I am sure this has been asked before but here it goes: When I set my Render Settings for 300dpi and adjust my pixel settings for a print size of 11x8.5 inches What I get when I open in Photoshop is 72dpi with print size of 45.828x35.412 inches ? What happened? Where did my Dpi go and why did Poser increase my Print Size? The Pixel Dimension seems to have stayed correct (3300x2550)

DPI is not as important as you might think. And DPI can be seen this way, or that way :)

Images are usually not saved with a DPI specification. Or with a size specification for printing. An image has pixels. That's it usually.

If you load an image, then it's up to the software how it interprets the number of pixels available (which in your case Photoshop did). If you want a different value (size or DPI) then the other value changes accordingly. Because the image has only a certain number of pixels, which you can distribute in different densities (DPI) on an area (image size). If you change both parameters at the same time, the software must either take away points (reduce) or invent some (enlarge).

https://snapshop.cam/dpi/

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

@igohigh, adding to the previous answer, as DPI is usually relevant at print time, what is your expected use of the image? Is it for use in digital mediums/web or physical/paper? If it is digital think pixels.

Yes, I do understand Dpi fairly well (Xerox and Sharp Electronic tech and Instructor for twenty years). My target output is Printing and that is where the Dpi does effect quality. True digital really caps off at 72dpi for Internet viewing and anything over 600dpi is determined not really noticeable by the human eye (I have not taught for ten years now and memory might get a bit fuzzy) My current Cannon Laser jet printer always tosses me a warring if I send a 'photo image' that is less then 300dpi. In this case I am printing to a Polar Matallic paper and Dpi does become noticeable especially under 200dpi. I know I can change the Dpi of an image in Photoshop but is that not just letting the software 'add pixels'?

I am mainly trying to get a grasp on why Poser allows me to set the Pixel 'size' of the image and the Dpi but upon saving it comes up 72dpi yet keeps the denominational size I set. I will have to play, but perhaps it is because I Exported in PNG? Perhaps if I export in PSD or TIF then the selected Dpi is output into the rendered image?? (I know some apps are quirky that way)

Agree that's strange, I don't output for printing but since it got me thinking I did some tests here in Poser 12. I see the same issue happening with all formats: EXR, BMP, PSD, TIF (all became 72dpi coming from a Poser original 300dpi). Exception is the TGA, this one became 96dpi...

Thanks evergas, I seemed to find the same thing only I didn't check the TGA (never use them). So would this be a "bug" to report or 72dpi just what Poser does? Or is there something we are not understanding about how Poser handles these values? I think I recall long ago (maybe P2, 3, or 4) I noticed this too but this is the first time I wanted to print on special paper where Dpi becomes noticeable.

I also tried setting my dimensions using Pixels and by using Inches....both way it will remember my settings when I reopen the file but both ways spits out out as 72dpi. I do get a nice crisp image (as viewed on the computer screen) but not sure once I tell Photoshop to increase 72dpi and shrink the Print Size if it will pixilate on the expensive paper?? I did try doing a 1600x900 with 300dpi and it too reverted to 72dpi when I opened it in Photoshop, when I zoomed in for some editing - it was pretty pixilated, not at all a 300dpi image.

If you use Photoshop's Image Size dialog, uncheck Resample, and change the dpi to whatever you want - the dimensions will change but the pixel count will remain the same.

Did previous versions do this correctly?

I thought that dialog just did the pixel calculation for you, did it actually set a dpi as well?

@igohigh if you can uncheck the resample option in photoshop as @caisson said I believe you are fine. From the little I know your worst enemy here would be some kind of resampling. If Poser sent the pixels and PS preserved the pixels it sounds good.

Okay, just to be clear: when I specify 300 dpi in Poser and export to JPG, it will save as 72 DPI. It has been verified several times. It has not been the case in previous versions: what I said I want 300 dpi, it saved in 300 dpi .

Anyone knows why this is? What am I missing?

I am probably wrong but my feelings were:

• I need 10 inches wide
• I need 300DPI, which means: 300X10=3000 pixels wide for the final picture
• In Poser: request 3000px wide, whatever Poser's DPI

Long discussion about a simple thingy.

1. Pixel is a dimensionless term. There is no specification how big a pixel is. How big it SHOWS is depending on the used hardware, printer, monitor, scanner, camera, etc. For example with a inkjet-printer a pixel can be seen as one dot coming from the spray valve..

2. According to that pixel definition a image consists of its size, e.g. paper 11 * 8,5 inch, AND the resolution what the technical equippement can/shall print, show, scan etc. And this resolution is normally named in DPI = Dot per Inch, sometimes olderwise I have found also PPI = Pixel per Inch. DPI is normally convienient on paper where PPI was used for monitors ... in the times there you could count them directly on the screen without magnifying glas :-) So in this case igohigh wanted a papersize of 11 * 8,5 inch with a resolution of 300 DPI. Poser did that correctly I guess. But Photoshop has by default a other interpretation and shows as 72 DPI in size 45.828x35.412 inches. If you divide 300 through 72 you get a factor 4.16666. Now multiplicate the 11 or 8.5 inch with that factor and you get relatively exact the sizes 45,8... or 35.4,,, So nothing has changed to the pixel content of the file and caisson is absolutely right with his hint to change the DPI in Photoshop with out resampling the stuff.

