Another 'resolution' question

Hi,
I have read a couple of other related threads, but I need a little more help to resolve my 'resolution' confusion...
I am applying to a stock agency, and see that one of their requirements is
"...If necessary, interpolate (upsize) the file to 24MB using a specialist, professional software package. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file size of over 24MB then leave it that size. We recommend Adobe Photoshop although other software is acceptable. If using Photoshop version 7 or higher select the bicubic option. We advise that you do not use “step” or incremental interpolation. Check your software’s default settings to ensure that all sharpening is turned off..."
My 10 mp camera typically produces high quality versions (jpegs - Aperture 3) of about 8-10mb. I need a nudge in understanding what 'upsizing' and 'interpolation' is - and even more important for me - can this be done in A3 or do I need to buy and learn PS? (I've used PSE in the past, but for two years pretty much only use Aperture except in rare situations.
Thanks very much,
Greg H.

Hi Bill,
I'm applying to Alamy. Are you familiar with them? Their application process only requires 4 photos - most others require as many a 10 before you're accepted.
Alamy requires jpegs. (I was confused at first, because they talked about 'uncompressed' files, which I understood as tiffs also.) Here's from their submission guidelines:
:...We need:
JPEG’s saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop level 10 or above).
Alpha-numeric file names ending in .jpg.
RGB files, not single channel greyscale or CMYK.
Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size..."
Really appreciate any insight you can give the stock wanna-be-newbie . . . !
Greg

Similar Messages

  • Another resolution question.....sorry

    Thanks to Zac and Bogie for helping me out with the whole resolution questions but I do have one more....sorry. Do I need to log and capture in FCP in order to import the file into compressor to change the codec or is there another way? Maybe direct from the camera so it doesn;t get any more compressed than it is?
    Thanks again for putting up with me
    Rick

    If you shot on DV, for example, capturing it isn't compressing more. It is what it is. You shot it DV, it is DV. What's on the tape isn't "better" than what gets captured to your hard drive.
    Anyway, yes, you have to capture or ingest the footage or have some sort of existing movie file to put it into Compressor. You can't take it from the camera directly.

  • Another newb question: multiple virtual servers

    Hi, I have yet another ignorant question. I have several unrelated web projects that I am working on, and I would like to be able to set up a virtual server for each one for testing purposes, such as: http://project1, http://project2, http://project3. Can someone tell me if this is doable, and if there are any tutorials/resources on this for someone who has 0 experience running a web serer? Sorry for being so ignorant!

    Yes, it is doable.
    You can setup virtual server either by IP or by name.
    If you have one IP, and want to set them up by name (ex. http://project1, http://project2, http://project3) you can do so easily with this type of configuration:
    <virtual-server>
        <name>mydomain</name>
        <http-listener-name>http-listener-1</http-listener-name>
        <host>*.mydomain.com</host>
        <document-root>/www/domain</document-root>
      </virtual-server>
      <virtual-server>
        <name>myotherdomain</name>
        <http-listener-name>http-listener-1</http-listener-name>
        <host>*.myotherdomain.com</host>
        <document-root>/www/myotherdomain</document-root>
      </virtual-server>
    ....The important part here is that
    a) all virtual servers share the same HTTP listener
    b) which virtual server serves the request depends on the $HOST request header send by the client. Sun Web Server does the matching for you. It will match $HOST vs. the virtual server's host attribute. Depending on which site you connect to the right virtual server will be used.
    c) if the $HOST request header does not match any of the virtual servers, then the default virtual server defined in the HTTP listener will be used.
    To create a virtual server, use the Admin GUI, access the configuration, and then add new virtual server. Or use the following CLI command.
    wadm> create-virtual-server --config=myconfig --http-listener-name=http-listener-1 --document-root=/www/docs/myserver.com --host-pattern=myserver.com --log-file=../logs/myserver.com-error_logs myserverHost pattern will be used for matching. Some of this elements might be optional.
    Hope that helps. And keep the questions coming :D
    Edit: Also check the documentation
    Using Virtual Servers in SJS Web Server 7.0

