Pixel Units In Illustrator

Hi everyone,
I do a lot of web stuff with Illustrator, so I'm always using pixels. However, one of the more annoying things about this program is that things sometimes go out of line because of inbetween pixel values.
For example, I might draw a square and it could have a width of 123.34px ...".34"??!!!
Is there any way to get rid of the way Illustrator goes halfway between pixels. I am hoping for the kind of behaviour that snaps to pixels instead of having ridiculous values like that.
I always find I end up messing with widths and heights a lot in order to solve this.
Interestingly enough, when I come to export as a JPG...it almost seems like Illustrator moves everything to the nearest pixel...and again, sometimes this messes up some details layouts.
Aaarrgghgh!
Any help is great thanks,
Mikey.

new document, set your units to pixels.
go to preferences->guides and grid
set your gridline and subdivisions to 1
view menu->snap to grid
and if you want, show grid
I seem to remember some bug where the grid spacing couldn't be changed on an existing document, so you might have to only do this on a brand fresh document, (and copy/past your stuff in there) It seems to only work if I open a document, change the settings, close the document, and start a new one...

Similar Messages

Pixelated lines in illustration

Hi,
I've made a technical drawing in Adobe Illustrator. I've used the PDF-format. Below I've inserted a screenshot of the PDF. The lines of the left hand & hammer are looking pixelated when I see the PDF on screen in Adobe Acrobat. When printed the lines are sharp. I want them to be sharp on screen also. What can I do?
Thx,
ief

Buy a better screen?
Your view on the screen is limited (per definition) by its resolution. Computer programs try to fool the eye into seeing sharp lines by heavily blurring them with the surrounding pixels ("anti-aliasing"), and the idea is you shouldn't be seeing individual pixels.
Different software have different ways of drawing vector images, though, and different antialiasing algorithms -- there is not a "best" solution.
Apart from that, it's also possible your Acrobat settings are not optimal. Look in your preferences for a setting called "Smooth line art", and experiment with that to get the best results (for your screen only -- it's a user preference).

Pixel dimensions from illustrator into photoshop

hello forumers.
im pasting into photoshop an eclipse that is 200 x 200pixels. when i click on the transform command in photoshop,i dont get a pixel dimension like in illustrator,rather than a % percantage.so if i scale the eclipse up or down,how do i know the pixel dimensions?
tank you.

When Illustrator pastes inpto Photoshop, it does not uses pixels. I guess you could simulate that, but make sure your document is 72 dpi and not for example 300 dpi.
info palette flyout menu >> panel options >> chaneg to pixels
CMD Click on your layer to get marching ants around your selection.

Fragmented or pixelated path in Illustrator CS4

I've used CS4 for 2 years and the problem only occured about a month age. The paths where I draw an object or change type to outlines is very rough. Please HELP.

Yep. Got that. Point is, is the logo going to be used for print, web, both?
As a vector, the above is crisp in detail, of course. As Monika requested, can you share the file?
Take care, Mike

Illustrator document comes in pixelated, before even placing in a comp

I'm stumped on this one, folks:
I created this graphic in illustrator, made up of a pattern of wavy lines. Looks clean and normal in Illustrator, zoomed in at 400%:
However, when imported into After Effects, pulling it up in the footage panel, it looks pixelated at 100% magnification:
(Closer view):
I've tried a number of possible solutions I've seen suggested here and on Creative Cow:
Made sure that the "document raster effects setting" in illustrator is turned way up (currently at 800 ppi)
Turned on anti-alias under "document raster effects setting" in illustrator (makes no difference whether this is on or off)
Made sure that pixel aspect correction isn't enabled in AE
Played with "interpret footage" settings in AE
Tried changing save options in illustrator -- create PDF compatible file/Use compression... neither make a difference
I'm all out of ideas. Is it possible that the illustrator file is TOO COMPLEX for AE to rasterize correctly? It is a very large document, necessary to make it work within my AE comp. (Here it is at 25% zoom in AE for reference):
Any ideas? Note that this is before I even put it into a comp, so "rasterize continuously" is not the source of the problem. Any help would be appreciated!

