Pixel dimensions for stills in FPCX?

For use in a FCPX HD project, at what ppi do you recommend scanning? Then do you recommend taking it into photoshop? At what pixel dimensions do you recommend saving it -- and in what format -- jpeg or tiff? Thank you!

Andy, I'm not disagreeing with you at all and I fully understand how it works. I'm just not articulating myself properly. I'm only talking about setting the scanner software for best results. When you scan, you set the dpi and the size of the scanned document being scanned. The size of the scanned document on the scanner is a physical size (inches). The combination of the scanned size (inches), the dpi setting and the scale factor controls the resulting pixel dimensions. The scale factor should always be 100% for best quality.
When you scan a document you can't control the physical size of the document. It is what it is. So you need to select the physical size of the document on the scanner bed (in inches). Then to get the correct pixel dimensions, you need to select the correct dpi for the scanner to use. See my example in Epson Scan software.
If you choose a different dpi in the scanner SW, then the resulting image will need to be scaled after the scan is complete to get the correct "target" pixel dimensions. If you scale after scanning, you are either creating or destroying pixels. Better to set the correct dpi before scanning.
Note that the scale factor in my example below is 100%. That means the correct pixel dimensions will be captured natively from the scan and not modified after the fact.
I agree once you have the image scanned, the dpi becomes irrelevent. But it does matter to the scanner software.

Similar Messages

  • Pixel dimensions for still images

    Hello all,
    I have just ran into a problem that seems to be a sizing problem with Final Cut Express HD. I used to crop my still pics to 1366 px - 768 px (for landscape) and then import them to FCE and export as a quicktime movie. When I brought the quicktime movie into iDVD and created the DVD it seemed to play great on my 46" Samsung tv -- full screen.
    I just recently bought a Samsung 60" and when I create the same type of movies, I am getting a huge black border around the whole image (not just top and bottom but sides too). I tried creating a new movie and made all my still images 1920px x 1080 px, and it still comes out the same way.
    I can stretch my tv so that they go full screen, but I think there should be a way to create the movie without having to stretch it....just have the tv set for 16:9, and I feel that it should work.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated...thanks.
    Norm

    When you create a DVD, no matter what the pixel dimensions of your original material, it become 720x480 Standard Definition. This is what a DVD is. If you are creating a DVD that has material that is 16x9, then it creates a DVD that is 720x480 but plays back anamorphic, stretching to create the 16x9 screen.
    If you play one of your older DVDs that played correctly on your previous TV, does it play correctly or does it also exhibit the black bars?
    If it plays correctly then something has changed in the way you are creating your project in FCE.and encoding and burning the DVD.
    If the older DVDs also exhibit the same playback problem, then I believe there is a menu setting on your new TV that will tell it how to display Standard Definition material from your DVD player, and you need to adjust that. (There are also settings in the set-top DVD player that tells it what kind of signal to send based on the what kind of display it is hooked up to.)
    MtD

  • Pixel dimensions for stills.

    I am doing a thing with stills, want highest quality in the end. Do I rez down the files, and to what siz?
    Thanks

    One of the habits I've seemed to a have developed over the years (paranoid?) is initially importing all of my digital assets (photos, movies, etc) onto an external hard drive connected to my desktop computer. THEN I import those assets into iPhoto. It then makes it easy to use those photos, movies, etc in other application and also to avoid this "glitch" in iPhoto and iMovie. Seems to me this a bug waiting to be fixed.

  • Pixel dimensions for iPad wallpaper

    I want to set a background wallpaper for my iPad that won't be cropped or otherwise distorted to fit the screen.  In the past all that was required was to pad an image to the appropriate proportions in photoshop, but when I created an image to be precisely the pixel dimensions of the iPad3 screen, 2048x1536, attempts to set it as wallpaper still resulted in the the wallpaper settings blowing it up. 
    Is there any pixel size at which the bug-ridden iOS7 will not attempt to blow it up, ruining the image? 
    Or is there a set degree of enlargement it uses, like forcing everything to be double, that I can use to pad an image so the forced crop results in the final image being correct?
    I'm really tired of the seeing my wrecked images every time I wake  the iPad.  And no, I have no interest whatsoever in Apple's screenshots.

    Hey Donot Haveone!
    Try adjusting the following setting to see if it resolves your issue:
    Reduced screen motion - iPad User Guide
    http://help.apple.com/ipad/7/#/iPad20658a2e
    You can stop the motion of some screen elements, such as the parallax effect of icons and alerts.
    Reduce motion.  Go to Settings > General > Accessibility and turn on Reduce Motion.
    Thanks for being a part of the Apple Support Communities!
    Cheers,
    Braden

  • What are the pixel dimensions for creating an Apple ibook book cover?