Every time output size, e.g. a paper sheet, and resolution go hand in hand and determine how much pixels come into the file, on paper, on monitor or for example on a film. For example old diapositive films had DPI of 2500 and more depending on the graininess of the emulsion. Photoshop and also TGA use that low DPI count as a relict of times there monitor could not handle more.

@Rhia474 if that is a new Poser bug (I don't believe) can only be said if your given output size in inches stayed the same. You have only named the DPI but not the image size.

@Y-Phil: nearly but you need to specify both the paper size and the DPI. Think you have set 3000 DPI and Poser finds same scales for the paper or monitor width. That will give mismatch and Poser normally use the monitor width as output size.

Okay, sorry, I wasn't clear. Screenshot of details on two renders that are pretty close to size: one is a P11, the other is a P12 render. In both, the dimensions are rather close, yet the P11 JPG shows 300 dpi and the P12 image shows 72 dpi, even though in both I specified 300 DPI.

I may be dense, but I need small words to explain this to me--I'm not a computer expert, I'm not a printing expert, I just noticed that this is happening.

Poser 11 render:

Poser 12:

@Rhia474: Indeed thats a bit misleding cause there are only named the DPI and pixel dimensions. That's only the half of the story. The first image is having width of 1069 pixel / 300 DPI = 3.563333 inch and the second image has 1343 / 72 = 18.65277 inch. These dialogs are from Microsoft given properties dialog, i'm right ? Ok, MS is not God ( maybe even some floors deeper ;-) ) so what is missing is the size of the paper this shall be printed. So how good the resolution will come out is undefined. As far as I remember (not at my Poser PC) the size dimension can be given in pixels or in inch, cm or such real values. Would be interesting if you load both into for example Photoshop what that will say to the dimensions.

There is at least one format, BMP - very old and lossless like TGA, there I have often worked with the pixel cause they get saved line by line straight behind into the file. And therefor it's rather simply to calculate the length of a diagonal line through saved image by using the Pythagoras formula a² + b² = c². c is the searched diagonal length and with a and b its easy to determine the y,x-coordinates of the given start and end points cause they parallel with the x and y axis. We have used that to determine the precission of tools in rubber industries. Works only with lossless saved images cause the pixel count in compressed files like jpeg is variable.

By the way to keep it not to easy also the Bit depth is having impact in declaring how colorful the image will be. 24 is meaning that 3 Bytes are used, 1 Byte = 8 Bit = 256 (correct 255 cause counting from 0). So 24 Bit is RGB, one Byte for one color-range either red, green or blue and is normally called true color. For example GIF is normally often 8 bit and so not true color. Also black-white images normally only need 2 Bit and are tiny. For my example with BMP above it's essential cause one Pixels is representated by 3 direcly following bytes. In the great times of GIF BMP and TGA and TIF were most important cause able to save true color. JPG came later to reduce the immense size of the files. In times of harddisks below 1 GB and floppy disks essential but with the price of reduction losses.

Oh, where are the times if I now look to my terabytes of hardisks ... but no chance one has stayed - MS Windows will fill them with tons of shit nobody is finding and needing ... :-o

Okay, so how is this? Same scene, same render dimensions, rendered in P11 and P12. Exact same properties.

How is one 72 and the other 300 dpi when nothing changed except the render software and I told both to render in same dpi?

For reference, the images:

Poser 11:

and Poser 12:

Ok, thats looking strange like a bug in P12. The P12 image is having worse resolution accordingly to 72 DPI.

But again the dialogs showing nothing about a real inch size for the images. I don't have P12. Is it possible that there is a inch scaling value for the rendered output. Though that must be tiny cause Poser is reducing the DPI but seems not to enlarge the inch by inch scale. Otherwise both images should look equal.

Here I'm finished with my experience. Looks like a job for the Poser developer :-( ... I'm waiting with my P12 money a further round ...

Yeah. I'll see if I can report this. Thanks for trying to explain this to my heavily math-challenged self.

Ha. It appears I already reported this back in February. Which is slightly ridiculous. Bit this is the response I got:

So, to the OP: it is a problem that is known. And it will be addressed, you know. Soon.

Okay all, thank you much. And yes, Rhia474, your samples is pretty much what I am getting (loss of resolution) which when printed out on high quality/special papers does degrade the print. I might also have added above to clarify: When I set out on this project I first created a Blank document in Photoshop and set it to my desired Print dimension in Dpi, Print Size (inches), and noted PS's Pixel dimension. I then set my Poser dimension to those settings and rendered. It was not until I went into Photoshop that I noticed the change. These are my settings *the P12 I just toggled Pixel to Inch to see if they matched my sample document in Photoshop, for in Photoshop if you change any One value it will change another (ie: Print size changes Pixel dimension but not Dpi, Dpi will change Pixel dimension but not Print size).

