Aperture 2.x and Nikon D3 Pixel Size issues

I've noticed that Aperture 2.x does not use the correct pixel size for Nikon D3 images: they are read by Aperture as 4272x2828 instead of 4256x2832 as they should be. Exported images are similarly incorrect. (This also creates an awkward aspect ration of 151:100).
After the problems with Aperture displaying D2x files shot in High-Speed Crop mode I find this really irritating. Is Aperture slightly blowing up the image in the longer dimension to gain these extra pixels? It makes me wonder if Aperture/Apple can't get the basics like the size of the picture right what else might be getting misread/mishandled behind the scenes.

ts, i know this issue has been discussed many times on this forum, however it still is a problem. it might not be an issue if all you use is the file created by aperture, however if you are retouching the same image (or a series of images) converted by different applications, this becomes a serious issue.
also, in several previous threads you find statements such as "there is more to a raw file than nx or photoshop displays". this is true and false. if aperture would render more sensor pixels than capture or photoshop, the "cropped" image out of photoshop or capture would exactly (pin accurate) match at least parts of the "oversized" export from aperture. this is not the case.
for me, this issue (even though often discussed) is still not solved and seams to apply to raw from various cameras, nikon and canon. in my case, it applies to nikon D200, D300 and D3.
every time i have to create layered illustrations, retouching work, layer different exposures in photoshop (anything that requires several instances of the same image rendered by different applications), i can't use aperture adjusted images. in some cases, creating two version in aperture (then export and overlay in photoshop) can do the trick, in other cases you would like to use the advantages of different applications (nx for ca, aperture for global adjustments, psd for lens correction etc etc).
i understand, this might be a minor issue (if at all) for most, however if your core business is image retouching, and you deal with thousands of images from various photographers, pixel accuracy can become a serious issue (feel free to call it a BFD if you like).

Similar Messages

Do flv and swf have pixel sizes?

I am putting some video at a website. The video is in FLV format. How do I know what size the pixels would be?
Do flv and swf files have actual pixel sizes? Thank you!

Stop please
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene 16, 2013, a las 5:09 p.m., "roymeo_" <[email protected]> escribió:
Re: Do flv and swf have pixel sizes?
created by roymeo_ in Using Flash Player - View the full discussion
The video would have whatever size it is encoded as, and then the player could display that at whatever size it desired.
Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4999752#4999752
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4999752#4999752
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4999752#4999752. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
Start a new discussion in Using Flash Player by email or at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Aperture changing pixel size after using Retouch/Repair/Clone tool?

I apologize if this is a stupid question - I'm new to using Aperture and have a rudimentary knowledge (at best) about the mechanics of Aperture.
I use the retouch tool on a portion of my photo, and the pixel size is reduced. I want to maintain the original 12.0megapixels. How do I work with the photo without changing the pixel size - or, how can I restore the orginal pixel size after editing the photo?
I've also cropped the photo, constraining the aspect ratio at 4:5.
Here is the file info before I start working with it:
And after using the retouch, this happens:

Frank Caggiano wrote:
Again this is not normal Aperture behavior, this doesn;t occur on my system. If you could post the screen shot of the adjustments it might help.
Sure - Here is a sample image. It is not a RAW file. It appears to be happening in every image in the library. I made a new library and it appears to be happening in the same pattern. I'm in Aperture, opened a photo which was imported directly into Aperture from camera.
Now, I'm going to crop to 4:5 ratio - from what I'm hearing, crop should not effect the 12.0 mp?
Notice how the MP is now 10.6?
Now, I'll apply auto enhance:
In this case, it looks like cropping does effect the pixel size. It's a different image from what I was using before.
Now, I use the retouch tool:
The MPs are now 9.7 - it keeps getting smaller and smaller!
When you crop, is it normal for the MPs to reduce?
Thanks so much for your help, I'm so frustrated.

Illustrator and Photoshop's stroke appearing larger then the pixel size I put.

My strokes in Illustrator and Photoshop CS6 are showing up larger then the pixel size that I put in. I checked my settings and nothing looks out of the norm. What could be causing this problem?