I can tell from your original post that there is a basic misunderstanding of how vectors are rasterized and interpreted in any video application including Motion, Final Cut, Premiere Pro, Avid... and After Effects.
"I've tried a number of possible solutions I've seen suggested here and on Creative Cow:
Made sure that the "document raster effects setting" in illustrator is turned way up (currently at 800 ppi)
Turned on anti-alias under "document raster effects setting" in illustrator (makes no difference whether this is on or off)
Made sure that pixel aspect correction isn't enabled in AE
Played with "interpret footage" settings in AE
Tried changing save options in illustrator -- create PDF compatible file/Use compression... neither make a difference
I'm all out of ideas. Is it possible that the illustrator file is TOO COMPLEX for AE to handle correctly? "
Let's start with point 1... Document Raster settings in Illustrator set to 800PPI...
Well, there are no inches in video so the PPI will only effect raster effects and raster effects will not continuously rasterize because they are interpreted as pixels. For video work 72 is plenty, 800 will not gain you anything unless you have completely setup your Illustrator project incorrectly for video.
Document Raster effects settings in Illustrator make no difference as I do not see any raster effects in your sample. Raster effects are things like Drop Shadow. It looks like you just have a bunch of wavy lines. If you have a rastor effect applied you do not have a vector image any more.
Too complex is also a misunderstanding of how AE handles vector images. Your paths, though numerous, are simple... no chance the number of paths is causing the problem. So what is?
The lines are too thin... Simple as that. You must be concerned with the stroke width in your illustrator files. It looks like the stroke is set to 1 point. That means 1 pixel. One pixel lines MUST be exactly lined up with the pixel grid to rasterize properly. There's no way around that limitation. NONE. Change your document settings in Illustrator to pixels instead of points and you'll see what I mean. Your lines don't look ailiased or blocky to me, they look like 1 piel width lines not following the pixel grid perfectly. The behavior is completely normal.
Here's how you should set up an Illustrator file for video work.
In illustrator, document setup should be in pixels not points, or inches or anything else.
Artboard size should be set to be big enough to include every element you wish to include in an AE comp. IOW, if you want to push in in AE to 1/4 of your illustration then the artboard should be 4X the size of the comp.
Strokes must be at least 2 pixels wide. This will guarantee that when your illustration is viewed at 100% scale AE will have a chance of antialiasing any curved lines. 1 pixel wide curved or diagonal lines cannot be rastorized into a smooth line.
If you plan to scale down your image then you must compensate in your design so that the lines will scale down without problems. This thicker strokes. Scale to 50% and your stroke needs to be 4 pixels or 4 points to work well.
You should have snap to pixels on, do pixel previews in Illustrator, and accurately position your vector lines precisely in Illustrator to minimize problems.
Inside AE you should select your AI layers in the project panel and then go to Interpret Footage, More Options, and set antaliasing to more accurate.
I hope this helps you.
The wavy line pattern is going to cause all kinds of moray and interference problems when you move it across the screen because of the changes in aliasing as the lines move across the pixel grid and are interpreted as pixels. This is also a guaranteed problem with the design. It can be mitigated by fattening up the stroke and by using an expression to make sure all movement is exactly on an even pixel.
You still have to worry about retinal retention, stroboscopic effects due to frame rate and pixel motion, and moray patterns caused by the human eye and brain combination. Read this article from this forum's FAQ for more information on that. Our brains don't like to look at moving repetitive patterns. Try slowly moving your eyes across the red checkered table cloth the next time you eat in an Italian restaurant and you'll see what I mean.

Altering the shape of pixels in illustrator

Hello!
I was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some advice on how to alter the shape of the pixels in an image to a custom pixel shape in illustrator.
Thanks in advance.

