm sure there is a simple technique to it all.

 

[Nod]

I usually use a quick and dirty method that seems to work well for me. I use the crop tool. I set the picture dimensions in cm then set the resolution to 300dpi. PS then constrains the crop to the correct ratio and resamples to get the required resolution. This doesn't work as well when upsizing a lot but is okay for what I'm after. Once I've got the pic at the right size, I usually zoom in to print size then apply as little sharpening as possible (often none at all) if required. I should add that I always shoot in JPEG so the cameras have already added some sharpening to the file before export.

 

[KIPAX]

OK heres my method...

My screen is bigger than a 10x8 ..if it looks OK on my screen then it generally looks OK printed..

Sorry but for me... it really is that simple and has worked well for many years..

 

[sk66]

I never downsize an image for printing.... IMHO, there's no point to it.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Many thanks for the advice. I'm probably over complicating things.

 

[EOS_JD]

First of all, dpi is a printger resolution. Totally different to what you guys are talking about above.

TRhe references to dpi should in fact be ppi as all ppi does is affect the print size from any set number of pixels.

300ppi is an often quoted number for the best quality print and to an extent that is correct. If you need a print larger than the number of pixels you have available at 300ppi then you caneasily lower the ppi to get a suitable print. For large prints you can easily get a very high quality image at less than 100ppi. Adding pixels (resampling) your image does not magic detail and can and does degrade the quality of your images - although at very high reolutions, the difference is not very much.

If you send images to the lab with more than 300ppi, it really is overkill. By having more pixels all you are doing is slowing your process down - that could be sending larger images than is needed to your lab - fine for a few images but multiply that by 300 and things will slow down, it uses more disk space than is needed which can slow down the speed your system exports images etc.

So for a 10x 8 you need 3000 x 2400 pixels (if your image has that available). If not you would still get a perfectly acceptable high quality print from an image with a quarter the number of pixels (1500 x 1200 pixels).

I've written a peice on resolution and ppi/dpi although not sure if it's easy to read Work in progress.

http://www.jbdavies.co.uk/resolution/ppi-dpi/

Feel freee to leave a comment here if there's anything you might chjange.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

That's a really interesting article, thank you for posting that.

 

[EOS_JD]

Thanks. Hope it made sense ok

 

[sk66]

If you send images to the lab with more than 300ppi, it really is overkill. By having more pixels all you are doing is slowing your process down - that could be sending larger images than is needed to your lab - fine for a few images but multiply that by 300 and things will slow down, it uses more disk space than is needed which can slow down the speed your system exports images etc.

Valid point...
Not that I've ever done a few hundred (or even a few dozen) in one batch, and I don't usually save the exported jpegs. So, *for me* it's not much of an issue.

I would say that if you want the maximum image quality then the PPI of the file for print size should at least be equal to the DPI resolution of the printer (base DPI, not multiplied by the number of colors it uses). I do agree that you don't necessarily *need* maximum image quality though.

 

[EOS_JD]

Whilst I agree, resampling the image to get 300ppi defeats the purpose. The printer's RIP software will do a better job than most resampling tools - Genuine Fractals does a good job but really you camn't just magic extra detail that's not reallu there in the first place.

At very high resolution files, to be fair the difference is so tiny you don't see it, so i say why even bother

 

[sk66]

I was referring to downsampling for workflow efficiency...

 

[EOS_JD]

Absolutely Steven, I would downsample images to 300ppi.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I never downsize an image for printing.... IMHO, there's no point to it.

^this

Never seen any advantage to downsizing a print. Plus.. bear in mind, this "industry standard" of 300dpi is not set in stone. Many inkjet printers can print at far higher resolutions than that. I regularly print on a Epson 9900 and it can print at FAR higher resolutions than 300DPI.

Don;'t change the pixel res. If you use photoshop, just go to image/image size, and un-tick the "resample image" box, then set the print res to the size you want at 300dpi. That should keep the pixel resolution unchanged

 

[EOS_JD]

^this

Never seen any advantage to downsizing a print. Plus.. bear in mind, this "industry standard" of 300dpi is not set in stone. Many inkjet printers can print at far higher resolutions than that. I regularly print on a Epson 9900 and it can print at FAR higher resolutions than 300DPI.

