I gave an awesome picture I took with my mini 2 to a friend to print.  
He's a mac user and uses photoshop.

He complained, saying it was 72 dpi and when he wanted to print it at 300 dpi and it image would be only 2 or 3  inches in size.




I figured that if the image is 4000 pixels wide, and you wanted 300 pixels per inch, that would be 4000 / 300 = 13.3 inches wide.

So, I'm guessing that perhaps his photoshop is confused by the 72 dpi as listed in the properties tab (on my windows laptop).  

QUESTION: Why does windows show the file properties to be 72 dpi?

I then took an even better shot with my new Air 2S:




By my calculations, that would be 5472 / 300 = 18.24 inches wide.

So, what's up with that 72 dpi ?

Thanks,
Mike

Size is one thing, output resolution is another. Images are really only defined by number of pixels, not so much by DPI, which is purely a function of how large they are printed. Generally low resolution images for the web are 72DPI but in the DJI images case, the pixel size is very large. They aren't a 2 inch image at 72 DPI, they are 13 in your example.

He complained, saying it was 72 dpi and when he wanted to print it at 300 dpi and it image would be only 2 or 3  inches in size.
He's fooling himself and is dealing with things beyond his understanding.
ignore the 72 dpi .. it's meaningless

Your original image is 4000 x 3000 pixels and he can print that at whatever printer resolution he wants to.

"He's a mac user and uses photoshop."

That explains it all.

It will be large enough.

You can try and shoot in RAW. My old DSLR had JPG at 72 DPI but the same resolution RAW had 300 DPI.

DPI does not matter at all.
It is just a ratio. Nothing more.
The actual resolution is important.
JPEG out of all camera's I know are 72 DPI

wrebble Posted at 4-28 01:58
You can try and shoot in RAW. My old DSLR had JPG at 72 DPI but the same resolution RAW had 300 DPI.

Raw or jpg won't make any difference, the resolution is the same and the output dpi is meaningless.

Thanks everyone.

I found this really great article which describes it really well . . .

https://solarisstudios.com/behin ... -resolution-72-dpi/

Mike90210 Posted at 4-28 12:46
Thanks everyone.

I found this really great article which describes it really well . . .

Nice find, that's the best description of pixel "resolution" I've seen.  Very easy to understand and based on that info if you do the math it seems that the Air 2S produces photos that can be printed at 18.24" x 12.16" at 300DPI.

The article also states, "An image printed on your printer at a resolution of 200DPI may look just as good as an image printed at 300 DPI."  Choosing to output at 200DPI would give you a printed image of 27.36" x 18.24".

Labroides Posted at 4-28 05:20
Raw or jpg won't make any difference, the resolution is the same and the output dpi is meaningless.

Output DPI is not meaningless in printing (it is meaningless on screen). DPI is 'dots per inch' and it is related to print quality. 300DPI is standard high quality and there is a difference in quality between 72DPI and 300DPI print if they are the same size (see OP's reply).

Although if you print 4000x3000 image at home (or order to print it) on A4, your image automatically converts from 72DPI to 300DPI because you have enough data and printers are smart enough to understand it.

DPI knowledge is needed if you want to print it on canvas in custom size. If you send/order your image @ 72 DPI (instead of 300DPI), you will get larger and worse quality print.

I did a mistake with my previous post. I wanted to say that some cameras, like my old DSLR, make higher DPI images with same resolution in RAW (2000x1500 JPEG@72DPI and RAW@300DPI). Since in printing DPI is important, it results in larger prints.

I currently have no idea what DPI my Mavic Air 2 RAW files have. I might have bigger which means larger image can be printed with the same quality than JPEG.

Your calculations are right. Your friend miscalculated something.

72DPI comes from history and has stayed as standard - https://www.pixelperfectcreative.com/blog/72-dpi-why.
JPEG's are all 72DPI.

wrebble Posted at 4-28 20:28
Output DPI is not meaningless in printing (it is meaningless on screen). DPI is 'dots per inch' and it is related to print quality. 300DPI is standard high quality and there is a difference in quality between 72DPI and 300DPI print if they are the same size (see OP's reply).

Although if you print 4000x3000 image at home (or order to print it) on A4, your image automatically converts from 72DPI to 300DPI because you have enough data and printers are smart enough to understand it.