Just to verify that it is Not a PhotoShop 'thing' I have checked my render (should be 300dpi) in Three different editing apps: PhotoShop, PaintShopPro, and Affinity All are saying the saved render is only 72dpi and the Pixel Dimension is correct but the Print Size has change - SO; Poser is keeping the Pixel Dimension but changing the other other two. @JoEtzold: the Resample function is for PhotoShop (and others) when Resizing an image, it does not effect what the original image is as originally opened in the app. Yes it is a way to figit with resizing but doing so it Manipulates the Dpi/Pixel Dimension of the image (add/remove) in attempt to maintain overall resolution - kind of like the high end apps such as MegaPixel from Topaz Labs (which I don't have....yet)

While waiting for a conclusion on this issue; I do have Poser 11 but I might have to tweak some materials and settings.....I kinda liked how it came out in P12 an was hoping to do some post work before printing but as the Polar Metalic paper is not cheap....I will have to hold off and think this all through

Rhia474 posted at 10:36PM Sun, 12 September 2021 - #4427246

For reference, the images:

Those images look like you have depth of field enabled in P12. That would create areas that are fuzzier based on distance from the camera. I think that likely explains the apparent quality differences.

But for your other point, although for many purposes DPI is basically meaningless and only resolution really matters, and DPI can be changed without changing a single pixel if the resolution remains the same, DPI is still denoted in many types of image files, and that DPI may affect for example the size of the image when you embed it, or if you print it in an application that does not give you the opportunity to do any scaling, etc. It's apparent from your comparisons that Poser is failing to write that information and the images remain at the default DPI of the format. Given your comparison between P11 and P12, that bug must have appeared new in P12.

If resolution remains constant and DPI changes, then necessarily the image size must change, because any of those values is a function of the other two (regardless of the application).

@ChromeStar: I'm with you generally. But I have a bit problem like you use the word "resolution" (may be it's a german-english problem of me). With a look to the Photoshop example in the post above yours it's like I understand.

On one hand there is the PIXEL DIMENSIONS in height-pixel and width-pixel giving the resulting file size of the image in megabyte, kilobyte or such. And on the other hand there is the DOCUMENT SIZE given in height-inches and width-inches (or if choosen cm or such) AND the resolution what is the DPI. And DPI is the bridge between both blocks e.g. changing that DPI while pixel dimensions keeps the same will change the document size in inches.

And @igohigh that Photoshop example is from your starting post and if you change the DPI to 300 you should get 11 and 8.5 inches without resampling instead of those 45 and 35. So Poser and Photoshop are on the same road although one is driving on right side and the other left side. So that should be ok. And is not the same problem what Rhia474 is reporting although I'm not sure cause I know only pixel dimensions and DPI from her post and not the document size in inches what MS is not reporting in it's dialogs. What I really don't understand is your PaintShopPro example. There is a DPI of 28 with paper size 4535 and coming to 72 with 11185 inches paper size. Strange .... could it be that you have given the decimal point one position to far and how does it come to the 28.350 DPI in original ?

@Rhia474: Could it be that this depth of field like ChromeStar is guessing could be the point. Don't know if you are having Photoshop but most other 2d-programs should do also. Tried you to put both images into Photoshop and had a look to the document (paper) size in relation to DPI ? Btw. John Csaki answers are often a bit like the famous "soon" from DAZ support. February this year is not so bad cause I got such answers years ago in SmithMicro times on problems I reported and waiting up to now for corrections ... :-O

I can run them with no DoF but i guarantee the result will be the same because it is always the same in P12. I ask for 300 dpi, I get 72 regardless of size of render. But i will report back for science after I get off work this evening.. :)

@JoEtzold ; I am not sure where you are getting the figures you are throwing out there? I do not see them in my screen shots "DPI of 28 with paper size 4535 and coming to 72 with 11185"? I am working with 300dpi and the saved renders are coming out at 72dpi with the Print Dimension changed not the Pixel Dimension. Also, I am not 'putting' a decimal point anywhere, this is what the applications are reading off the Poser saved render? And I am not seeing where you see "28.350 DPI in original" in any of the posts above....are we all working off of this particular post??

Another example: (all JPG no RAW) My Cellphone takes images at 72dpi My Cannon camera at 180dpi A friend's high end camera at 300dpi

Each photo opens up with the appropriate Dpi. Changing Resolution (Dpi) with Resample On directly changes Pixel Dimension (not document print size) - meaning it spreads pixels out or deletes and compresses Changing Resolution with Resampling Off changes the Document size (print dimension) but not Pixel Dimension - in either case it must, at digital dimension, alter and thus effect clarity. The very purpose of high end (now gone AI) Resize Applications. It would seem that along your path there would be no need for such applications in the Print World for all we have to do is turn off Resample and change numbers and the Quality is going to remain the same....?

Just to clarify this stuff finally by image. I use a picture I made some days ago with Canon 2000 camera with autofocus used. Therefor the green in front is sharp while second left pink flower is a bit unsharp. Every the same ... me and my camera sometimes having different meanings about the exact focus ... so it shall be .... :-)

I have checked with Photoshop DPI is 72, in good old PhotoImpact which I used to size this examples the DPI is 96 and to show the data I used IrfanView (best freeware image viewer !!!) with again 72 DPI. And also the EXIF-data (see below) saved by the camera showing DPI as 72.

Now Irfans information directly after opening image for view:

I marked the original pixel size and the DPI and the resulting paper size in cm and also inch.