Don;'t change the pixel res. If you use photoshop, just go to image/image size, and un-tick the "resample image" box, then set the print res to the size you want at 300dpi. That should keep the pixel resolution unchanged

There are advantages and it's speed. Exporting a few hundred smAller images sized correctly will make a difference to your time. Uploading a few hundred images sized correctly will save a lot of time. To be fair it depends what you're doing at the time.

Also 300ppi (not dpi) is actually seen as an standard but it's actually totally incorrect to say 300ppi is the best quality as again it depends what you are printing and the size you are printing at. But you seem to be mixing dpi and ppi incorrectly.

Don't get ppi and dpi mixed up. www.jbdavies.co.uk/resolution


An Epson 9900 CANNOT print "far higher" resolutions. Manufacturers use skewed numbers. In fact the Epson Pro 9900 has a head with a resolution of 360 nozzles so max effective resolution of 360dpi. The skewed number of 2880 x 1400 contains the number of droplets it uses to make one dot which is very different. In fact with 10 inks it may need to use all of them to create a single dot at the right density of colour so the effective resolution drops to 288dpi. Somewhat lower than the 300 you mentioned.

Back to the digital image. Switch resampling off. If the ppi value is lower than 300 don't worry. Your printer will print at the same resolution. Ppi measures only the print size for any given number of pixels.

Dpi is a measure of how the printer lays down its dots of ink.

The two are totally unrelated.

 

[Pookeyhead]

An Epson 9900 CANNOT print "far higher" resolutions. Manufacturers use skewed numbers.

Don't worry... I'm not wet behind the ears. It can manage more than 300dpi though.. depending on how you measure it. I can create a document with 300 discreet black lines on it, and sent it to the printer at 300DPI and I'll get 1 one inch print with 300 fairly well defined black lines on it when examined closely... I can then progressively lower the DPI to squeeze those lines into a smaller and smaller print. They don't just magically disappear once I go below 300dpi, they'll progressively become less and less defined. I appreciate that this isn't a true measurement of dpi before you say that, but prints can be perceptibly sharper by keeping pixel resolution as it is rather than lowering it to achieve some arbitrary DPI figure. I can notice a marked difference in some prints when I just switch off re-sampling and dump it to the printer as opposed to down sampling the pixel resolution to achieve a 300ppi target. Which was my point... just switch off resampling and send it to the printer at whatever document size you need.

File size is an issue though, and worth mentioning. That depends on whether you're doing your own printing or not. I'd not like to upload 30x 400MB files, no. I'd also not like to be the printer downloading them at the other end. If I was printing my own stuff though, then it doesn't take that long to spool a 400MB file to the printer.

In fact the Epson Pro 9900 has a head with a resolution of 360 nozzles so max effective resolution of 360dpi. The skewed number of 2880 x 1400 contains the number of droplets it uses to make one dot which is very different. In fact with 10 inks it may need to use all of them to create a single dot at the right density of colour so the effective resolution drops to 288dpi. Somewhat lower than the 300 you mentioned.

Back to the digital image. Switch resampling off. If the ppi value is lower than 300 don't worry. Your printer will print at the same resolution. Ppi measures only the print size for any given number of pixels.

Dpi is a measure of how the printer lays down its dots of ink.

The two are totally unrelated.

If you switch resampling off, then you can't separately adjust the print size and dpi anyway. No idea why I wrote 300dpi... apologies if that was confusing.

 

[EOS_JD]

Don't worry... I'm not wet behind the ears. It can manage more than 300dpi though..

Yes the printer itself outputs in dpi and at the top resolution is effectively 360dpi. You don't have too much control over the dpi as it's a printer setting.

I can create a document with 300 discreet black lines on it, and sent it to the printer at 300DPI and I'll get 1 one inch print with 300 fairly well defined black lines on it when examined closely...

You're use of the term dpi is still wrong. And what you say is therefore incorrect. You can send to the printer at 300ppi and it's that setting that determines the print size - not the dpi.