Wittyhearts,
You asked:
Is there anyway I might be able to do this without having to recolour each of the hearts?
Yes, if you don't mind that the fill is pixel based.
Follow Jacob's steps to create a grid of hearts on top of your image.
Make sure that each heart is the size of the enlarged "pixel". (If you do this enlargement in Photoshop, use the Nearest Neighbour to get hard edges for each "pixel").
Make sure that the Hearts grid is aligned with the large image Pixel grid.
Fill the Hearts with Black. Select them all and Group them.
Select both the Hearts and the picture below it and click Make Mask in the Transparency Panel. Check the Invert Mask option.
This should be the result (I added black background).
I just thought that it may be even better to convert the image fiirst to a vector mosaic: Object menu > Create Object Mosaic...
Then create the Heart grid and make it a Mask.
When you go to Object > Flatten Transparency and set the Raster/Vector slider to 100, you will get coloured heart shaped vectors

Application measurement/unit preferences (picas vs pixels)

Hello,
I need to adjust the geometricbounds of an Image within a rectangle via a JS script. But when I get the Geometric bounds for my image, it is not using the pixels unit for measurement, its using picas. However, if I manually adjust the preferences in my Desktop Indesign to Pixels, the script runs correctly.
How can I change the preferences to "Pixels" from within my script so that I don't have to check manually?
Thanks in advance!!
Lloyd

It should be possible to test a document for its measurement units then use unit values to do the conversion… This was with a quick play NOT very well thought through I must admit but it may be the way to go on this…
#target indesign
app.activate();
var docRef = app.activeDocument;
with (docRef) {
     var uU = userUnits(docRef);
     $.writeln(uU);
     var rb = spreads[0].rectangles[0].geometricBounds;
     $.writeln(rb);
     // 9.99999999999999,9.99999999999999,80,110 as millimeters my prefs
     var a = new UnitValue(5,'pt');
     $.writeln(a.as(uU));
     // 1.76388888888889
     var nb = new Array(rb[0], rb[1], rb[2]+a.as(uU), rb[3]+a.as(uU));
     $.writeln(nb);
     // 9.99999999999999,9.99999999999999,81.7638888888889,111.763888888889
     spreads[0].rectangles[0].geometricBounds = nb;
// I only bothered to check in one direction…
function userUnits(doc) {
     switch (doc.viewPreferences.horizontalMeasurementUnits) {
          case 2054188905 : uU = 'pt' break;
          case 2054187363 : uU = 'pc' break;
          case 2053729891 : uU = 'inch' break;
          case 2053729892 : uU = 'inch' break;
          case 2053991795 : uU = 'mm' break;
          case 2053336435 : uU = 'cm' break;
          case 2053335395 : uU = 'ci' break;
          case 1131639917 : uU = '?????'; // What do with this?
     return uU;
It would appear to give me the same results as using mixed measures in the GUI but I've not tested much…

How can I set DPI for a document in illustrator?

I'm designing a user interface for iPad (Resolution: 1024x768, DPI:132). Setting the resolution is a piece of cake but when I change the ruler unit to Centimeters, it shows the screen about 36x27cm which is not right (iPad screen is 24.3x19cm).
Illustrator calculates these lengths based on the DPI. But when creating a new document the only available DPI's are: 72, 150, 300 (File > New > Raster Effect). I searched for the answer on this forum and googled it and looked into the help but couldn't find a satisfying answer. I know that Illustrator is a vector design program but there must be a way to set the DPI to an arbitrary value.
How can I have a 1024x768px artboard in Illustrator that is 24.3x19cm? (DPI=132)