In InDesign, how does one determine the pixel size of a text box? Specifically, we need to write text to specifications of 600 pixel width, and have no idea a) how to scale a text box to specific pixel width, b) how to

This may be a basic question... but in InDesign, how does one determine the pixel size of a text box? Specifically, we need to write text to specifications of 600 pixel width, and have no idea a) how to scale a text box to specific pixel width, b) how to determine what word count we can fit in, and c) how to do it in a table? Thanks!

Set your ruler increments to pixels Preferences>Units & Increments. You can fill the text box with placeholder text Type>Fill with Placeholder text and get a word count from the Info panel with Show Options turned on from the flyout.
From the Transform panel you can set a text box's width and height

Weird symbol in file name and images by pixel instead of size?

i my filenames i sometimes see a weird box with what looks like a script "x". is this some kind of default symbol that indicates i am using a non standard symbol in this file name? it sometimes happens after i drag and drop something say from my desktop to my laptop.
also, is there any chance of being able to see pixel size of images in a Finder window in addition to or instead of File size?
Thanks.

Some things about this.
1. Ignore the back slash in front of the space. That's the terminal shell convention for escaping (making significant) special characters that follow the back slash (in this case a space).
2. A pathname like ~/foo/bar is another shell convention where the tilde is a shorthand for your home directory.
3. I am not convinced that the weird stuff is not there in the Finder display. I think it just doesn't show in the Finder's desktop font.
4. I am going to use your example for the following discussion. Extrapolate where needed.
The terminal shows a pathname like /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes, i.e. with some kind of garbage character(s) after tutes.
In terminal type cp followed by a space and drag that tutes file into the terminal window. I think it will look something like this (don't hit return yet).
cp /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes
Now type a space and add ~/Desktop/foobar on to the end of the line. It should now look like the following:
cp /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes ~/Desktop/foobar
Hit return. You should see a file called foobar on your desktop (unless you get an error because the shell didn't like those special characters at the end of the pathname, in which case we have to quote it, but ignore that for now and we can address that in a followup post). All this did was copy your file to the desktop with a different name, foobar in this case.
Now I propose that the file foobar is named just that. If you throw that in the trash, do a get info on it, or drag it back into the terminal window, it should still be just the name foobar. Nothing else at the end of it.
If all this goes as I described, then the moral of all this is that however that original problematic file (or files) was created somehow something added those non-printable characters to the end of the name. In some fonts it shows as best the font being used can show it. In others they remain invisible because there is no representation in that particular font.
...on the other hand, I could just be wrong about all of this!

File size growth fr Aperture to Photoshop and back. Why?

When i take a 15Mb file from Aperture to Photoshop, work on it in photoshop them save back into Aperture its grown to about 56MB back in Aperture, BUT why when i open the Adjustments HUD for this new file in Aperture does it make a new copy of the image and make it 150MB size in Aperture.

This is because Aperture converts the file to a TIFF wrapped as a PSD file to import to photoshop, which gives you the initial size increase. When photoshop saves the file, it is also saving (in the PSD) any layers you have created, so several layers will increase the size of the file several times.
Nothing wrong with Aperture - just a fact of life when storing native Photoshop files (PSDs) to disk - they're huge!
Hope that helps.
Dave.

Upload to Picasa and pixel size reduced by 50%

Hi,
I am having problem with the Mac picasa uploader so I used the slow method that uploads 5 pictures at a time. BTW I was uploading pictures from Aperture 3 to picasa. However, the file pixel size was automatically reduced by 50%. Is there a way I can upload file at its original pixel size?

What are the export settings you have defined for Picasa? Is it set to export at 100%?

If I'm copying text and/or vector elements from Indesign to Photoshop how come their pixel sizes change even though I opened the same sized document and my indesign file is a web file?

If I'm copying text and/or vector elements from Indesign to Photoshop how come their pixel sizes change even though I opened the same sized document and my indesign file is a web file?

>my indesign file is a web file
Pardon?
Or do you mean that, when you created a new document, you choose Web as intent maybe?

