Just my two cents here ... I'm mostly using the old P4-poses (the complete range as given long ago) and than adjust as necessary step by step. If there is no original pose usable for the figure thats the easiest methode as you every time need to adjust given poses to what you have and want. Only bigger problem with doing so could be with figures which have a double neck part but also there as in all other cases I had never exploding objects or similar crazy stuff. By the way I have never used universal poses ... may be cause I was happy that other way ...

I guess you could only mean this one: http://www.dmi-3d.net/index.html#

Lots of free car , truck , bus and military vehicle models in many formats and great precision. Have fun there ...

Rhia, we have that discussed deeply in that other threed. The DPI is only the crosslink between digital size (defined in pixel x pixel) and the printing size (defined in inch x inch or cm x cm as you are used)). So VedaDalsette's way is absolute correct. Define your render in pixels for height and width as you want to see and give poser the size for your print as inch by inch and you will get a optimal output. Or a other way define your wanted pixel size for rendering and give the cross calculating value as DPI. In this way Poser should estimate the print size (or viceversa the render size with given print size) itself and indeed this way seem to be trashy in Poser 12. But no real problem cause you every time can get the correct output as you wish.

And truely no need to open up that other threed again cause there was all and more said and even given a lot links to interesting and true internet links from printing and/or photography where this absolute super easy theme is also known.

This is a fault since the early beginning of Poser and not only on a Mac but also on each Windows version. So it's a general fault and especially a absolute programming greenhorn fault not to respect given pathname only using the filename. In one runtime this error is must nerving but having some runtimes in parallel it's becoming absolute time wasting to find out what is disturbing your render such horrible. And I have posted that error round ten years back to the hotline without finding some interest (or could it be knowledge ... ?). So this is truely not new to the developers and/or users. Let's hope for the future ...

I'm so sorry but the settings in poser and shown by phtoshop from Igohigh some posts back and the arguments from Cyogeem just above are completely rubbish. As long as you set a 640 x 480 pixels render area its completely equal what DPI you set. You get everytime a 640 x 480 pixels output. DPI first comes into play if you want to output these pixels to paper or what else which is measured in inches or cm or else.

You seems to simple to understand that DPI or PPI is nothing absolute or ownstanding. It is only the bridge or relation between square pixels on one hand and a in real values measured paper or something else. Nothing more and nothing less.

If you want to understand that truely I suggest that you search in photographing forums for DPI and you find lots like you but also real professionell photographers which are declaring what is declared here around in several aspects.

#igohigh: I'm truely astonished about what you have written abaout printer people opposite computer people. You should remember that your beloved printers are able to do high quality output first since those computer people gave them a lot of electronic life. And I'm truely mostly astonished about your discussion cause I was absolutely in the opinion that a printing instructor should knows all about these above stuff to be good in his profession. Ok, sometime I can lay wrong ... I see. So be happy with your opinions further on ... if correct or not ...

But just for some others may be interested and not such simple as you: I'm since 40 years in that hobby business first with photografics and then also with rendering since their first moments. And that all with poster sizes as also with small handhelds on monitors, simple papers, photographic papers and seeing throug materials. So never again come around with your personel completely unproofen assumptions ...

Just a mnemonic as a quotation from the posts of a other user here I came across:

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

Might be a bit heavy and so not my style but going somewhat to the right direction by trend. :-)

igohigh posted at 7:28 PM Mon, 27 September 2021 - #4428207

So; is ANY version of Poser actually Rendering at resolutions higher then 72 ?? Poser 11 claims that it is, but Poser 12 is saying it can't.

For Poser 2014 Pro I can definitve say it's doing higher DPI than 72. It can be seen with the images contense, sharpness, etc. as also by the increasing render times and the size of the render buckets.

As far as I know Poser 12 is up to this moments not placed as final but as a so called early release. So don't know if and when it becomes final including a python scripts solution and up to that moment 2014 Pro or 11 are the friends.

igohigh posted at 1:52 PM Tue, 21 September 2021 - #4427811

My issue when I posted was that Poser is not writing OUT what the operator writes IN.

Thats not completely true. Poser is writing out whats his primary task. A correct rendered image in wished pixel dimensions. And up to version 11 it is also writing out eventually given DPI according with paper size in inch or cm or pixel. on your choice. And this last secondary task seems broken in version 12. I can't proof cause I'm waiting to buy Poser 12 until better solution for use of older python scripts is given and most bugs are solved. (Have never installed any Poser version until min. third service pack was out.) I have all that said just checked with test renders in Poser 2014 Pro (thats the version before 11 and 12 so now called 10).

And b.t.w. as I said before mostly all image formats are not writing DPI and such stuff in their original header specification only pixel dimensions. And this is for JPG, PNG and also PSD the same. DPI as also paper sizes if available are stored in the metadata. And thats a problem cause this metadata are not a fully complete standard. There are some parts which are common and DPI and paper size are not in this. Everyone can add further data in that metadata. So on one hand it's not defined wether to write such data nor is it asured that a particular program can and do read them. In first line metadata was thought for information not for operation. That came later and as everytime if doing something not defined fully in the beginning it's a fine part for may be getting troubles.

I have never ever said something against printing lots of images as bulk automatical. I don't do so and I guess most of Poser users also not cause a main theme here around is everytime the reworking of the renders in image manipulation programs. And then it's only one step more to set the correct output size for the given pixel dimensions. And b.t.w. I was not upset about this thread I was upset about renderosity cause one again they puzzle on their internet design and its not bug free. I lost this way two posts and with marking all read doesn't come back to the top level above but have to navigate back.

Now I'm upset cause the renderosity software has eaten up again a fine answer post of me. It's the second time and I have no interest in redoing that every time twice.

And also this complete thread is much more than a academic excourse for a truely simple and trivial thing and much more than I have ever thought about DPI and that stuff my whole life long.

And no fear about my programs. They are all fine may be a bit old the one or other but fully fit on work. But I have none changed in DPI setting. No need for that and so they all start with 72 DPI by default. As also the Canon EOS 2000D there no setting is given to change the standard 72 DPI. I just had a look into the official handbook. And why should I fiddle with DPI. As far as the original pixel size keeps untouched you can work and manipulate as much as you want in e.g. Photoshop. First at the end you need to decide what and where to output and then DPI together with paper size is important.

So for me this is working absolutely perfect and I have no need for printing lots of different pictures automatical. B.t.w. most image formats are not storing DPI as original part of their specification but in between in the so called metadata (e.g. EXIF) and from there they can be read again as far as a program is capable using such metadata. For example even Photoshop CS2015 is killing those metadata from a file if you use "save as ... " and no DPI is anymore. (have a look to the Photoshop forums at Adobe)

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.

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

@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.

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.

@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

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 ...