And now I changed the DPI from 72 to 300. Look for paper size in cm/inch. It changed but no change to pixel size and also no change in the file on disk. Thats the same as in Photoshop changing DPI without resample. If you let Photoshop resample it will hold the paper size and change the pixel size. So this means changing the image as such.

Now at least the EXIF data from camera stored:

Filename - IMG_0193.JPG Make - Canon Model - Canon EOS 2000D Orientation - Top left XResolution - 72 YResolution - 72 ResolutionUnit - Inch DateTime - 2021:09:07 14:22:21 Copyright - Joachim Etzold ISOSpeedRatings - 200 ShutterSpeedValue - 1/128 seconds ApertureValue - F 6.44 FocalLength - 55 mm ColorSpace - sRGB ExifImageWidth - 2976 ExifImageHeight - 1984 AF Image Width - 2976 AF Image Height - 1984

So in total as long as you define a pixel size in Poser the DPI is of nearly no interest as ChromeStar said. The DPI comes in view if you decide where to output the stuff for optimal scaling. Printer are having better resolution as monitors and all the best resolution can be achieved using foto emulsions like dia films or papers. Than you can set the DPI to size the given pixel dimensions optimal for the used material.

@igohigh : You can use Photoshop to make your correction but first change to 300 DPI without resampling and you should get the desired 11 x 8.5 inch. You can make first a control print with standard paper to save the expensive stuff and if you are satisfied with resolution go for finish.

@igohigh : to start with last sentence of your last post resolution = DPI is NOT a absolute terminus. Fullstop. Resolution is a relation of given pixel count and used output format. So as stated in your very first post you have advised Poser to make 300 DPI for 11 x 8.5 inch paper and Poser did so. But now looking on the image Photoshop is telling you 72 DPI at 45.828 x 35.412 inches (your post). You can calculate with pocket calculator as I state posts in front or let it do by Photoshop by changing the DPI without resample. The pixel size stays the same and you get the 11 x 8.5 inches. Thats fact both is the same in result.

And now to the 28.350 DPI ... some posts ago you have shown dialogs from Photoshop (correct) and PaintShopPro. Have a look to that and is there standing in the left column overtitled original this DPI count. = resolution 28.350 and in the right column overtitled New 111.096 and 85.848. These are inputable fields. May be this comes out cause you have activated resampling. Also like in Photoshop resampling have to be disabled. Have a look for your stuff.

The DPI comes not from the saved file. The programs are checking this by the given pixel count (bytes) in file and their default output settings in papersize. As also the cameras do so depending on the technical possibilities of their chipset, in former times the quality uf the used film depending on grainyness, light factor, etc. For example a 100 or 200 ASA film was good for daylight and sun, on christmas market you needed better than 400 ASA. My Canon digital can go up to more than 4000 ASA. No formerly could buy such a expensive material. Thats are technical facts. But never the less the canon is writing into EXIF data 72 DPI with a adequate output size which is not known in that moment.

Ok and now I'm out of this discussion cause all is said so far.

igohigh posted at 2:17PM Mon, 13 September 2021 - #4427311

Another example: (all JPG no RAW) My Cellphone takes images at 72dpi My Cannon camera at 180dpi A friend's high end camera at 300dpi

This might not keep standing in fact someone looking along and is fully confused.

Have just looked into the handbook. My Canon EOS 2000D is a 24 Megapixel camera. Exactly can save up to 6000 x 4000 pixels as image on memory. So with respect to the often named 11 x 8.5 inch paper size a very very simple calculation. We divide 6000 through 11 and 4000 through 8.5. The result is 545,4545 horizontal and 470.5882 vertical and thats the DPI my Canon can produce and it's not the high end model cause there are camera's with 36 megapixel and more.

And I assist ADP's post near start of the thread to read the both links he has given. Especially the first one ... very true and remarkable

@JoEtzold ; I am trying to follow you, truly I am, I am reading and re-reading all that you say. However - I too have PhotoImpact and have used it for years. I just fired it up and it too is saying that Poser 12's output render is 72dpi not the set 300dpi I input. So I fail to see how your applications are giving you different Properties for the same image? Perhaps you need to check your preference settings but I am not sure where to tell you to look as I see no setting in PhotoShop, PaintShopPro, Affinity, or PhotoImpact to tell it to 'Change' a file's properties upon opening it. Sorry I have no freeware apps however I used to use GIMP quit heavy years ago. I have worked with Photo Images since the early'ish 1990s when Sharp Electronics Corp sent me to San Fransisco to be trained direct by the makers of the FIERY systems (for color printers). I have had many classes in handling photos for print however this is something I had never ran across; usually the apps output what they are told and when opened in other apps they are what they were saved as.

HOWEVER, despite several of your calculations and oddities in your apps that just don't jive with any of the apps I have sited here (not even you recent PhotoImpact) I am now getting the jest of what you are saying: Uncheck Resample to it will Keep the Pixel Dimension size (which is correct) and change the file's calculated size to the 'Document Print" Size and "Resolution" (dpi) that Poser12 was told to render in the Quality and Clarity should remain the same....correct? ie: I ask Poser to render at 3300x2550 with a document size of 11x8.5 at 300dpi When the output render property is read by the Image Editor as 3300x2550 with a document size of 45.828x35.412 at 72dpi If I change the Document size by UnChecking the "Resample" function then edit either Document size or Resolution then the "Pixel Dimensions" remain the same just the spread of Dots Per Inch (Dpi) is altered, thus bringing me back to the document specifications I had asked Poser to render out.....Okay, I can see that should then in fact keep my resolution.