    I'm trying to create a book cover for Apple ibooks, what are the pixel dimensions requirements?

    Thanks again.
    Apple seems to have made it more confusing than it should be.
    As an aside, the Apple documentation contradicts itself.
    Cover art (also known as a marketing image or jacket) should be at least 1400 pixels along the smaller axis and must be a JPEG or PNG file in RGB Color mode.
    This clearly says the shorter side must be at least 1400 pixels. The next sentence says this:
    For an average trade paperback, this could be 400 x 1400 minimum size, as the books are generally taller than they are wide.
    That doesn't make sense, seeing that the shorter side is supposed to be at least 1400 pixels, meaning it should say "1400 x 4900" for the same aspect ratio.
    ...I did notice this too.
    So, if as you say, that the Cover Art and Cover image terms are the same and the 2 million limit does not apply, then it is unclear to me why Apple sent this message to me about cover file being rejected
    "Action Required: Your book could not be delivered to the iBookstore.
    The following images are larger than two million pixels and must be resized:
    Full ePub: Cover_xyz.jpg "
    I'll probably need to have the cover file in epub and Cover Image for Asset in iTunes Producer be named differently (but be copies of the same file) so I can understand which one is the "problem" file.
    And finally, why does Apple refer to Cover Art twice here and then end in last sentence with Cover Image if they are the same ( and if they are the same why not state "this cover image").
    "Cover art (also known as a marketing image or jacket) should be at least 1400 pixels along the smaller axis and must be a JPEG or PNG file in RGB Color mode. For an average trade paperback, this could be 400 x 1400 minimum size, as the books are generally taller than they are wide. For best results, deliver the largest pixel dimensions possible. When possible, match cover art to the cover contained in the book file. The 2 million pixel maximum does not apply to the cover image".

  • Pixel dimensions for WebCam NX

    I was wondering if anyone knew the actual pixel dimensions, i.e. the height and width of each pixel for the WebCam NX were. Does anyone know?

    Andy, I'm not disagreeing with you at all and I fully understand how it works. I'm just not articulating myself properly. I'm only talking about setting the scanner software for best results. When you scan, you set the dpi and the size of the scanned document being scanned. The size of the scanned document on the scanner is a physical size (inches). The combination of the scanned size (inches), the dpi setting and the scale factor controls the resulting pixel dimensions. The scale factor should always be 100% for best quality.
    When you scan a document you can't control the physical size of the document. It is what it is. So you need to select the physical size of the document on the scanner bed (in inches). Then to get the correct pixel dimensions, you need to select the correct dpi for the scanner to use. See my example in Epson Scan software.
    If you choose a different dpi in the scanner SW, then the resulting image will need to be scaled after the scan is complete to get the correct "target" pixel dimensions. If you scale after scanning, you are either creating or destroying pixels. Better to set the correct dpi before scanning.
    Note that the scale factor in my example below is 100%. That means the correct pixel dimensions will be captured natively from the scan and not modified after the fact.
    I agree once you have the image scanned, the dpi becomes irrelevent. But it does matter to the scanner software.

  • What Is The Best Image Pixel Dimensions For iPad 2 Photographs?

    I just purchased an iPad 2 64Gb.  I want to add photographs to my iPad.  I want the photographs to completely fill the screen but still be small enough to use the minimum amount of memory space.  A smaller image size will also make them more responsive when navigating between images.
    Does anyone know the image pixel dimensions that I should use to have the photographs  completely fill the iPad screen?  I am assuming a resolution of 72 pixels per inch is sufficient because the screen is essentially a video screen.
    Thanks!
    Bill

    1024-by-768 is the size of the screen.
    Basic troubleshooting steps  
    17" 2.2GHz i7 Quad-Core MacBook Pro  8G RAM  750G HD + OCZ Vertex 3 SSD Boot HD 
    Got problems with your Apple iDevice-like iPhone, iPad or iPod touch? Try Troubleshooting 101

  • Pixel resolution for slide show photos

    Hello all,
    What is the best pixel dimensions for doing a slide show to be watched on a hd lcd tv? I just did some at 1366 x 768 that seemed to work pretty well, but maybe the files don't even have to be this big...
    Also I have a few photos that really flicker in the slide show...is there a way to eliminate this flicker?
    Thanks,
    Norm

    Hello Tom,
    Thanks for the info. My tv that I will be playing the dvd on is 1366 x 768, so my question is what is your reason for making the images 1280x720? Won't this make my images smaller on my tv or do they get resized?
    I will try the blur in Photoshop and see if that corrects the flicker problem.
    I tried the Flicker filter but I'm not sure if it even got applied to the problem images. I selected the image in the time line and then went up to filter and selected flicker...does this automatically apply when these steps are performed?
    Thanks again.
    Norm

  • Zooming on Stills: does dpi matter, or just pixel dimensions?