  • Another simple questions

    Hello friends:
    Another simple question: I need to learn things about Oracle on my desktop.
    My machine runs Windows 98. Oracle has some desktop product of its Database Line?
    For example: Oracle Personal?
    And Oracle Lite? What's the main difference between Oracle Personal and
    Oracle Lite?
    Thank You
    Gracias
    Ing. Pablo Romero
    CORDOBA ARGENTINA

    1. I didn't know the answer to your first question, but I googled it and it says the item is the in-call audio boost.
    http://forums.crackberry.com/f71/flag-icon-47659/
    2. isn't this setting determined by the carrier? So it's not a setting in the phone, but when you call in to your voicemail you can change your options?

  • Replacement MBP; resolution questions

    My previous MBP (17" 2010-ish model) died a week or so back and I'm now in the process of looking into a replacement. I do have some questions I'd like someone to help me out on, all mostly resolution related.
    So the first few are related to old software:
    I have Photoshop/Premiere Pro CS5.5, which Adobe seems to have given me the finger over in regards to resolution compatability because it's not CS6 or above. Without having seen a Retina Display MBP running any CS5 software (and I'm unlikely ever to at this point) I'm unaware of how atrocious it supposidly looks running on such a machine. How bad/acceptable does it look on a Retina Display MBP? Slightly fuzzy or downright horrid?
    Are there any third party plugins or software to bring it Retina support? Same questions applied to Office 2011 and stuff like Google Chrome. How a Retina Display MBP treats my old software is the biggest deal breaker as to whether I simply buy a Retina Display or pre-Retina Display model. I'm not interested in upgrading to CS6 simply because Adobe clearly hates their older customers.
    Hardware:
    IF the answers to the above are "no" or "you'll have to upgrade your software" and I went ahead and acquired an older Macbook Pro, for this example a 2011-12 15" (even refurbished) model at a 1680x1050 resolution, how does this affect output to an external screen?
    Can the external screen display a 1920x1080/20 resolution on a system without a native 1920x1020 resolution like the 17" model did? Using the example machine's native resolution when using it by itself is not a problem for me, but not being able to get the desired external resolution when it's connected to another screen is.
    I'd very much appreciate it if someone could help me out here. I don't want to pay a ton of money for something that doesn't apply to the above.

    Your replacement came out of a warehouse not off the assembly line.
    Jim
    PowerBook G3 500 Mhz "Pismo"/ 2.0Ghz BlackBook 2GB OWC RAM   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

  • Image size and resolution question.

    Is an image at W 48.667 x H 32.444 inches at 72 res the same as an image that I could convert in photoshop to 300 res and then the with "Resample Image" clicked off would be W 11.68 x H 7.78 at 300 res for printing purposes? I'm asking this questions because after exporting 200 images from Lightroom 1.4, putting them into an wedding album I realized the images were not at 300 res but the first size listed above. I'm trying not to have to rebatch and have to put them back into the album. I sent the question to NAPP and got this back"
    "If you do the math you'll see that the answer is "no."
    48x72=3456 pixels; 32x72=2304 pixels
    11.68x300=3504 pixels; 7.78x300=2334 pixels."
    I did the math and it comes up to 5760 vs 5830. Pretty darn close. So would an image printed out with both settings print the about the same quality or am I missing something?
    Thanks
    Bob