Output DPI is not meaningless in printing (it is meaningless on screen). DPI is 'dots per inch' and it is related to print quality. 300DPI is standard high quality and there is a difference in quality between 72DPI and 300DPI print if they are the same size (see OP's reply).
Obviously it's not meaningless when it comes to printing output.
But it's meaningless when talking about the image file.

I wanted to say that some cameras, like my old DSLR, make higher DPI images with same resolution in RAW (2000x1500 JPEG@72DPI and RAW@300DPI).
Cameras don't produce higher or lower DPI images, they just produce an image of a fixed resolution which could be output at any DPI you want.

I currently have no idea what DPI my Mavic Air 2 RAW files have. I might have bigger which means larger image can be printed with the same quality than JPEG.
Raw or jpg makes no difference, a 4000 x 3000 image prints the same whether it's jpg or has come from a dng image.

Labroides Posted at 4-28 23:30
Output DPI is not meaningless in printing (it is meaningless on screen). DPI is 'dots per inch' and it is related to print quality. 300DPI is standard high quality and there is a difference in quality between 72DPI and 300DPI print if they are the same size (see OP's reply).
Obviously it's not meaningless when it comes to printing output.
But it's meaningless when talking about the image file.

Yep, you are right about that cameras don't produce higher / lower DPI. DPI is only a measurement for print quality. I don't know where I took my information.

But you can not deny the quality difference between JPEG and RAW on DJI drones. Bellow is a example of 4000x3000 quality difference on 100% scale.



Basically you can upscale RAW to 8000x6000 and get the same quality as 4000x3000 JPEG. Although it does not matter that much on small scale prints (like A4).

wrebble Posted at 4-29 05:23
Yep, you are right about that cameras don't produce higher / lower DPI. DPI is only a measurement for print quality. I don't know where I took my information.

But you can not deny the quality difference between JPEG and RAW on DJI drones. Bellow is a example of 4000x3000 quality difference on 100% scale.

But you can not deny the quality difference between JPEG and RAW on DJI drones.
Below is a example of 4000x3000 quality difference on 100% scale.
You've shown unedited jpg straight from the camera and a corresponding image created from a raw file, that's been post processed.
I don't think that's a fair comparison.
I could edit a jpg image file to look as good as the manipulated dng image.

Geebax Posted at 4-27 21:09
"He's a mac user and uses photoshop."

That explains it all.

Adobe Photoshop was originally a Mac version only, not Windows.
Windows versions came later.

The only thing that matters with the image file is Resolution in Pixels.   
DPI is dots per inch and refers to printing and sometimes monitors.  
PPI is pixels per inch and is the proper term to use when referring to an image file.  
In Photoshop, a 12MP image is 3,000 pixels x 4,000 pixels = 12,000,000 pixels
3,000 pixels / 300 dpi can be printed 10"
4,000 pixels / 300 dpi can be printed 13.33"

Labroides Posted at 4-29 05:38
But you can not deny the quality difference between JPEG and RAW on DJI drones.
Below is a example of 4000x3000 quality difference on 100% scale.
You've shown unedited jpg straight from the camera and a corresponding image created from a raw file, that's been post processed.

Checked and seems that PS had sharpness enabled. Any other setting was untouched (color, contrast and so on)

"I could edit a jpg image file to look as good as the manipulated dng image."
.jpg is already edited and compressed file by device. You can most definetly make .jpg look good but the lost quality (from device compression/changes) you can not revert.

Labroides Posted at 4-29 05:38
But you can not deny the quality difference between JPEG and RAW on DJI drones.
Below is a example of 4000x3000 quality difference on 100% scale.
You've shown unedited jpg straight from the camera and a corresponding image created from a raw file, that's been post processed.

“I could edit a jpg image file to look as good as the manipulated dng image” -Labroides

I know the .jpg format and Photoshop have come a long way but can you really edit a .jpg to look as good as an edited .png?  Not trolling at all, just wondering if I should be shooting in .jpg + raw considering my limited ability with Photoshop.  At the moment based on my Photoshop skills I think the .jpg right off the camera looks more natural than anything I can produce by editing the .dng. Most likely just a result of my limited experience with Photoshop.  