You need to send at 300ppi (images are only made of pixels). Sending a 300pixel x 300pixel image (of lines) at 300ppi will produce a 1" square. Yes the lines will bve very well defined. They will also be very well defined at any ppi figure you care to mention down to about 240ppi where below that you may see a very slight drop in quality.

For very small images ideally you want the maximum ppi avalable - it's said the human eye cannot resolve detail over this arbitraray 300ppi figure. But the eye actually struggles to see detail beyond 240ppi...! The larger the print the further that print is viewed from by the viewer. The further away the print isfrom the eye, the less detail your eye can actually resolve. How often do you look at a 30"x20" print at the same distance you view a 10x8? Probably never if truth be told because when that close you can't see the image itself! So at normal viewing distances you can go down to lower than 100ppi and not see any difference in the quality of the image.

Sure if you use a microscope you will be able to see the odd change but like there is no need to pixel peep your images, there is also no need to dot peep either.

It is ppi that determines the print size (not dpi) and lowering the figure does not necessarily mean a drop in the quality of the print. Lowering the printer's dpi will have a greater effect.

I can then progressively lower the DPI to squeeze those lines into a smaller and smaller print.

Not sure you get this at all? Lowering the dpi will produce a poorer quality image but will not change the size of the document.

Lowering the PPI will actually INCREASE the size of the print as you spread the pixels further apart. A 150ppi document for example will print twice the size of a 300ppi document.

They don't just magically disappear once I go below 300dpi, they'll progressively become less and less defined.

Quite true if we are discussing ppi. BUT you wouldn't actually see it with your eye until it's much lower than 300..... Try it.

I appreciate that this isn't a true measurement of dpi before you say that, but prints can be perceptibly sharper by keeping pixel resolution as it is rather than lowering it to achieve some arbitrary DPI figure.

I can notice a marked difference in some prints when I just switch off re-sampling and dump it to the printer as opposed to down sampling the pixel resolution to achieve a 300ppi target. Which was my point... just switch off resampling and send it to the printer at whatever document size you need.

To be fair that could be right, and I agree resampling the image will lower the quality of your image as photoshop randomly throws away detail or adds pixels to your image (adds pixels - not detail if upsampling). The detail you see is not because you are printing at higher than 300ppi but because when photoshop throws away pixels (or adds pixels) it has to lose some of the detail. But the difference in high resolution images is tiny. A customer would never see it.

File size is an issue though, and worth mentioning. That depends on whether you're doing your own printing or not. I'd not like to upload 30x 400MB files, no. I'd also not like to be the printer downloading them at the other end. If I was printing my own stuff though, then it doesn't take that long to spool a 400MB file to the printer.

I was thnking more like 300 x 10Mb files as opposed to 300 x 2Mb files - But the idea is the same. And sure if you are printing at home, then larger images are not a problem.


Images are made of pixels and it's these that determine the size depending on

If you switch resampling off, then you can't separately adjust the print size and dpi anyway. No idea why I wrote 300dpi... apologies if that was confusing.[/quote]

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Ultimately... ask your printer how THEY would like you to present your files. They will know their equipment and how to get the optimum results from it.

 

[EOS_JD]

Charlotte actually I agree and disagree. I do that just to keep the peace and because the difference is sometimes very small. But even printers don't understand it!

My local printer wanted a file from me for a 3m x 1m print at 300ppi (he said dpi and I corrected him but that fell on deaf ears).

No point arguing and I gave him the file that was approx 36000 pixels on the longest edge. Then he said nonono I only need a quarter of the resolution!! So I said well I could have gave you the image at 75ppi and it would have been exactly the same size - He didn't get that lol So he printed my image at 75ppi on a 300dpi printer and it looks fantastic.

All that matters ultimately is pixels.

But also Charlotte we are also taking about home printing here and it's very useful to understand how to size yuour images correctly for print and undestand when to listen to a printer and when not to!

 

[gerry s]

With regards Epson printers (its all Ive ever printed on but the others will surely be similar) I think that if you just keep to the native resolution (uncheck resample image) you can send anything between 180ppi to 480ppi to the printer and it will take care of it... That would probably give you from A4 up to 28"x18" without resampling...Obviously if you are outsourcing the printing give the printer what he wants.