    Bob's question is a common one. And one of the first that most of us struggled to understand. Let's see if I can shed some light to help clarify the matter.
    o The image starts out with a given number of pixels from the camera, scanner, or whatever was its source. The resolution only matters when it comes time to print the image.
    72 dpi was once a common resolution for displaying on a computer monitor. Today 90 dpi is more common monitor resolution.
    o Let's assume that the image is 3504 x 2336 pixels (which I got from his size @ 72 dpi).
    o In "image size", if you do _not_ have 'resample image' checked, all you are doing is _rescaling the image. The image resolution is whatever you enter ...
    For example, if you enter 360 dpi -- the native printing resolution of many Epson printers -- you get a print size of 9.733 x 6.489 inches
    o Let's say you want to print this image at 360 dpi in portrait on 13 x 19 inch paper with a one inch border on the sides. That would make the short dimension of the image 11 inches and the long would work out to 16.5.
    To do that you need to _resample_ the image to change the size. More pixels will be made. The resolution stays at 360 dpi. So check the 'resample image' box.
    After resampling to get the print size and resolution you want, the pixel dimension goes to 5960 x 3960 (from 3504 x 2336). Those new pixels came at a price, but that is a matter for another thread and a lot of personal bias.
    Hope that helped.
    P.S. The answer to your question, Bob, is yes. With resample off in PhotoShop, your original images should have gone to 11.68 x 7.787 inches @300 dpi.
    In looking at the rest of your original post, it seems that the export didn't work the way that you wanted. Do I read right that the images turned out to be 11.68 x 7.787 @ 72 dpi? Can't help with that as I don't do Lightroom.

  • IPhoto book - resolution questions

    What resolution should I use to scan in my printed 4x6 photos to get the best result from iPhoto book? Is 300 ppi sufficient, or should I use 400 or higher? Don't want to scan higher than needed since the files are quite large. Don't know what the resolution is of the printer used by Apple.
    Also, is it still the case that I should make sure photos are first cropped to 4x3 for best results? I have the latest version of iLife 5.
    Thanks for advice!
    Tara

    Jeff - thanks so much for your reply - very helpful. I'm scanning them all in at 600 dpi to give me options of printing some large.
    Another question - does anyone have experience with making photo albums from other programs/services? Are they all about the same in terms of quality? From the few I've checked out, they all look pretty much the same (as advertised) so I'm guessing they are using similar printers/processes and that quality would be about the same. In which case, I can go ahead and be confident that even though I will use iPhoto book because I am a die-hard Mac user and iPhoto is so easy to use, I'm not losing out on a better quality book that might be available through another software/service.
    Thanks again for advice - can't wait to make my first iPhoto album of pre-digital camera baby pics for my now 6-year old. I made one for my boss last year that came out great but all the pics came from digital cameras.
    Tara

  • Picture resolution question - newbie

    Hello,
    I am making a 10 feet by 10 feet (8640 x 8640 pixels) panel. I am using a stock photo that is 4360 x 2912 pixels. I will of course make the picture bigger to fit the panel. My question is: How will the picture look when I have the panel printed at a professional printer? Will it be pixelated?
    Thanks for your help.
    L.

    >I am making a 10 feet by 10 feet (8640 x 8640 pixels)
    10 feet by 10 feet is one thing. 8640 pixels is another and they have nothing to do with one another.
    >The stock picture is 4368x2912 pixels and is at 300 dpi.
    "300 dpi" is incorrect. Image resolution is measured in ppi for Pixels Per Inch. But 300 ppi is also incorrect because the output size is not 14.6 x 9.7 inches, but 120 x 120 inches. Assuming you crop off some of the sides, the final image resolution will be 24.26 ppi. That's pretty low for your purposes. Try to get a higher resolution source. If you can't, then you should explore plug-ins for Photoshop that resample to higher resolution. Genuine Fractals is the one I am familiar with.

  • Resolution question

    I am trying to create a sign that will be 24 inches by 72 inches when printed by a sign company.  I can't figure out how to send them what they need in terms of pixel inches with a requested resolution of at least 150 dpi.  I am starting with a scanned business card which is understandably a giant leap in terms of size.   Help!!!  and thanks. 

