Batch Procedure Not Working For Image Resizing in Fireworks 8

Question

Scaling graphics with a batch process. You can alter the
height and width of images being exported using the Scale option in
the Batch Process dialog box. To set scaling options for
batch-processed files:
Select Scale from the Batch Options list and click Add. In
the Scale pop-up menu, select an option:
Scale to Fit Area makes images fit proportionally with the
maximum width and height range you specify.
If you have chosen either Scale to Size or Scale to Fit Area
in the Scale pop-up menu, you can also choose to scale only
those documents that are currently larger than the target
size. To do so, select the Only Scale Documents Currently Larger
Than Target Size option. Click Next to continue the batch
process. For information on completing the batch process,
This routine us not working as described: It is only
modifying files larger than the dimension I wanted, whereas in the
Fireworks MX, it would upsize smaller images to this requirement.
Just FYI, we did not have the box checked to only apply to
documents that are currently larger than the target size.
IS THIS A BUG IN THE FIREWORKS 8 ???
This is one of the primary reasons we use this software
ALL RESPONSES WELCOME, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WILL FIX THIS
ISSUE !!!!
JSEVonda

Answer 1

I agree the option should not be there if it doesn't work.
Quite
honestly, I think the FW team missed it in the last upgrade.
And you're talking about more than just scaling - you are
most likely
including an export command as well, this was not indicated
in your
original post. Keep in mind your scaling occurs BEFORE any
saving of the
file at any new optimization setting. Maintaining a low
compression
would help, yes, but I'm not referring to quality loss
through
compression, I'm referring to quality loss through data
extrapolation
(interpolation?). When you resample an image to a large pixel
count, you
are asking the software to use an algorithm to create pixel
data that
did not exist in the original file. Whether it's Photoshop or
Fireworks,
quality loss will happen in a bitmap file. In short, you're
asking the
software to make an educated guess about the data in these
new pixels.
As for your end results - you did not indicate the original
size of your
files (pixel dimensions), nor how much you are upsampling. If
your
files are not being upsampled too greatly, and/or there is a
great deal
of pixel data to begin with and/or the final upsized images
are not
really large then it's possible that you do not notice any
significant
loss in quality.
My assumption was you were working with small files in terms
of
resolution. Generally, though, web images are not large to
begin with
and do not have a huge pixel count, so resizing them upwards
would
usually be noticeable.
All I am pointing out is that the file would not have the
same quality
as the original, even if the option was working. Whether that
difference
in quality is noticeable . . .
For example, I took an image that was 72 x 54 pixels, resized
it 200 %
to 144x108 pixels. Bigger image, but quality is low and
noticeable.
I do the same thing with a file that is 1024 x 768 and I can
still see
some loss, but it doesn't look quite as bad. IT is however,
noticeably
more blurry than the original.
And now how about a possible FW solution? ;-)
Open ONE file in FW
Set your jpeg quality to 100 (Type the value, do NOT use the
slider)
Go to Modify > Transform > Numeric Transform
Set your new image size to the desired dimensions
Click OK
Go to Modify > Canvas > Fit Canvas
Find those three steps in the History panel and save it as a
custom
command.
You will now be able to access this step in the Batch Process
Wizard, in
the Commands menu. or in the Commands menu in FW.
Add your other batch steps. You do not need the export option
because we
set that up in the custom command, but you might want to use
the Rename
operation.
Click Next
Choose an export directory if you wish
Save the script to create a complete custom command that
handles both
sizing and exporting and file renaming and a custom location
for saving
the file.
This one script can then be used either from the Batch
Process Wizard OR
from the Commands Menu in FW.
One note, if you choose a custom location for the files to be
saved,
that directory gets written into the command, so whenever the
batch is
run - that is where the new files will go.
As for other programs, Photoshop comes to mind. I'm sure
there are
other, specialized batch processing programs out there which
could do
exactly what you want.
HTH!
Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community
Expert:.
Extending Knowledge, Daily
http://www.communityMX.com/
CommunityMX - Free Resources:
http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
.:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.fireworks
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver
JSEVonda wrote:
> Well if that is the case, they should have notified the
users to tell them, as
> that is one of the primary reasons we even use the
product. On that note, from
> reading above replies, the upsampling did not degrade
any image quality if you
> simply chose "custom", as it allowed you to set the
image quality to 100% of a
> jpeg, during the batch routine, if you so desired.
>
> That said, what other product will do the task of
"upsampling" as you call it,
> in a batch format, as I do not want to have to go thru
over 1000 images each
> week and upsize them one at a time.
>
> JSEVonda
>