    Hi, I am going to be zooming in on Stills, and, as I understand it, before importing into FCE, I want to change my pixel dimensions in Photoshop to be at least doubel the usual size.I assume that is to avoid getting a fuzzy pixelated look when zoomed in. Would it also be important at the very beginning to scan the photos into Photoshop at 600 dpi vs 300 dpi, or is dpi simply unrelated to pixel dimensions?
    Thanks, Bob01742

    Thanks for writing back. On page 198 in your book (which I love) you say 'scan at high resolution, likie 300 or 600 dpi." Does more dpi relate to how high the pixel resolution can be? I'm just not sure of the correlation. You reccommend a PICT file which is 1,494X1,098. Can this be created just as well from a 300 dpi scan as a 600 dpi scan?
    A second question? Have you ever worked with the program called Photo to Movie? Can work done int that program be easily imported into a FCE project?
    Thanks so much, Bob

  • Scanned handwriting in Tiff - DPI/pixel dimensions requirements for Printing

    Namaste'
    I am preparing to have a book printed of my Teacher's sayings in His own handwriting from His diaries.
    The sayings were in ballpoint pen and some 20 years old.
    We scanned them by a Greyscale hand scanner in 300dpi.
    I have since cleaned and cropped them, so the 300 dpi standard is no longer there.
    Since they are old, done with ball pen and not very thick, it is not realistic to take them "out" of their context, so they are on white background.
    When I look at the scans info, it says 400dpi (the handwriting and the white background) but when I look at what the pixel dimensions say, they are all under 1 mb, mostly in the 300's to 700's k.
    I do not understand this.
    I was told 240dpi smallest.
    What is the relation of pixel dimension to dpi? And how do I know this is enough?
    Can anyone help clear this up for me?
    When I take them down to the local printer and run them on their machine,for testing,  the images look fine.
    I am using PSCS3.
    Thank you.
    A-Girl

    When I scan linework art like signatures, handwriting, pen-and-ink drawings, etc., I set the scanner for 2400 PPI at print size, 1-bit/lineart/monochromatic/bw mode (your scanner software should call it one of these, the important bit is that it is NOT greyscale mode).
    The reason for this is most imagesetters and platesetters output at either 2400 or 2540 DPI, so scanning at or close to the output resolution provides the crispest appearance. If you are outputting to a laser printer or other desktop device you could scan at its output resolution, 600 for example, but a 2400 PPi 1-bit file is not large at all so why not "future proof" your scans so if you get them professionally output later they are at maximum quality.
    Using a 1-bit file eliminates any soft edges as you would have with a greyscale image, and 1-bits can easily be made to have a transparent background so placing them into a layout is a piece of cake.
    My best advice to you is to detemine your output size, then re-scan at 2400 PPI at the correct size.
    To your other question, pixel dimensions refers to the actual number of pixels in the image,  and is the only true measurement of resolution for a digital image.  Until you determine the print size PPI (pixels per inch) is irrelevant, and the PPI will change based on the output size: if you have an image that is 2000 pixels wide and you  print it at 10 inches then your PPI is 200 (2000 / 10). If you output at  5 inches then the PPI is 400 (2000 / 5).
    DPI (dots per inch) refers to the resolution of an output device. The two are commonly used to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms -- digital images contain only pixels, never dots, and printers output with dots, never pixels.

  • Is there any way to batch change resolution, but not pixel dimensions?

    I was changing the resolution of my digital photos from 180 to 300 ppi individually as I edited them, but sometimes I would forget. Since I need the higher resolution for printing, I decided to automate that step by using PSE's "Process Multiple Files" feature. I noted that the Resolution selection was grayed out until I checkmarked "Resize Images." Since I didn't want to change the number of pixels, I left those fields blank.
    When I started the automated processing I noticed it was terribly slow, so I cancelled it and looked at the resulting files. They had more than doubled in file size because PSE was nearly doubling the Pixel Dimensions! I don't want to try a work-around by "resizing" to the current pixel dimensions, because the processing still takes about 45 seconds per file, and if I've cropped the photos, the pixel dimensions vary. Is there an automated way to change only the resolution in PSE . . . quickly?
    Also, I really wanted to double the resolution from 180 ppi to 360 ppi, but PSE limits my choices to either 600 or 300 or less. I've read about Scripts, but I don't think PSE supports them. I have version 6.
    Thanks for some help.