    The text for your sign will be easy - if you use a Postscript font.  Postscript fonts - like Times, Times Roman, and Helvetica - are mathematically defined.  That means each letter isn't a collection of dots - which would lose their resolution when scaled up to perhaps a foot tall.  Instead, the letter "O" (to pick one at random) is defined by the mathematical formula for a circle.  Each letter has a different formula.  The net result is that they don't lose resolution when you scale them up.  I've printed individual letters ten inches tall using the Times font.  They looked sharp and crisp.
    These scalable fonts are how desktop publishing got started.  At the beginning, you pretty much had to use the basic four postscript fonts - Times, Helvetica, Courier, and another whose name I've forgotten.  Now there are many more postscript fonts.  I know this because I owned a financial newsletter for 18 years.  We switched to desktop publishing in 1986 - four months after desktop publishing was announced.  I got started on Pagemaker (the first of the desktop publishing applications), and then switched to Adobe's InDesign.
    As a computer fanatic, I was curious as to how the letters kept their resolution - even if you did something bizarre, like specifying that they should be printed at a font size of, say, 23.14.  The answer is this use of mathematical formulas for each letter.  When you scale up the formula for a circle (to go back to my letter "O"), you don't lose resolution.  That's how postscript works.
    Basically, you aren't going to have a problem if you use a postscript font in your sign.  You are going to have problems if you want to include a picture on this sign.  There, the scaling is going to cause problems.
    All that I've said is true if you work with a desktop publishing application or a word processing application.  I'm not sure what happens to Postscript fonts when you embed them into a picture.  I don't know if they remain Postscript fonts.  So be careful about using Elements to turn out the final product as a picture.
    If you are thinking of having a sign printed, then you're probably already dealing with a commercial printer.  Talk to them and explain what you want to do.  They are the experts, and can tell you exactly what you need to do, the format you should use - and exactly how you should deliver the final product to them.
    There are web sites that will license you very, very high-resolution pictures.  These would be, say, 20 megabytes.  Pictures like that could be scaled up without you having too many problems.

  • HD vs. 4K Video resolution questions

    I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
    1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
    2. Can I make a 4k still image project in PP based on a resolution of something like 4096 × 2048 and than just downconvert when I'm done? Are there any issues with working with lots of stills of that size in the program?
    Thanks.

    media kat wrote:
    I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
    1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
    Yes. Infrastructure was dragged up to 1920x1080 over two generations. It'll take another generation to pull it up to 4k. there are already 4k displays and cameras so it'll happen faster than last time.
    4K capture, processing and display is around us. The distribution is the weak link at the moment
    Having said that, just as TV shows destined for SD broadcast were shot on 35mm film (which has far higher resolution than Standard Definition (720x480) ), 4K cameras are being used as the primary shooting camera for TV shows that are broadcast in HD (eg Arri Alexia is very popular for TV dramas - eg Burn Notice).
    Display devices - yes that's an issue
    Price - yes, 4k cameras and workflow is still very high $$$
    other reason - yes, it takes time for the public to adopt the new technology. The ability to broadcast it is the biggest issue right now.
    media kat wrote:
    I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
    1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
    2. Can I make a 4k still image project in PP based on a resolution of something like 4096 × 2048 and than just downconvert when I'm done? Are there any issues with working with lots of stills of that size in the program?
    Thanks.
    Yup, edit in one of the RED formats or make a custom sequence using the industry standard 4K resolutions.
    Alternately if you know you're using only the iPhone camera photos (not video) make a sequence that matches that resolution.
    - For example I made a 4K timelapse using DSLR photos then down converted the 4K sequence to 1080p. (http://youtu.be/hK53CYs8pDY)

  • IPhone resolution question

    Hi, i have some folios in the normal ipad resolution 1024x768 and i want to change now to iphone 5/6 resolution
    couple questions:
    - is 1136x640 the correct resolution for that?
    - how do you usually/whats the best way to resize/change resolution on each article to that resolution?
    Thanks

    If you create an 1136x640 folio, it will show up on iPhone 5 and later but not iPhone 4s and earlier.
    I think the easiest approach is to use the Alternate Layouts feature in InDesign. But keep in mind that the 1024x768 layout converted to an 1136x640 layout would most likely be too small for the iPhone. To maintain the same SD scale, consider creating an alternate layout that's 50% scale (568x384).
    See Digital Publishing Suite Help | Creating DPS content for iPhones.