Still seems buggy to me that cameras and image editors can Save Out an image or photo in the specified "properties" but with P12 you have to correct it's mistake before sending to a printer or you may not like the outcome. I am not in habit of letting a printer "fit to page" when I an concerned about print Quality, same as an editor does not make image changes in a word editor (but perhaps not as extreme)

But I do now see what you are saying, this will work. Just an extra step and quirk I have never had to pay attention to before. For print size changes I usually allow On1 Photo Raw to handle that as the application is very good at it...but I usually crop and edit as close as i can before making such size changes.

Rhia474 posted at 8:36PM Mon, 13 September 2021 - #4427305

I can run them with no DoF but i guarantee the result will be the same because it is always the same in P12. I ask for 300 dpi, I get 72 regardless of size of render. But i will report back for science after I get off work this evening.. :)

It's not going to change that. It's not expected to change that. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. What turning off depth of field will do is remove the fuzziness so that the amount of detail will be the same uniformly throughout the image in P11 vs P12. That's all.

JoEtzold posted at 8:38PM Mon, 13 September 2021 - #4427304

@ChromeStar: I'm with you generally. But I have a bit problem like you use the word "resolution" (may be it's a german-english problem of me). With a look to the Photoshop example in the post above yours it's like I understand.

On one hand there is the PIXEL DIMENSIONS in height-pixel and width-pixel giving the resulting file size of the image in megabyte, kilobyte or such. And on the other hand there is the DOCUMENT SIZE given in height-inches and width-inches (or if choosen cm or such) AND the resolution what is the DPI. And DPI is the bridge between both blocks e.g. changing that DPI while pixel dimensions keeps the same will change the document size in inches.

When I said "resolution" I meant the actual total number of pixels in the image. That's because the term is somewhat ambiguous about whether it is resolution of a sensor, a total image size, or print density; for clarity I should have said total pixel dimensions instead.

Let me just restate my point with that corrected, and you can tell me whether it makes sense.

But for your other point, although for many purposes DPI is basically meaningless and only total pixel dimension really matters, and DPI can be changed without changing a single pixel if the total pixel dimension remains the same, DPI is still denoted in many types of image files, and that DPI may affect for example the size of the image when you embed it, or if you print it in an application that does not give you the opportunity to do any scaling, etc. It's apparent from your comparisons that Poser is failing to write that information and the images remain at the default DPI of the format. Given your comparison between P11 and P12, that bug must have appeared new in P12.

If total pixel dimensions remain constant and DPI changes, then necessarily the image size must change, because any of those values is a function of the other two (regardless of the application).

For the record, I checked my renders and neither had DoF enabled. What you see is the image on the EZDome.

Again, both renders I posted above, without DoF were the exact same height and width, both were set to render 300 DPI. Poser 11 rendered it as such, while Poser 12 rendered as 72 DPI. Poser 11 test scene rendered JPG size is 721 kB, Poser 12 scene size rendered JPG size is 631 KB.

While this discussion has been immensely educational for me (and probably many others) regarding Photoshop and image sizes in general, the fact remains: Poser 12 renders images in 72 dpi regardless of size or what you tell the program. It is a bug, and has been reported as such by me and probably many others. As of today, there is no fix, except rendering your image out in huuuuge size even for smaller output.

It is a bug. They should fix it. But that said, you can trivially change that DPI value in Photoshop or whatever graphics software you want without re-rendering or changing the pixel dimensions you are rendering it. E.g. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/image-size-resolution.html

I'm more concerned about the difference in detail, which is an entirely separate issue. If you haven't already submitted those images to support, I think it's worth doing so and have them look at what's going on.

I wonder if the "Detail" part could be the two Render Engines themselves and how they handle various materials. I have not been active here for some time but I have been lurking and reading virtually EVERYTHING since P12 came out. I have heard a lot about the two engines and some differences they have but not actually been playing back and forth but rather just trying to learn Physical Base nodes and Cycles. Which is why I am not certain I can even take my current scene back into P11 for a useful comparison.

In my current project I have used a Render Setting provided by Ghostship provide in one of their recent products labeled "CPU Final" Adaptive Sampling then tweaked the values way up to bake the image; currently about an hour+ render time opposed to original settings that render in about 15-20 minutes (on my system).

But as I have not grasped what JoEtzold was saying; "Pixel Dimension" is the Constant (provided you don't allow the image editor to 'resample') It does appear that P12 is saving out the programed values but just writing the file's 'Properties' incorrect - which is what, in my case, a Printer is going to use to put to paper.....so that, at this time, must be manually edited before sending to print.