 

[EOS_JD]

Gerry honestly you can print at a far lower pixel resolution and still get a very high quality image. Obviously depends on the iq to start with but you can easily print great images at lower than 100ppi

 

[gerry s]

Absolutely agree obviously with the proviso of a good image to start with and correct sharpening. I was just trying to get over the point that unless you are printing at huge sizes then native resolution is the better option.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes the printer itself outputs in dpi and at the top resolution is effectively 360dpi. You don't have too much control over the dpi as it's a printer setting.



You're use of the term dpi is still wrong. And what you say is therefore incorrect. You can send to the printer at 300ppi and it's that setting that determines the print size - not the dpi.

You need to send at 300ppi (images are only made of pixels). Sending a 300pixel x 300pixel image (of lines) at 300ppi will produce a 1" square.

I do understand.. just assumed by saying "send it to the printer at 300dpi" you'd understand I was referring to a 300 pixel image sent at 300ppi.

I really do not see the point of insisting that saying dpi when you mean ppi is such a big deal tough... if someone understands they understand. A print is made of dots, and a digital image is made of pixels. I get that.. I think most people do. Fact still remains that a 300 pixel wide image set to 300ppi will still print at 1 inch regardless of whether I call them pixels or dots

No matter how hard I try though.... I don't think I'll ever get out of the habit of just using dpi for both. It's like trying to remember to buy loo rolls.... just not gonna happen.

[/quote]

 

[EOS_JD]

Absolutely agree obviously with the proviso of a good image to start with and correct sharpening. I was just trying to get over the point that unless you are printing at huge sizes then native resolution is the better option.

Gerry that's my point - Even at big sizes, native resolution is better, Photoshop can't add detail that just isn't there. There is a point where I would consider some upsampling - But I've not reached that point yet.

 

[EOS_JD]

I really do not see the point of insisting that saying dpi when you mean ppi is such a big deal tough... if someone understands they understand. A print is made of dots, and a digital image is made of pixels. I get that.. I think most people do.

Surely referring to ppi and dpi correctly would avoid a huge amount of the complexity and misunderstanding of the terms. Far less confusion if you use the correct terms.

Fact still remains that a 300 pixel wide image set to 300ppi will still print at 1 inch regardless of whether I call them pixels or dots

I agree but if you call them dots and mean dots and not pixeks how do we know that is correct?

300pixel image printed at 300ppi is 1 inch
But a 300 pixel image printed at 300dpi means you actually don't know the size of the final image as the ppi could be totally different (meaning a different size of print).

No matter how hard I try though.... I don't think I'll ever get out of the habit of just using dpi for both. It's like trying to remember to buy loo rolls.... just not gonna happen.

Obviously a choice but for people who dopn't know it just becomes very complicated. So long as you understand fine but the two are totally unrelated to each other. At least Photoshop and Lightroom get it right

 

[Pookeyhead]

I agree but if you call them dots and mean dots and not pixeks how do we know that is correct?

I'm not disagreeing with you in that sense.. it just has no effect on the end result if you say DPI instead of PPI... at the end of the day, the figure you type in the box is what matters. If Photoshop had the option to set DPI instead of PPI and doing so made a difference, then sure... that would cause havoc, but it doesn't.

300pixel image printed at 300ppi is 1 inch
But a 300 pixel image printed at 300dpi means you actually don't know the size of the final image as the ppi could be totally different (meaning a different size of print).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no option in photoshop to set the printer's dpi. So if I make my image 300pixels square, and set 300ppi it will print at 1 inch. It will still do so if I call it dpi. There's only one place you can set the print resolution.... I could call it sausages per inch if I wanted to... wouldn't make a difference

Obviously a choice but for people who dopn't know it just becomes very complicated. So long as you understand fine but the two are totally unrelated to each other. At least Photoshop and Lightroom get it right

I fully agree with you there. I readily admit that... like I said.... I'm 46 years old, and still can not remember to buy loo rolls I'll probably still call it dpi even after this conversation... and you're quite right to correct me. Still makes no difference to the size of the print though.

 

[EOS_JD]

I'm not disagreeing with you in that sense.. it just has no effect on the end result if you say DPI instead of PPI...