Alex,
only when I'm printing or saving the image for the web, Illustrator will ask me the actual width.
Almost. Illustrator won't "ask you for the width." As with any program, when you export a vector graphic to a raster image, you have the opportunity to specify its resolution, in number of pixels. Illustrator tries to "simplify" (and thereby often confuses) this process by providing different interfaces for the same thing. The so-called "Save For Web" interface is just another way to export a raster image (and other web-centric things, like slicing). The settings available (or at least the ones most prominate) differ between the straightforward Export dialog and the Save For Web dialog.
My question is: how illustrator calculates these measures?
Again: When Illustrator's rulers are set to "Pixels," they are really set to points. A point measures 1/72 inch. So Illustrator assumes a "pixel" is scaled to measure 1/72 inch, even though it may not be in a particular raster image object you have on the page.
But when you export as a raster image (in other words, rasterize the artwork), you don't care what those pixels are scaled to due to the actual, physical, hardware dimensions of the device's monitor pixels (so-many centimeters by so-many centimeters). Regardless of whether the device's hardware pixels are gigantic or microscopic, you just care how many of them there are. So long as you export your finished artwork rasterized to that number of pixels, it will effectively be scaled (in terms of actual measure) by whatever device it is displayed on, becasue the device is going to "turn on" a monitor pixel for each pixel in your image.
In other words, when designing purely for electronic displays (as opposed to printing), forget all about PPI, or DPI, which are nothing but scale factors, and forget about the actual measure (centimeters x centimeters, inches by inches) of the monitor.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 15-inch-diagonal Toshiba laptop, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 10-inch-diagonal Acer netbook, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels, and it will display at a smaller actual size than it does on my Toshiba, because the Acer's monitor pixels are smaller than the Toshiba's monitor pixels.
But even though the image's actual measure is smaller on the Acer, and even though your image occupies the exact same number of monitor pixels on both the Acer and the Toshiba, I will have to do some scrolling on the Acer because its monitor has fewer hardware pixels.
So if I'm designing images to fit neatly on my Acer without the need for scrolling, I care about its screen size in terms of number of hardware pixels, not in terms of actual measure (centimeters or inches).
I want to be able to set the lines and curves in terms of pixels.
Because Illustrator considers a pixel to be a particular measure (1/72 inch), work with your rulers set to either the bogus PIxels or to Points (which, in Illustrator, is the same thing). Forget about the dimensions of a device screen. It doesn't matter.
If you want to also spec type in terms of "pixels" you can also (pointlessly) set your General Prefs to use the bogus Pixles as the "Unit Of Measure". But this is pointless because in Illustrator, a so-called "Pixel" is, in fact a point already, and Points is the default UOM for type. Either way, you have to realize that any measure for type (using "Pixels" or Points) is a measure of the font's em-square, not the measure of the actual glyphs. So setting your type to "9 Pixels" doesn't mean the type characters are going to occupy 9 pixels in height.
But you can proceed to specify line weights, box sizes, etc., etc, in terms of ruler units (bogus pixels or legitimate points).
Alternatively, if you want, you can set your rulers to Centimeters. And then as you draw your boxes and set your stroke weights, you can specify them in terms of Points or "Pixels" by just typing "pts" or "px" after the measures you key into the various dimension fields.
But after all this is said and done, the point you're missing is still this: All that means nothing if you don't export the resulting images to the number of pixels that you want them to occupy on the device you are designing for. In other words, you can work with your Illustrator rulers set to "Pixels" all day long; but if you then export the artwork to a raster format using a Pixels-Per-Inch setting other than 72, It won't be the right size, because Illustrator still thinks a Pixel measures one point.
So regardless of how you have your rulers set while working, it is just simpler (and more legitimately meaningful) to export your raster images in terms of number of pixels (N pixels x n pixels), not by PPI. That brings us full-circle right back to where your question started: There is no document-wide PPI for an Illustrator file.
But what you have to understand is this: If your design includes already-rasterized objects, the number of actual pixels included in each of those raster objects is entirely independent of whatever Illustrator's rulers say they "measure" in "Pixels". That is very important. Because if you use as part of your design a raster image that is scaled to anything other than 72 ppi, and/or that image does not align to a point-size increment of Illustrator's grid, then when you export your final product, that image is going to be re-rasterized to whatever PPI you export, based on its on-page position and the quality of that image is going to be compromized. That's why it's important to understand that "Pixels" is bogus as a unit of measure in a program like Illustrator.
In pursuit of web- and device-centric creative markets, Adobe continues to add confusion-generating "conveniences" to Illustrator. For example, to workaround Illustrator's problematic antialiasing, version CS5 added a feature called Align To Pixel Grd which causes vertical and horizontal strokes to align to whole-"pixel" increments, to avoid antialiasing of those edges.
There are also probably templates in your AI installation (depending on version) already set up for mobile devices, and there's the whole "Device Central" online thing, if you're inclined to use that kind of thing. So look up and read about those features.
JET