As I recall many years ago (P3, 4, maybe 5) the engineers back then once said that Poser had a limit of "Dpi" (dots per inch) that it's algorithms could produce...long time ago but for conversation I will say 150dpi (?) so I was told that even thou I can Input '600dpi' the actual render would never truly be rendered above 150dpi. So perhaps a question....for 'Render to Print' .....might be: What is Poser 12's true capability of Dpi

Yes I grasp now "Pixel Dimension" but within that 'dimension' there is a set number of 'pixels' - Seeing as Poser if labeling the output file as "72dpi" within the Pixel Dimension set; Is 72 dots per inch really all the Render Engine capable of doing? Or if I ask for 3000x3000 Pixels, can it 'see' to rendering 300 dots per inch within that area? Or will you always only get (at digital level) 72 rendered dots per inch within the area?

I guess I am not trying view the Render Engine from a CCD element point of view.... how many Dots can it see/render within a One Square Inch area?

Just a guess, It could be made on purpose to speed up the render time in Poser 12 using Superfly and the reason why it never has been addressed to be fixed. It is known that Increasing the Dpi will cause a drastic increase of render time no matter the size, resizing actually does not Increase the Dpi as larger size will just keep the 72dpi and will render faster no matter what. Most users use a setting of 90 ++ dpi to get a good result basically 150-300 is the most used setting. So my thought is that it is not a bug it rather seems to be the render speed up key, or at least a part of it. Else it would of been addressed already a while ago.

I would be stunned if the DPI setting affected the output in any way other than DPI. A pixel is what needs to be rendered, more pixels takes longer. If you change the physical size of a pixel from 1/72nd of an inch to 1/300th of an inch, it's still one pixel.

Look, if it was a feature, I wouldn't have been told this is known and will be addressed in a future release.

Actually it is a important feature for small sized details in a Image. it is on how many Pixles dots you will have on a surface of one Inch PPi . the 72 dpi is the Ideal resolution for web as it keeps the size low . But lets look at at this

" Generally, a 600 DPI scan is the best image resolution and pixel count for paper photographs. High resolutions above 600 DPI are better suited for professional archive work due to the longer scan time and larger storage requirements. "

" 2400, 3200 and 4800 dpi — are intended for capturing really small and highly detailed sources like film negatives and slides. "

you can't take a render that was made with 72Dpi into a photo app expecting to bet a better quality by increasing the Dpi to 300. If Poser 12 is having the issue not being able increasing the Px per Inch and just render web based resolution then you might be better off with prior Poser releases to have Pro results. sure takes a little longer, but quality takes it's time.

If one renders a Image of 1500 x 1500 he will expect it to be that size and not 10 times larger because of increasing the Pixel per Inch for better detailed quality on the mentioned size. If you render screen resolution ( Size ) and increase the Dpi you will get a higher detail on the actual size being able to zoom in 200, 300, 400 % on small details without a loss or blurry artefacts.

I'm getting more and more confused with all this. For me, a pixel is a pixel, and the DPI are related to the "device" that is going to show/print" it. If someone needs more details, depending on the "final device", then increase the number of pixels of the rendered picture.

An other reason why a Dpi working feature is a Important feature.

The textures you use on the models . Take a 2048 x 2048 Texture with 72 Dpi this is actually a rather low quality texture compared to a 600 Dpi texture. Comes to it that Poser is limited like other programs on the imported Texture size but not the Dpi . so you can get a extreme high quality texture that is allot smaller in dimensions that is still supported to be applied on your models or backgrounds.

Y-Phil posted at 6:42AM Wed, 15 September 2021 - #4427474

I'm getting more and more confused with all this. For me, a pixel is a pixel, and the DPI are related to the "device" that is going to show/print" it. If someone needs more details, depending on the "final device", then increase the number of pixels of the rendered picture.

you can't Increase the DPI expecting it to be of better quality keeping the actual dimensions of the Image. The Image Dimension will shrink into a tumb nail in a extreme case to keep the quality but the print quality will not get better on your A4 it will just not fill out the paper, or digitally fill your screen without having to Zoom in the high res Render, having again a quality loss.

Rhia474 posted at 2:01PM Wed, 15 September 2021 - #4427447

Look, if it was a feature, I wouldn't have been told this is known and will be addressed in a future release.

It is a bug. The bug is that the DPI value is being written incorrectly to the exported image. It should be fixed.

But that does not change the fact that rendering the same image with the same pixel resolution at different DPI settings will yield the same pixel data in the same time. If the pixel data is different -- as shown in your two images -- something else is also going on. Two separate issues.

Cyogreem posted at 2:45PM Wed, 15 September 2021 - #4427476

Y-Phil posted at 6:42AM Wed, 15 September 2021 - #4427474

I'm getting more and more confused with all this. For me, a pixel is a pixel, and the DPI are related to the "device" that is going to show/print" it. If someone needs more details, depending on the "final device", then increase the number of pixels of the rendered picture.

you can't Increase the DPI expecting it to be of better quality keeping the actual dimensions of the Image. The Image Dimension will shrink into a tumb nail in a extreme case to keep the quality but the print quality will not get better on your A4 it will just not fill out the paper, or digitally fill your screen without having to Zoom in the high res Render, having again a quality loss.

The picture will shrink on a device that needs more pixels per surface unit, but the pixels itself won't be changed, it's only the way they are interprated and displayed/printed that will be influenced. thus if you need more pixels per surface unit on your output device (screen, printer, video projector or whatever), you will need more pixels, but increasing the DPI information will not be interprated as "Put more data in each pixel": no shrink effect, no expand effect on these data, only on their representation.