Aperture 2 and Nikon D7000 RAW files. Do I need to upgrade to Aperture 3?

I currently have a Nikon D70 with a Nikon D7000 on its way. I want to know if Aperture 2 will process Nikon D7000 RAW files. I searched Apple support and these discussions. I only could find confirmation that Aperture 3 now handles it. But I have not found anything that confirms that Aperture 2 indeed did NOT get an update to handle the D7000 RAW files.
Can someone confirm this?
Thanks.

For future reference, all the cameras listed on the Aperture RAW Support web page that have the double asterisk "**" require Aperture 3.

HT3805 How can I adjust the pixel size of a photo

I wish to upload pictures to a site and they have requested min size 40 x 40 max size 200 x 200 I assume this is pixel size but can find no way of doing this in Aperture.
Surely this is a common enough request?

Use the file export command (Shift-Command-E), adjust the size to whatever you want.
You can make your own preset by pressing the + sign on the lower left corner.
If you forget any of this, just use Apertures Help screen:

Exporting Versions to a specific pixel size

I want to export files for a slideshow that requires a pixel size of 1900 x 1200 , can it be done in Aperture ? , I have tried modifying the export preset , it does not work with (Fit Within ) is there another way ?
Thanks
Ray

Trythis,
What exactly is failing?
Your 1900x1200 size is a very strange size. That's not the 3:2 aspect ratio of an SLR or the 4:3 aspect ratio of point-and-shoot cameras. Also, Aperture will not enlarge pictures by choosing "fit within", since a smaller picture already "fits within". I.e., if you have a 640x480 picture, that already "fits within" 1900 pixels so Aperture will not make it bigger.
Also, Aperture will not crop your pictures on export. You may have to crop each picture first so that it has a 19:12 aspect ratio, and then "fit within" 1900 pixels. If the aspect ratio of a picture is 19:12 and the picture is larger than 1900 pixels, Aperture should properly reduce the size to 1900x1200, based on the aspect ratio.
nathan

Cropping images to exact pixel sizes

I'm a Photoshop user but being a recent Mac convert I'm having a go with the Aperture 2 trial.
I'm a bit confused about how to crop an image to an exact pixel size. I've watched the video tutorial several times over but I still can't achieve what I want. So ...
* My original image is 2816 x 2112
* I select a 4 x 3 aspect ratio using the Crop HUD
* I pull the rectangular box out to take in the section of the image I want to crop out of the original
* I want a finished image of 500 x 400 pixels
* I go to the Crop field in the Adjustments tab and change Width to 500 and the Height to 400
* The crop area on the image ends up as a small box in the bottom left hand corner and when I hit Return, all I end up with is that area of the image inside the box when what I want is the originally selected crop area but at 500 x 400 pixels
* If I stretch the rectangular box out to cover the original area, the pixel dimensions go up again beyond 500 x 400
Which part of the process am I missing?
Thanks for anyone's advice,
Mark

What you type in that box is just the ratio not the actual pixel number. And the box does not like to many digits in there. A ratio of 4 x 5 would work perfectly fine in your case, but more complicated ratios like 21 x 50 don't work.
To get 500 x 400 px you must then export your image with settings that restrict your image, eg, to fit into a 500 x 500 px box.
The idea behind this two-step approach is that you might think of 500 x 400 px output right now, but by doing the actual pixel generation at a later point, you can always easily export later at 1000 x 800 px if you need a higher resolution version with the same aspect ratio.

Adjust Pixel Size?????

is there a way to adjust the pixel size of a photo? its a basic thing but i cant seem to figure it out!!
thanks
Brad

This is easy if you want to export the image just make an export preset for the specific "fit within" dimensions for the long side of the image. Go to file->export version or right click to get to the same thing and click the export preset drop down to edit or create a new preset.
Aperture will not allow you to reduce the resolution on your "master" that is stored in the library or referenced but you probably do not want to do this anyway.
RB

Aperture 2.x and Nikon D3 Pixel Size issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for