Why pixels are not corresponding to the size I want?

Hello,
Recently I've detected a problem in my Adobe Illustrator CS6.
I open the software, define the art board area in pixels (I checked it at Preferences > Units), but when I export my images they become bigger than they are.
Example:
This is an image 10x10 pixels, exported at Photoshop (everything is ok here):
This is an image 10x10 pixels, exported at Illustrator.... much bigger!
Here it is the options chosen at preferences:
And what appears in work area:
Does anyone knows what is going on? What can I do to solve this?
Please tell me something. This way is hard to work...
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Inês Guilherme

Maybe, just guessing here, the resolution set for the photoshop doc was 72 and the one for illustrator 300?
No, no, no. There is no "resolution" setting for a native Illlustrator file like that for a raster image.
When uisng a program like Illustrator, FORGET PROGRAMS LIKE PHOTOSHOP. They are entirely different things and you're just confusing yourself.
Inês,
In a program like Illustrator, the page rulers refer to real-world units of measure when the document is printed. A pixel is NOT a real-world unit of measure. Ask yourself 'How big is a pixel?' or 'How many pixels is it from Earth to its moon?' Those are nonsensical questions. A pixel can be any size, because a pixel is nothing but a color value. Thinking of pixels as distance is like thinking of colors as distance. How many colors is it from where you live to New York City?
When you work in a program like Photoshop, you are basically working within a SINGLE RASTER IMAGE. That single raster image has a fixed number of pixels. That's why Photoshop's rulers can make sense when they are set to pixels; they are not using pixels as a measure of distance; they are using pixels as a COUNT of pixels.
But when you work in a program like Illustrator, you are NOT working in a single raster image. You are working within a model of a region of physical measure (a page) which can contain vector-based paths (which have no pixels), vector-based text (which has no pixels) and any number of MULTIPLE raster images.
Each of those MULTIPLE raster images on the page has its own independent number of pixels, and its own independent scale, AND its own independent position (which doesn't even have to correspond to any whole increment of the rulers; the sides of those raster images on the page may be positioned BETWEEN the "pixels" indicated on the rulers).
So in a program like Illustrator, you can have an image which contains 225 pixels across (or any other number, and another image which contains 25 pixels across (or any other number). Both of those images may be scaled on the page to the same UNIT OF MEASURE dimension. For example, both of those images may be scaled to one inch in width. The rulers, if set to "Pixels" would indicate that they both "measure" 72 "Pixels" across. But they would still contain different numbers of pixels, regardless of how many "Pixels" Illustrator's rulers indicate they "measure".
Now given those very basic differences between what you're actually doing in a program like Photoshop and what you're doing in a program like Illustrator, what can the page rulers in Illustrator possibly mean when they are set to "Pixels"? Illustrator's rulers ALWAYS refer to a real unit of MEASURE, not to a mere COUNT of "Pixels." So when Illustrator's rulers are labeled "Pixels" they still have to ACTUALLY correspond to some unit of real-world measure.
And they do: When you set Illustrator's rulers to "Pixels" you are really setting them to "Points". A point is 1/72 of an inch.
So when you have your rulers in Illustrator set to "Pixels" and you draw your 10 x 10 "pixel" square, you are really drawing a 10 x 10 POINT square. And assuming you drew it as a path, it has no pixels whatsoever. It doesn't become rasterized until you either invoke the Rasterize command, or until you export it to a raster format. When you export it as a raster image, the only way the resulting image will actually contain 10 x 10 pixels is if you export it at a resolution of 72 pixels per inch.
In other words, because Illustrator's rulers ALWAYS assume a scale of 72 pixels per inch when it uses "Pixels" as a bogus unit of measure, then you have to specify 72 PPI at the time of export if you want the number of pixels in the resulting raster image to correspond to the bogus "number of pixels" indicated by Illustrator's rulers.
JET