This does Not explain Rhia474's quality issue.
But this explains the Resolution Quality when 'Rendering for Print' (as opposed to Web)

There are Three different properties that will effect the PRINT Quality:

Pixel Dimension - the Area of the Image (Width & Height)
Document Size - the Size of the paper (print media)
**the Resolution - Dpi, Dots/pixels per inch (how many Dots/pixels to put on paper in each inch...limited by the Print Device)

As JoEtzold pointed out, if you do NOT let the image editor Resample the "Pixel Dimension" then you can change the Resolution by manually changing the "Document Size" or the "Resolution". This has No Effect on the Rendered "Pixel Dimension"

Therefore the Pixel Dimension becomes anchored.

These are snap shots of the Render I have that started this all:
**Inputted to Poser12 was 3300x2550 Pixel Dimension, 300 Dpi, which also in Poser showed Document size of 11x8.5

#1: As it opened in PhotoShop (Document Size changed but Pixel Dimension is proper)

#2: What happens if you change Resolution (Dpi,pixels per inch) it Changes the Pixel Dimension - THIS NO GOOD, BAD QUALITY PRINT

#3: Just Notice on This one how Unchecking "Resample" now Disables the Pixel Dimensions section.

#4: Now I can change either the Document Size or the Resolution values and manipulate to the Printer 'How many Dots/Pixels to print per inch' - This is GOOD. (I think)
I now have the Same Dimension of Pixels that Poser rendered, I just tell the Print Device how to view it.

Again, comparing #1 and #2:

I want 300dpi in a 3300x2550 Dimension of Pixels, NOT 13749x10624 Dimension.
And I want it on a sheet of paper 11x8.5 not 45.8x35.4

So basically I think Poser is kinda getting it right, only issue is that the saved File has to have it's Document Print Properties corrected (BEFORE sending to Print) for the target you were telling Poser....

Sorry to all that I brought this up.
As stated I have worked in the Print Industry for three decades and seen copier/printers go from mere B&W devices to full on Print Shops.
Only reason this is even an issue would be for someone who uses Poser for Print and this little quirk will only effect one's Print Workflow.

Example: High End printers such as I maintained, supported, and then eventually became the trainer for are very sophisticated today.
Lets say I work for a company that prints a magazine (catalog, whatever). Printers today you could have one department that writes the Text for each page into a database, the art department creates the images that will go onto these pages within the text.
Lets say I have been tasked to Render 20 images at 3x2.5 that will then be Batch Printed into a TEMPLATE that the other department has set up and uploaded to the printer.

Mind you, some of these printers you might find in an office, other in a print shop. One such printer at Xerox we called "the School Buss" because end to end it was litteraly the length of a school buss.

Now I have spent the time to set up and render my 20 images telling Poser what "size" (Including Document Size) they are to be. In this sample case I have no need for postwork, I will be sending them in what is called Batch Print to be merged to the Template the other depart has set up already on the printer.

I finish, send the images, hit the Print button for (lets say) 1,000 sets. I go to break, lunch, whatever and come back to grab the finished production.....and OOPS! One of two outcomes:

A) Nothing is done, the printer has an Error "Image(s) do not fit" and it is waiting for a response!
B) "OMG! WHAT HAPPENED"- only partial images are in the defined areas of the pages.

Now let me point out another saying in the printing industry: "Printer Ink per ounce cost more then Caviar" (in business not to mention paper and time)

Now of course in a Proper work environment: I should have Proofed the job before hitting Print and walking away.
This is an extreme example and IF "A" or "B" happened, it would be on ME. However, the fault is still Poser's....DARN YOU POSER, now I need to add an Extra Step to my work flow, that means Extra Time.

But again, for most in this forum this is crazy and meaningless. Why is this guy complaining? How does this effect me? I only print for Web or hobby, I always postwork and then save out (at which time YOU assign the file's properties), "This whole thread is a waste of my time, get over it".
True, if everyone was you.

Yes this is a minor quirk of Poser to not Output what was Input, but hey, I am the Master so do as I say! If I input XYZ then I do not want ZYX out.
Besides, I am igohigh, the guy who many are "afraid to say my screen name" (because they think it means something differnt then skydiving) and the one who always finds 'trouble' to bring up (hey, I spent my life as Paid to "find trouble" and find how to fix or work around it). Even my employers who 'pay me to find trouble and fix it' complained that "You always find trouble"....uh ya, that is what a Technician does:
-Find problem
-Define problem
-Devise or Seek solution (if beyond my ability)
-Test solution
-Implement solution
-Verify final fix

Now, that all said; I wonder why is Rhia474 getting what they are getting?

And why is it different from one version of Poser from the other? I had nothoing of this sort when I was in earlier versions. I said I want 300 dpi, I defined height and width, I got the right output. People here tell me all sort of technical explanations, but when I tried to show above is that it does not matter what I tell Poser 12 about dpi, height and width, it will always give me 72 dpi, regardless of dimensions. ANd it is confirmed to exist.

Not all of us can afford Photoshop, not all of us can do postwork processing. I certainly can't. (and please don't tell me GIMP is free, if y'all only bring up Photoshop as an example. I have it. I use it when I need to. It is not relevant to a bug that exists.)

