Image size/spec has several versions - which is best/preferred

[Pinklather]

<p>First, pls. know I DID do about 20min. of search on the topic.<br>

<br />I'm okay w/ moderate dimensions. Is it safe to assume that 300dpi is a waste? Some of the newer monitors seem to be rendering a higher density than the std. 72 dpi. <br /> <br>

Thank You for what must be a topic that noobs seem to get wrong. I appreciate your help. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you only talk about screen display, then the 'dpi' value is really meaningless, and the only thing that matters are the number of pixels. The screen (software) will "map" your pixels to the screen's pixels, and it doesn't really matter if that has a pixel density that is higher or lower.<br>

A more practical example: consider for example that most recent 19" LCD monitors have a resolution of 1920*1080. As do 22" screens, and many 24" screens. Also numberous smartphones have this resolution, at screens ranging from 4.7" to 6". 7" to 12" Tablets. And nearly all TVs, up to 55" - so, how many dots per inch is that? The only thing that matters is: 1920 pixels horizontal, 1080 vertical. If you want your image to look really great on all those screens, resize your image to those dimensions (measured in pixels), and it'll look good.<br>

When publishing to the web, file size is another consideration, and another can of worms, but still the key is dimension in pixels, not the dpi value.</p>

<p>The "dpi" thing only really matters for printing, and there 300 dpi is usually held as a good value for high quality print work that will be viewed from up close.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>300 dpi is usually held as a good value for high quality print work <em>that will be viewed from up close</em> [emphasis added]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Otherwise. <a href="