  • Another BW question about filter in the query definition

    Hi ,
    I have another question about filter in the query definition.
    <u>Question:</u>
    Which of the following objects can be filtered in the query definition?
    A. characteristic
    B. Key figure
    C. Structure
    D. Units
    E. Hierarchy
    My answer is A,B,D,E.
    The answer in the book is A,B,D
    Can anybody tell me which one is wrong?
    Thanks in advance,
    Liu Jia

    HI
    1.The answer could be A,B,D.you can not apply filters on hierarchies
    2.Whenever there is a change in Attribute data(like Location,Num etc...)that has to be reflected in all aggregates of the cube.Thsi can be done by running "ATTRIBUTE CHANGE RUN".
    sri

  • Yet another standby question...

    Hi gurus,
    Please help to resolve the quiz. I have completed manual physical standby installation. It is up and running. I then decided to install Grid Control and to use Data Guard for the standby creation. I've successfully installed GC, deployed all agents, I can see my previous standbys, life is good in short. Now, when I am trying to create the second standby for my production database using the Data Guard I stuck on a logical question:
    On the step 3 of Data Guard standby creation, there is a note, saying:
    The instance name (also referred to as the SID) must be unique on the standby host.
    Yeah, fair enough. But i can't understand what should I do next? I have:
    db_name YELLOW - primary prod
    db_name YELLOW - standby prod 1st
    and i need db_name YELLOW - standby 2nd
    But I can't create it on the same server where the first standby resides.. What options do I have? Do I need to create the second standby on another server? Do I need to kill 1st standby? Is there any way to avoid this conflict? I am confused. I have no equipment for TWO standby servers... I thought I can install there up to 9 standbys.. But it seems to be a problem.. And definitely, I cannot give my second standby other name than YELLOW as all my applications are strongly tied on db_name...
    Friends, please clarify this if you can. I am kinda lost in here..
    Thanks as usual,
    Maria

    well, that's a good question! :)
    because I don't have spare server for the standby. the question is not about: 'should I or should not put more than one standbys in one server' , but more about: 'is there any way to put two standbys with the identical db_names in one server'. I know that I probably sound unprofessional, but I just wanna know.. If the answer is 'no way', I will kill the first standby then and recreate the second one using DG with the correct name.
    Thanks for writing to me,
    M.

  • Export resolution and camera resolution question

    I am thinking of buying a new camera- specifically one that will film video in widescreen as well as widescreen photo's. I have been looking at some that have a maximum video resolution of 848x480, which will come out fine.
    With iMovie, so far I have been using my wife's Casio camera which records video at 640x480 (4:3 ratio), and I have been cropping the video in iMovie and exporting as 640x360 widescreen. The next resolution up from 640x360 in iMovies export settings is 960x540.
    My question is, if my new camera has a video res of 848x480, when I export that in iMovie, will it have to be down-scaled to 640x360, or will there be an option to export at the same resolution (I don't think it will let me upscale it to 960x540)?
    Thanks.
    Message was edited by: wastedyuthe

    As long as you don't have "constrain" checked, it won't resample.