    Thanks for your input, and you may be right, but I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure this out. I know it's the same photo on my monitor, but I keep reading that print resolution (ppi) is different from pixel resolution (i.e. 2000x3000.) This is my situation-- I'm sending the photos to a publisher for printing in a book. The publisher did not specify a size in inches--in fact I think the photos will be different sizes when printed on the page. They told me to send the photos in at 1600x1200 pixels. I've heard that 300 ppi is the standard resolution for publishing, so to get decent quality printing of my photos I thought I should increase the resolution from 180 to 300. But thinking about the different sizes, it seems that the resolution (ppi) will change depending on the size the photo is actually printed. At 300 ppi, a 1600x1200 photo will be printed at size 5.333" X 4". If a photo is printed full bleed on the cover of the book that is 8" x 10.667", then it will be 150 ppi. So, I guess you are right that I don't need to worry about the ppi resolution for the book photos.
    Now, let me figure about what I need to print my own 4x6 photos. My digital camera was set to 16x9 jpg, so my workflow is to make PNG copies to work with and after editing, save them in the 16x9 format before cropping at 1600x1200 pixels, then sharpening before doing Save As jpg in Book folder. I was thinking I needed to change the resolution to 300 ppi when saving in the 16x9 format so if I want to later make 4x6 prints, I'll have good quality prints. But you have made me think a little harder--what I do is choose the 4x6 crop tool which takes care of whatever ppi resolution is needed for that size print. Oh good, you have saved me extra work. Thanks!
    (BTW, I choose the 16x9 format because I was planning to use the photos in a widescreen slideshow, but my husband wanted something he could hold in his hand--hence, the book . . . and a lot of cropping!)

  • Changing ppi changes pixel dimensions but not document size?

    I have an image that is W=4.375 H=6.124 at 355 ppi the pixel dimensions area under Img > Image Size indicates it is W=1553 px H=2174
    When I change the resolution to 72 px it is only changing the pixel dimensions and not the document size. I'm confuesed.
    1. What is the difference between pixel dimensions and document size?
    2. Is the document the same physical size regardless if I make it 200 ppi, 150 ppi or 72?
    Thanks.

    Let me see if I understand all of this:
    - If I change the resolution the print dimension will stay the same, though what is it actually doing to the image if I increase the resolution, though it still is the same print dimension? I am guessing you can not just add pixels to a given size image and expect it to print better.
    - If I change the dimensions, the resolution will change because there will be either more pixels for a smaller area or fewer pixels for a larger area, depending on how I size it.
    Thanks.

  • Photoshop Dimensions for muse

    Hello what would be the recommended dimensions in photshop to adapt to adobe muse? I want to create the layout in photoshop and import it into muse. What would be reccomended? Thanks

    There is no such thing. These days one will use different layouts for different devices. A tablet has other requirements from a mobile phone and those are different again from smartTVs, Desktop Computers, others. Unless you design to exact spec for one of those, it is best practice to use fluid, adaptive layouts. But really, it's more a web thing than anything to do with Photoshop and you have some reading up to do. For Desktop use with fixed layouts you should consider the smallest possible screen it may be viewed on and that still are netbook screens which have about 1366x768 pixels. For anything else - see above.
    Mylenium

  • Dimensions for HD while compressing?

    I edited a 10 min sequence in Apple Pro Res 422,  1920 x 1080.  I exported it at 1280 x 720 to make a smaller file.  It's still 6.23GB, too big to send via YouSendit.  I still will have to convert it to PAL.  So I need help on how to compress this big file in HD dimensions (16.9) and maintain broadcast quality.
    Thank you.