Unless you mean dpi and not ppi lol - It really does make a difference because they're not the same.

at the end of the day, the figure you type in the box is what matters.

Exactly correct - and that box is either pixels/inch or pixels/cm. We normally use /inch - Nowhere does it mention dots in Photoshop.

If Photoshop had the option to set DPI instead of PPI and doing so made a difference, then sure... that would cause havoc, but it doesn't.

Because dpi is a PRINTER DRIVER setting - DPI has nothing to do with digital images nor photoshop.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no option in photoshop to set the printer's dpi. So if I make my image 300pixels square, and set 300ppi it will print at 1 inch. It will still do so if I call it dpi. There's only one place you can set the print resolution.... I could call it sausages per inch if I wanted to... wouldn't make a difference

I think my last response confirmed that - so why use DPI? Why cause confusion - I get that you understand it (I do) but not everyone does.
It's like calling you Bob instead of David.

I fully agree with you there. I readily admit that... like I said.... I'm 46 years old, and still can not remember to buy loo rolls I'll probably still call it dpi even after this conversation... and you're quite right to correct me. Still makes no difference to the size of the print though.

haha I know (and I'm also 46) It's just that anyone else who discusses dpi will still be confused - I also understand even professional printers call it dpi. I'll keep up my one man revolution to describe resolution

www.jbdavies.co.uk/resolution

 

[Pookeyhead]

Unless you mean dpi and not ppi lol - It really does make a difference because they're not the same.

No.. but you can't mess it up by using the wrong words.

Exactly correct - and that box is either pixels/inch or pixels/cm. We normally use /inch - Nowhere does it mention dots in Photoshop.

Quite.. but that's not what were discussing. Confusing ppi and ppcm is something else entirely.

Because dpi is a PRINTER DRIVER setting - DPI has nothing to do with digital images nor photoshop.

I know... and I also know that you understand what I'm saying here In Photoshop... there's no option to set the printer's dpi. You can't get it wrong if you CALL it dpi.. you can only input the ppi. I'm sure you do actually get my point here

I think my last response confirmed that - so why use DPI? Why cause confusion - I get that you understand it (I do) but not everyone does.
It's like calling you Bob instead of David.

I've been called worse

I'm not saying you SHOULD confuse people... I'm not saying you SHOULD use dpi either. I'm saying that so long as someone fully understood how to prep a file to print, I wouldn't pedantically correct them if they mistakenly called it dpi. I fully understand how to prep files for print.. and you pointing out that I call it dpi instead of ppi will not make my prints any better. I've already said you are absolutely right to correct me.. but I know for a fact I'll probably still carry on calling dpi... not on purpose to protest anything, but for the same reason I forget to buy loo rolls I know loads of people who call it dpi too... but they can print as well as you or I probably... they've been doing it long enough.

However... relax.. I know full well why you're correcting me in here... hopefully, it's not for my benefit, but for the benefit of others.

 

[EOS_JD]

No.. but you can't mess it up by using the wrong words.

Unless you chang the printer setting instead of the ppi.... But I know what you mean./ Enter the required resolution to give the size you want to print and job done.

Quite.. but that's not what were discussing. Confusing ppi and ppcm is something else entirely.

What I weas getting at is Photoshop never mentions dpi - so why use it?

I know... and I also know that you understand what I'm saying here In Photoshop... there's no option to set the printer's dpi. You can't get it wrong if you CALL it dpi.. you can only input the ppi. I'm sure you do actually get my point here

Yes - But see above lol
Why even use the term dpi? Why cause the confusion at all?

I've been called worse

Me too

I'm not saying you SHOULD confuse people... I'm not saying you SHOULD use dpi either. I'm saying that so long as someone fully understood how to prep a file to print, I wouldn't pedantically correct them if they mistakenly called it dpi. I fully understand how to prep files for print.. and you pointing out that I call it dpi instead of ppi will not make my prints any better. I've already said you are absolutely right to correct me.. but I know for a fact I'll probably still carry on calling dpi... not on purpose to protest anything, but for the same reason I forget to buy loo rolls I know loads of people who call it dpi too... but they can print as well as you or I probably... they've been doing it long enough.