And yes, I'm apparently the blunt, grumpy librarian.

"You always find trouble"....uh ya, that is what a Technician does

I like that mindset! These people shouldn't be seen as the boring character, they move things forward!

I agree. Poke it until it's improved!

To shorten the trouble I had a look into JPG header description. It is like with nearly most image file formats that in the header only the pixel width and the pixel height is defined/saved/stored. So no DPI or paper scale description. Even for what cause it's to the user to define there to output and not job of the image.

I have checked with  lots of my Poser images (version 7, 8, 10) and camera images in some of the up to here often named image tools. Every time I open a picture I get 72 DPI even may be 96 DPI and have to set the print output scale thus adapting the DPI. This is normal behavior of most image programs cause running on the monitor which is using 72 or 96 DPI. So for me Poser is behaving normally and I don't know there it should store a DPI value in the image file. Ok, may be in EXIF data if storing such stuff. But EXIF data are not relevant for printer steering.

If you want to know more about JPG file header have a look here https://www.file-recovery.com/jpg-signature-format.htm

Or if you want to have a look to the header of one of your images try this https://cyber.meme.tips/jpdump/# there you get listed whats in your files header.

Rhia474: I am not sure as late I do not have much time for rendering, BUT since P12 release I have heard tidbits about the render engines so I took it that is why they say opening older scenes you have to do some tweaking of materials...don't know about going backwards as I have not explored.
Now, for your image - when you set the Dimensions and the Dpi, in your Image Editor (any one, I don't know why JoEtzold gets a different reading in PhotoImpact as I do not, ALL my editors read all files as they are saved) - now, for yours; is the Pixel Dimension (height and width) still the same values as you input in Poser?

In my last samples above: Note how #1 and #4 have the Same 'Pixel Dimension' (the top values). This is Size in digital space. The 'Document Size' and 'Dpi' will be the Resolution within the Print Space on a sheet of paper. 

For my Printing I first created a Blank picture in PhotoShop, then I set my desired Resolution and Document Size and took note of the Pixel Dimension as my Image Editor calculated it - (with Resampling ON) if I change the Dpi it changes the Pixel Dimensions.
Not sure if perhaps this the "correct" way to go but to my I was Reverse Engineering so I could tell Poser what I wanted.

Now for yours, they blurry, I am guessing it may be a Render Engine issue? One Engine rendering your textures different then the other?? Not being a Poser engineer nor having the files to recreate and experiment....I am only guessing.
But check your Render in the Image Editor, see if the Pixel Dimension is as you input into Poser.

@JoEtzold; I don't know why your Image Editors do what they do. All mine (both paid and free) will always open any image up in what ever it was saved in even when I take it into a different editor - I often take my Photos as well as Renders into multiple editors to take advantage of what each has to offer.
Example: I generally begin with a photo in PhotoShop, from there I also have access to Topaz Labs filters, then I may save it and open it in On1 and do further editing, then perhaps into Affinity Photo, then back into PhotoShop - at ALL Times if it is a 180dpi photo it remains 180dpi when I reopen it. If it is a 300dpi it remains 300dpi
In ALL my Image Editing I NEVER reduce to 72dpi until the LAST step and only if I am posting to the Web. If I intend to Print it REMAINS at (generally) 200-300dpi whichever I DECIDE to do with it.

Now, there are few exceptions such as On1, that one likes to Upscale and often to an image property that I have to reduce or flatten to further work with in PhotoShop.
But still I have NO Image Program that will alter my Document Settings (page size nor Resolution) when going from one to the other.

Here are four Photos, all JPGs, all taken from Different devices, the top left being a still shot snapped from my Cannon video recorder, others from my camera, my wife's camera, and my Cannon camera.
Each device takes photos (JPG) with their manufactured Size and Resolution determined by the makers.
ALL of these four photos I ONLY OPENED in Photoshop - NO change was made to any of them - I just opened the photo and pulled up the Size via the Edit tab at the top, made NO CHANGES to ANY VALUES.
Note how each photo reports the JPG's file size.....NONE where changed from what the Camera device saved the file in.

The "File Properties" is what a printing device is going to read for output. Like the old saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out", one needs to tell the device How to print it, therein is the Document Size portion of the file's Property tag.
If I tell any editor to Save this file in xxxx and next time I open it, it reads cccc - that is a problem.

And once again - I can open All these images in All my editors and All will read the Same "Properties" for each photo/image/render/gif/png/Tiff....and so forth and so on.



Now, any Changing of these values will effect the Quality of the print. As none of these are set for printing to 8x6 or 9x10 or 11x8.5 or even some large Poster Size, the Pixels will be changed: squished (removed) or stretched (spread out and added). That technically is where the "Resample" comes in, the editor will attempt to give you a smooth pixel shift by "sampling" neighbor pixels to re-draw the resized image.
This is why in the issue of my OP I was attempting to make Poser render me the image EXACTLY the size and dimension and resolution I wanted so there would be No Resizing before sending to the final print process and therefor print out the render in all of Poser's glorious quality.

However, your pointing out the Resample function, for my case, as been the solution. The question still remains why Poser wants to Change my "Document" size that Input in Properties and makes me have to go into an Image Editor and Change it back to what I programed Poser to do Before I send to the Printer.