Thread: Amazon: Cover image should be 72dpi and 300ppi
View Single Post
Old 03-09-2021, 04:41 PM   #3
j.p.s
Grand Sorcerer
j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.j.p.s ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 5,806
Karma: 103362673
Join Date: Apr 2011
Device: pb360
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillipgessert View Post
I would just ignore the dpi/ppi and build to the pixel dimensions listed in the dimensions section. My best guess is that they're making a distinction between min res (72dpi) and best res (300+ ppi). But their documentation overall seems to have an often-confusing mix of digital and print specs, as is further shown in your screenshot where they've made sure to also point out that your ebook cover should not contain separations, something that would only actually happen for print (decades ago).
I think their instructions are the equivalent of an e-book that hasn't had "This book printed on 100% recycled paper." stripped out.

dpi and ppi are meaningless without spatial dimensions. I have never seen a JPEG image with either spatial dimensions or spatial resolution in its metadata, if it even has metadata.
j.p.s is offline   Reply With Quote