  • Re: another build question! (sorry lol)

    Hi all
    right, after days and days of researching all the excellent articles on here ive had to write a post! So apologies for going over old ground
    Im going to build a new CS5.5 rig (having had a guts full of Apple and their FCPX fiasco its back to pc!)
    so although i appreciate the 990x o'c is prob best option, bang for  buck is leading me down the sandybridge i7 2600k o'c option on p67 mobo with 16gb of ram (option to take to 32 down the line when the chips are out)
    anyway, im sorted on chip mobo (msi big bang marshal p67), nivida 570 etc , its the drives im struggling on!! Im edit avchd video and some after effects, small amount of 3d, and in FCP i always transcoded everything to prores. Now on cs5.5 it looks like real time performance is possible with high end hardwear.
    So mobo, ram, and chip aside, my HDD config im unsure on, ive not really got the cash to go crazy with raid controllors etc, but understand need for seperate drives, etc and tbh might even go downt he cineform route as a prores alternative (prob avoiding hassles of drive speed with avchd)
    im thinking as the SSD's are now dropping in price and the ocz are producing these 500 mb r/w speed sata 6 120gb drives for a reasonable price, would 3 of these drives (one for os, one for media , one for scracth disk ) be a good set up or is it a waste of cash and should i raid 0 from bios/mobo?
    I appreicate that 120 gb drives for media etc are small, but i would take project media from another much large backup drive and just use the 3x ssd set up as working disks for editing & os? once project over, clear out drives to larger back up and start new project!
    Its either that or i go SSD as bootdrive, but some sort of cheap raid set up for my scratch disk, media drives? prob is if i do that, from what ive read (brain dead now) i would be best off with 2 x raid 0 as scratch disk and orginal media respectively when workign with avchd
    HOWEVER, on my mobo there are only 4 sata 6 ports, so if i use one for ssd boot drive, and then im left with 3 x sata 6 ports and another 4 x sata 3 ports to raid on? how does this work? any point in getting the sata 6 drives as one would be stripped with a sata 6 drive plugged into a sata 3 port (this was my reasoning behind using 3 small sata 6 ssd's plugged to the sata 6 ports  and rest of sata 3 ports as storage and backups!
    confused lol!! I just want the overclocked sandybridge system with decent gpu card, as much ram as possible at present, but im thinking my bottleneck will be in the HDD config! any suggestions are much appreicated! im not that techy so whilst have read all the articles am more confused now (plus normally a mac user, so its out of the box configuration usually!) for what its worth looking to purchase something from scan uk in terms of parts! total build cost including a reasonable screen £2,000
    many thanks

    You have a limited budget, especially in the UK, but then don't we all?
    Going for the 980X will triple the cost of the CPU, but even when editing AVCHD material the gains are not sizable enough IMO to justify that cost differential. Add to that you will need 24 GB instead of 16 GB and that carries an additional price tag. Both factors will easily move you out of budget range if you want to have a number of disks and possibly a raid controller.
    Did you read my article To Raid or not to Raid, that is the question. It can be found under the Overview tab at the top of the page? (Currently responding from abroad on my notebook and not having the bookmarks available for easy linking). http://forums.adobe.com/thread/525263
    With media and projects I would advise against a raid0, because of the lack of redundancy. For pagefile, media cache and previews (scratch disks) raid0 is quite OK. They will be recreated if needed. The performance gain from a raid0 for media and projects over a parity raid is easily offset by the time spent on making backups. For parity raids do not use WD Caviar Blacks, but look at the Hitachi 7K3000 line of disks.
    The question of Sandy Bridge versus the old X58 platform is essentially one of 'which limitations are acceptable to me'.
    The Sandy Bridge is a great processor and at least the equal to the old i7-9xx quad cores. However, the platform, the chipset, has its shortcomings in terms of PCIe lanes. Whether that is relevant to you, only you can decide. But hey, we would be in serious trouble if Intel did not manage some progress in two years time from the i7-920 to the i7-2600K. So of course the i7-2600K shows much more potential than the almost retired 920, it is the chipset for the Sandy Bridge that is 'flawed' in comparison to the X58, but that is no surprise, since the Sandy Bridge is a 'middle-of-the-road' platform and the X58 was a 'high performance' platform.
    BFTB-wise I think that within your budget limits, you should look at the i7-2600K, but with the best disk setup you can afford.

Maybe you are looking for