However... relax.. I know full well why you're correcting me in here... hopefully, it's not for my benefit, but for the benefit of others.

I get it and you are 100% right it is indeed for those who know less - And I know that people will continue to call it dpi - I just would like people to understand it (even if they still want to call iot dpi)

 

[Pookeyhead]

Unless you chang the printer setting instead of the ppi.... But I know what you mean./ Enter the required resolution to give the size you want to print and job done.

Even if you did change the printer resolution in the driver.... a 300pixel wide image set to 300ppi will still print at 1 inch. Fairly certain this is the case. I'm prepared to be corrected here though, but I know I tend to leave the printer driver set to 1440dpi as it seems to default to that (no, I don't believe it's delivering 1440 in reality), and my prints are always the correct size. I just see no point in changing it.

What I was getting at is Photoshop never mentions dpi - so why use it?

No idea is the honest answer.
I know it's a very common trait though. Must have come from somewhere. Never thought about it before, but I know it's going to bug me until I find out though .... Cheers

 

[EOS_JD]

Even if you did change the printer resolution in the driver.... a 300pixel wide image set to 300ppi will still print at 1 inch. Fairly certain this is the case. I'm prepared to be corrected here though, but I know I tend to leave the printer driver set to 1440dpi as it seems to default to that (no, I don't believe it's delivering 1440 in reality), and my prints are always the correct size. I just see no point in changing it.

That is correct - All that matters in resizing is the ppi value.

No idea is the honest answer.
I know it's a very common trait though. Must have come from somewhere. Never thought about it before, but I know it's going to bug me until I find out though .... Cheers

I've read it was about printing and designers using dpi. But seemed to transfer to mean ppi and both were confused and merged and now everyone just seems to use dpi (incorrectly) lol (still can't help myself) lol

 

[sk66]

DPI printer resolution is a VERY misleading bit of information.. a 300dpi 6 color printer is probably going to be listed as a 1800dpi printer (300x6), but it really isn't. In reality DPI has very little correlation to PPI. PPI is print size, DPI is printer resolution...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yeah.. we're discussing why the term mistakenly persists as a single meaning for both. As usual with measuring stuff like this numerically though.... it's always misleading. While silly figures such as 2800dpi are obviously nonsense, perceptually, a decent inkjet seems to produce a lot more than the 300ppi people aim for as a print resolution. Someone's probably measured it no doubt. This is similar to out other debate we had where two lens/camera combination have the same MP figure listed against sharpness, yet one is demonstrably sharper than the other. As usual, measuring things numerically is always useless. Just create an image and see what's what.. that's the only way.

 

[gerry s]

Dpi isnt really missleading, it means the dots put down by the printer and 2880 isnt a silly figure it means thats how many dots are printed at that setting. Dpi doesnt have to have any correolation to ppi as they represent different things. Its actually very easy to understand but would be made much easier if people didnt keep saying it doesnt matter what they say its what they mean that counts... Just say the right thing.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Charlotte actually I agree and disagree. I do that just to keep the peace and because the difference is sometimes very small. But even printers don't understand it!

Work with better printers then. I pay the printers I use BECAUSE they know an awful lot more than me about it and they're experts in their field.

But also Charlotte we are also taking about home printing here

Are we?

The OP doesn't mention that they're printing at home, unless you have insider info?

 

[EOS_JD]

Work with better printers then. I pay the printers I use BECAUSE they know an awful lot more than me about it and they're experts in their field.

they would have you believe that. go to the leading lab in the uk. Loxley. They don't ask you to provide a ppi setting. Just size correctly and done.go to proam and they want 402dpi wtf is that about lol!

 

[EOS_JD]

oh and charlotte the conversation had moved on. The op only asked a very simple question that you didn't discuss either.

 

[EOS_JD]

and just to say ppi actually had no relevance to how the lab actually prints the image. Their machines normally have a fixed dpi. ppi is used to size images correctly. its nonsense for a lab to ask you to resize to any dpi. They would be correct only to ask for a set number of pixels.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Dpi isnt really missleading, it means the dots put down by the printer and 2880 isnt a silly figure it means thats how many dots are printed at that setting.

It is silly, because it will be nowhere near 2800 dpi