Ruler and Info panel give different pixel dimensions

The pixel dimensions in Illustrator CS5's Info panel are wrong. Can anyone suggest why?
I have a web layout in Illustrator that I'm transposing into Adobe Muse, using Save for Web and Devices.
I want to use the X and Y coordinates and the dimensions of the objects in Illustrator to place them correctly in Muse, so that all the elements scale to the right size.
The Illustrator artboard is 960 pixels wide and the layout fits the artboard. Similarly, the site width in Muse is 960px wide.
The measuring units are in pixels in Illustrator, but something very strange is going on.
in the Info panel, a grouped object - a logo - is described as 16383 pixels wide and 211px high.
It's simply not possible, not least because the logo is taller than it is wide. But when I measure it with the ruler tool, it tells me that the logo is 136px high and 122px wide.
The problem only applies to this grouped object and it's not because it's grouped with some other thing that is 16383 pixels wide - the bounding box fits precisely round the logo when it is selected.
Can anyone suggest a solution?

Badger,
What happens if you Copy and Paste that Group into a new Document (you may the rest follow if it helps)?

Illustrator CS4 alpha export?

I have to make a DV PAL sized image with transparent background with 3 different logo on it. They have to be in precise position (that's why I made it in illustrator, not PS), with different transparency. I made it in illustrator with "DV PAL" document setup.I tried to export it as .tga 32bit, and had some problems:
it cuts the edge of the document to the first visiable element - in tga export I can't check "use artboards". Even I if I make a document-sized rectangle on top and make a clipping mask.
the worst thing: alpha channel exist, but it's empty black.
How can I do it? (the only supported format from the video server is 32bit tga, so I have to make the file in this format)

Photoshop is a much more appropriate program for this. Photoshop lets you work in precise pixels, which Illustrator does not. Pixels are not even available as a unit in Illustrator. Yes, I know you can select them, but those are not true pixels; they are points (1/72 inch). Pixels have no physical size. Use Photoshop.
Create a new file in Photoshop the size (in pixels) you need the image to be. You can paste the artwork from Illustrator or use File > Place. If you make it a Smart Object you can keep the Illustrator file as embedded artowrk. The image on screen is rendered live, so rotations, scaling, and editing will never degrade the quality of the image.

Is there a way to get 'exact' pixel placement?

I use Illustrator CS5 to design websites.
I have the measurements set to pixels and always have the 'align to pixel grid' box ticked. As dealing with websites I want pixel perfection, however in some instances I get a 'rouge' measurement. When I type a measurement in the 'transform panel' in the X & Y value box - for instance 100px, I will get 100.143px. I find this incredibly annoying (and not very professional). Is there a way to only have exact whole numbers (without decimals) in the setting? I have checked preferences but have not managed to solve this problem.
Also for info - when I go into the 'x or y value' box and delete the .143 figure - it just appears again. It's a massive nuiance.
Any help, guidance or tip would be very welcome!
Cheers

Wade_Zimmerman wrote:
BTW just because ixels are not a unit in Illustrator doesn't mean it could not be in the future.
I meant in the current version. But given Adobe’s abysmal record at fixing bugs and adding truly useful features to Illustrator, I would apply it to future versions as well.
I think the tiume has come when Adobe will realize what a good partner Illustrator is with the web and they have no choice since it is also a good partner with video as well both pixel based.
I fantasize that Adobe will one day realize what a good partner Illustrator is for a dumpster and gives it the same treatment ad PageMaker: dump it in favour of a new and far superior product with a modern architecture and no legacy baggage that’s over 25 years old.