    The determining factor for the appropriate pixel dimension of your images is determined (in FCP7) by the frame size of the Sequence you are editing in, not the final exported dimension.
    If you are editing on a standard HD 1920 x 1080 timeline,  then you would want an image no smaller than 1920 pixels wide, 1080 pixels high. In FCP 7, you can use any image larger than that baseline pixel size up 4000 pixels wide by 2250 pixels high in the 16:9 aspect ratio, or in fact, any aspect image where the longest dimension does not exceed 4000 pixels.
    You can also use smaller images, but if you zoom them up to fill frame, your image quality will degrade.
    If you plan to zoom or reframe the images, you would want to work with the largest image size you can to be able to zoom into the image without quality loss.
    Other image specs for compatibility with FCP7: Color Mode - RGB, 8 bits/channel.
    FCP7 supports .jpeg, .tif, .png among other formats.
    MtD

  • Determining Video Pixel Size from Still Pixel Sizes

    Hello
    I posted a few questions here in regard to establshing good Pixel Sizes in stills for use in FCE.
    Tom, and Studio X were very helpful, and I picked up a few pointers.
    One thing I still didn't grasp completley was how to determine (perhaps from a simple formula), what the Video Pixel Size would be from a photo's pixel size.
    As Tom pointed out:
    "A 2400x3000 pixel image may be perfectly adequate and not produce as many imaging problems when scaled in a video application"
    And as I discovered in regard to print size:
    "An 8" x 10" document that is scanned at 300 dpi has the pixel dimensions of 2,400 pixels (8" x 300 dpi) by 3,000 pixels (10" x 300 dpi).
    So then all this being said, is there a way to easily determine what the Video Pixel Size will be from the given Pixel dimensions of a still image?
    (Like from a re-sized Tiff in Photoshop)
    My version of Photoshop doesn't seem to have that conversion option for determining NTSC Video image quality.
    Thanx
    Mike

    And if I need to zoom in really tight to a small area in a particular still, I should allow myself an image size a bit larger than 1280x720. Correct?< </div>
    If only it was that easy. The video screen is roughly 800 by 500 pixels. That's all there are. If you bring in a 1600x1000 JPEG (might want to try TIFF instead) and you wish to see the whole image, it will be scaled down to 25% to fit onto the small screen and all of your pixels will be thrown away or mashed together. It's terribly inefficient and the image gets mushily softened.
    If you need to zoom in to a particular spot on the image, imagine that spot as filling the 800x500 pixel screen. You can use a simple ruler and measure the area you wish to be full screen (without any scaling being applied by FCP because that will destroy your image). Now measure the largest part of the image that you want to be on screen at any one time when zoomed all the way out. The ratio of those two numbers is what you will need to scan. Example (highly simplified don't try to argue about the precision) if your big image is 10x8 inches and your desired tight shot is 4x3 inches, you must provide a TIFF that is 2.5 or 2.75 times the size of the tightest area. That tight area is going to be 800x500 pixels. You will scan the 10x8 image to obtain a TIFF that is almost 2.5 times 800 pixels wide or 2000 pixels, by 2.5 times 500 pixels high or 1250 pixels. Do not bother to convert that into DPI. You are targeting an image size measured in pixels. It's got nothing to do with the size of the original image or the DPI. Repeating: Absolutely nothing.
    This will give you an image into which you can zoom and suffer no image degradation. It will also give you a tremendous processing hit. FCP just doesn't like to do that kind of scaling.
    Umm, doesn't look like I helped much. This issue is highly misunderstood and it's quite confusing if you come from a Photoshop background. giving up concepts like DPI is almost impossible. The only way to get it is to work through the many options Photoshop and video people offer up and try to figure out why some of them don't work for you.
    bogiesan

Maybe you are looking for

  • After upgrading to iOS 7 on my iPhone 5 recent calls are not showing

    Any ideas on how to solve this problem?? At first it was working fine but suddently all the recent call info dissapeared and you don't know how much you use it until it is gone... As with everything.

  • Updating a JTable using CachedRowSet data

    Hello, I would like to know how I can update my already created JTable receiving data from a CachedRowSet without creating a new table model (this is the method I have been using). I have read about using the fireTableDataChanged() method but I cant

  • Program to update employee data

    Hi all, Is there any std program which can be used to update the data for employee as it is done manually in transaction "Manage Employee data"?? We need to do a mass update of email address for employees under USER ACCOUNT and POSITION programatical

  • Routine based on Function Module

    Hello All, i have to write code for a routine using a custom function module that is created previously. the function has input parameter IN_YEAR_WEEK  and output parameter EN_WEEK_1 ,  EN_WEEK_2. this routine is in the transformation between cube an

  • 10.6.8 to mountain lion not working?

    I have been using mac os x 10.5.8 and I decided that it was time for me to get the newest version. So the first thing i did was buy the 10.6.8 and downloaded it on my computer. I went on the app store to purchase the 10.8, but it said not compatible?