Chuck Campfield Posted at 4-29 08:11
“I could edit a jpg image file to look as good as the manipulated dng image” -Labroides

I know the .jpg format and Photoshop have come a long way but can you really edit a .jpg to look as good as an edited .png?  Not trolling at all, just wondering if I should be shooting in .jpg + raw considering my limited ability with Photoshop.  At the moment based on my Photoshop skills I think the .jpg right off the camera looks more natural than anything I can produce by editing the .dng. Most likely just a result of my limited experience with Photoshop.

I quote Adobe webpage -
"When an image is captured in a digital camera, it is recorded as raw data. If the camera format is set to JPEG, this raw data is processed and compressed before it is saved in the JPEG format.

If the camera format is set to raw, no processing is applied, and therefore the file stores more tonal and color data. With more data stored in the file, there is more processing flexibility than a JPEG can offer. Here's a cooking analogy: a raw file contains the ingredients to make a specific meal that you can prep however you'd like, whereas a JPEG is that meal already cooked, and there is less flexibility in how you can modify it."

Here is a link where you can read a bit more about JPEG vs RAW (pros and cons) and a few examples also - https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

You can get beautiful pictures from .jpg files. They just may be overprocessed therefore you might lose details from image and you can not revert it. For example my Mavic Air 2 oversharpens and uses too much noise reduction on JPEG files causing 'washed out' effect on fine details and I can not make it better.

My suggestion is if that if you are happy with .jpg files then continue using it. If you want to get most details out of your image at max resolution (for print, PC wallpaper etc) I suggest using raw file.

Learning how to edit RAW files does not take years. So if you want to get the most of your drone shots you will get there relatively fast.

As Wrebbie said, RAW is the unedited image directly from the camera sensor.  
I think the easiest software to edit Raw is Adobe Lightroom.  Lightroom is non-destructive which means your original RAW file remains untouched. You can experiment all day long and export as many versions as you like while the original remains in tact.   Jpeg and other formats can be exported for print or web use.  You can also create books, slideshows and prints directly from Lightroom.
RAW files allow much more adjustment of highlights & shadows without introducing noise.

One of the biggest advantages of RAW is the ability to apply ICC Profiles. ICC (International Color Consortium) Profiles are the international standard for color. In Lightroom, you can install a Plug-In for Profiles like XRITE ColorChecker Passport.  It comes with a color chart that you photograph once each time lighting changes.  In Lightroom, the Plug-in will use that photo to create an ICC Profile for that lighting.  Apply that profile to all photos taken in that lighting and they are all color corrected instantly.

Chuck Campfield Posted at 4-29 08:11
“I could edit a jpg image file to look as good as the manipulated dng image” -Labroides

I know the .jpg format and Photoshop have come a long way but can you really edit a .jpg to look as good as an edited .png?  Not trolling at all, just wondering if I should be shooting in .jpg + raw considering my limited ability with Photoshop.  At the moment based on my Photoshop skills I think the .jpg right off the camera looks more natural than anything I can produce by editing the .dng. Most likely just a result of my limited experience with Photoshop.

can you really edit a .jpg to look as good as an edited dng?
Yes ... that's why I said so.

just wondering if I should be shooting in .jpg + raw considering my limited ability with Photoshop.  At the moment based on my Photoshop skills I think the .jpg right off the camera looks more natural than anything I can produce by editing the .dng.

I think jpg is probably all that most photographers need, most of the time.
Dng files are fine for demanding professionals and pixel peepers, wanting to get the most out of poorly exposed images.
But if you are shooting in good lighting conditions and getting good exposure, there's a lot less to gain from raw images.
Also, if you don't know what you are doing in Photoshop etc, it's easy to get poor results trying to postprocess raw images.

But don't feel that you must shoot raw to get great results
Don't take my word for it, do your own testing and comparison.
Do whatever gets you the results you like.

Thanks everyone.

My friend figured out his DPI printing setting and printed out the image below.

It was actually an image I took on my first flight with my DJI Mini 2.  
It's the Phildadelphia Art Museum lighted to honor healthcare workers.

He printed it at (9"x13") and it came out #GREAT !!!

I think I'll frame it as a memory of my first flight as well as the last year of pandemic.

This is the image:

Geebax Posted at 4-27 21:09
"He's a mac user and uses photoshop."

That explains it all.

  Yup, that sums it up...