Importing into LR4 all my images come in at 1024x683 pixels.

I've just done a huge import of over 100,000 pics. Each image has come in a 1024x683 pixels. This is not the original size. What is going on here? I only shoot Raw at a minimum of 12 Megabyte file size. I have checked all import and preference settings. All help will be greatly appreciated.

InDesign does not support pixels as a unit. All InDesign files use physical measurements for sizes, such as inches, centimetres, or points. InDesign CS5 introduced a measurement called “pixels”, but it is not pixels, it is points (1/72 inch).
When a raster image is imported, InDesign determines the physical size on the page by dividing the resolution (in pixels) by the ppi setting on the image (ppi for Pixels Per Inch). If your image has a resolution of 72 ppi, then each pixel is 1/72 of an inch, which is the same size as InDesign’s wrongly named pixel. If your image has a resolution of 300 ppi, then each pixels will be imported at 1/300 of an inch, completely ignoring the pixel unit of measure you are using. The pixels in that image will be much smaller than 1/72 inch, so the image imports smaller. Adobe made the same mistake years ago with Illustrator and nothing but confusion has been the result.
You can either scale the image up so that it’s effective resolution is 72 ppi (416.67%) or open the image in Photoshop and go to Image > Image Size and change the resolution to 72 ppi. If you do the latter, be sure you set Resample to None. Resave, then import that image and the size will be what you expect.

[CS5] Pixel rulers - how to change increments from 72?

When setting rulers to use Pixels as the unit, the ruler lines fall in increments of 72, or some multiple / factor thereof. This is great for working in points, but for the web, we're often more comfortable in units of 10 etc. Is there a way to ocver-ride the default behaviour?
Note: "changing zoom level" does not automatically fix this issue, as the base factor is still 72, not 10.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Adobe leave out a ruler with ... let's say .. this is One pixel this is Two & so on. ?? That way as we are creating we can split things in half much easier than 7.2 increments. I've been going NUTS trying to align things while trying to make a compass. The whole thing seems nuts to me.
Isn't Adobe aware that their users make web graphics?
Even though a Pixel is not a "Real" unit of measurement it does actually exist on the web & in regard to web graphics. right? Or am I wrong?
I understand that a pixel is rather arBITrary (<heehee) b/c it's device dependent. However being able to know rather I'm in the right city compared to the right continent makes a world of difference for me.
I guess I'll have to send in a request to Adobe. LOL sure they'll jump right on it.
Dang ... I am just so bummbed out to find out that there's no way to make the ruler land on even numbers rather than 36, 72 etc.
I mean ... 7.2 increments? Is there an emoticon for pulling hair out?
So, why don't those of us that would like to see a pixel ""ruler"" in Illustrator start a petition/thread & forward to our pals at Adobe HQ?
Just an idea. Squeaky wheel gets the grease ... right?

Problem with Adobe Illustrator CS5

I'm trying to convert three jpgs into ai files for a design package for someone. I thought i made ai files that were readable, but the people i sent the ai files said theu couldn't read the ai files clearly. Can someone help me convert my jpgs into ai files correctly? Here are the jpgs files
Ronald

Hi
You basically have to redraw the images in Illustrator. Placing a pixel-image in Illustrator and saving it as an .ai file, does not make the pixels into vector graphics (which is what I assume you would like to have)
There are no conversion methods - but there is a trace option you could try. Link here

Pixel Units In Illustrator

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for