CAN the res on 20D be changed from 72 to 300?

hi, new member - great board

first let me prefix my question by saying that ive read ad-nauseum about how little 300/72 matters and im aware many are annoyed by the question.

that having been said - im shooting 1000's of images for a client who wants to see 300 not 72 (ppi, dpi, x or y res, whatever program theyre looking with) when they open the properties of the image. and i want to skip the step of having to post-process the image so it appears that way.

please - before you tell me it doesnt matter - please just consider my simple question - can i set the 20D to take jpgs that will show properties 300 instead of 72 yes or no, and if yes, how?

i appreciate any "yes this is how you change it on the 20D", or any "no you cant do it on a 20D" answers

TIA!

No, you can't. Not in-camera anyway. You can shoot RAW and set the conversion to JPEG at 300DPI.

No, you can't do it on a 20D or any Canon, for that matter.
You can do in post processing later, though.
Actually, you can save picture so it shows ANY dpi you want.

Why would you want to do that?

Actually, it does not matter, whether you use 300 or 72 dpi ... oh wait, I see, it's your client that wants it

Just kidding

Here's a possibly simple solution:

- Get BreezeBrowser (about $ 50)
- Shoot in RAW
- Set 'TIFF/JPG output' to 300 dpi in the 'RAW conversion' settings
- Do 'Batch processing' ... all your selected RAW images are converted to JPG with a resolution of 300 dpi.

In addition, BreezeBrowser is (IMO) a very powerful and flexible tool that is worth the 50$ for its other options.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Of course, free options are even better. So keep them coming...

PPS: Welcome to the forum

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2383653
No, you can't. Not in-camera anyway.

thanks very much! thats all i wanted to know

mky219 wrote in post #2383670
thanks very much! thats all i wanted to know

No problem. I figured I'd spare you the schpiel because...well you told us to.

Andythaler wrote in post #2383669
...
Here's a possibly simple solution:

- Get BreezeBrowser (about $ 50)

You don't even need that, use the DPP software that came with the camera.

Just batch process them all to whatever dpp you want.

Make sure that if you change the ppi (not dpi) in photoshop, that you leave the resample button switched off otherwise you will add or subtract pixels.

All that really matters in the image is the number of pixels

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2383679
No problem. I figured I'd spare you the schpiel because...well you told us to.

i already know the schpiel thanks - and thanks for everyone else's input - ill try (with what knowledge i do have) to be a useful contributor here ...

ill just keep shooting at jpg high which - as i understand it:

3504 (/300 = 11.68)
2336 (/300 = 7.78)

~ 11x7 printable size

its just a damn big file size, 3.5 megs on avg. I'm having to use dvd-r's instead of cd-r's (others who are using Nikons can send in a 300ppi 2544 x whatever @ 500kb) W/O post processing. but i love my 20D

thinking of checking out the Nikon D200 - is that a no-no to talk about here? i hated the D100.

TeeJay wrote in post #2383682
You don't even need that, use the DPP software that came with the camera.

Good point. I didn't know that, as from an ergonomics standpoint using Canon's own software for me feels like something that ought to be forbidden under the Geneva convention...

mky219 wrote in post #2383705
thinking of checking out the Nikon D200 - is that a no-no to talk about here? i hated the D100.

Well, quite obviously the D200 is the best thing in the 'prosumer' range to leave NOINK's lines for a long time (especially comparing it to the 30D non-upgrade ), but still I don't see hordes of users leaving Canon.

Take a look at the 40D (certainly it will come at some point in time) before you do anything drastic...

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote in post #2383712
Good point. I didn't know that, as from an ergonomics standpoint using Canon's own software for me feels like something that ought to be forbidden under the Geneva convention...

At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms.... I've just started using DPP (again) for quick post-processing (it seems especially good at sharpening a RAW image) and dare I say, I've been quite impressed.

Obviously it's not PS, and never could be, but I think it still has a place in my toolbox.

TJ

TeeJay wrote in post #2383721
At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms.... I've just started using DPP (again) for quick post-processing (it seems especially good at sharpening a RAW image) and dare I say, I've been quite impressed.

Obviously it's not PS, and never could be, but I think it still has a place in my toolbox.

TJ

I paid for RSP and have stopped using it since DPP 2 came out. It's nicer I guess because Canon knows what Canon had in mind as far as the parameters and such go. I never could get the clarity from my images in RSP that I can out of DPP. I don't do heavy editing with it but IMHO it's the best option before JPEG, which I finish out in PS. The workflow may not be perfect but it's not intolerable and you can speed along with it rather well once you get the hang of it.

TeeJay wrote in post #2383721
At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms .... <snip>... and dare I say, I've been quite impressed.

:o
Hmm, maybe I should try it out.
After ZoomBrowser , no Canon software ever got to be installed on my hard drive, unless it was really a prerequisite for using the camera ...

What I do like a lot about BreezeBrowser is the hoard of options for RAW conversion that have given me great results for RAW conversion since my G2 days (definitely a lot better than ZoomBrowser).
But I admit, I've never really done any hard comparisons in image quality with the 20D software. Maybe it's time now to start browsing the 'post processing' forum

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Sorry for hijacking the thread...

mky219 wrote in post #2383705
ill just keep shooting at jpg high which - as i understand it:

3504 (/300 = 11.68)
2336 (/300 = 7.78)

~ 11x7 printable size

its just a damn big file size, 3.5 megs on avg. I'm having to use dvd-r's instead of cd-r's (others who are using Nikons can send in a 300ppi 2544 x whatever @ 500kb) W/O post processing.

I don't think that's right. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Your 20D can produce 6 different types of JPEGs. You have 3 sizes (large=8.2mp, medium=4.2mp, small=2.0mp) and 2 quality levels ("fine" and "normal"). The average file size varies from about 3.3mb for large fine, down to 0.6mb for small normal.

I'm not sure which Nikon you're comparing it with, but let's take the D70 as an example since it's of similar vintage. It has 3 sizes (large=6.0mp, medium=3.3mp, small=1.5mp) and 3 quality levels ("fine", "normal" and "basic"). The average file size varies from about 2.9mb for large fine, down to 0.2mb for small basic.

So the 3.5mb files you get are the best quality JPEGs you can get from your camera. But these 500kb files that the Nikon users get are amongst the worst that their cameras can produce. You can get a 600kb JPEG from your camera, if you want to compete with them, by setting it to output "small normal" JPEGs. Of course, you're only using 2mp instead of 8mp, and that level of JPEG compression will probably show artefacting - but you can do it if you really want to.

Or you could get a cameraphone instead.

StewartR wrote in post #2383809
you're only using 2mp instead of 8mp, and that level of JPEG compression will probably show artefacting - but you an do it if you want to.

Or you could get a cameraphone instead.

Actually when you use the smaller fine settings, it doesn't compress anymore than the large fine. It just produces a dimensionally smaller file so that the data size is inherently smaller. Same goes for large normal and small normal. Smaller dimensions, same quality. I used the small fine/normal when I was shooting for the newspaper.