Best size for photos for ATV?

I want to place lots of photos on a 2nd generation ATV to work as a screen saver.
1. Is .jpg the best format?
2. What physical dimension should I make the file or does it not matter? Will any images larger than my HD TV 1920x1080 just scale down to fit the 1920x1080 display?
Thanks.

I believe if you are only transferring the images and not the full-resolution photos, iTunes does the optimization for viewing so the pics will be small. You have a choice within the iTunes preferences.

Similar Messages

Trying to size my photo for wallpaper on iPad Retina

I am trying to use one of my photos, sized 2048 X 1536, for use as wallpaper. I have no problem selecting the desired photo. When I do that, the selected photo is shown enlarged, too big to fit the whole photo onto the screen. At the bottom of the selected photo it says "move and scale" but when I try to size the photo I get no response. I can pinch or spread the photo onscreen, but when I release it, it goes back to being too large.
In other words, how do I make the "move and scale" function work as intended? What am I doing wrong?
Thanks!

You want to print two photos on an A4 page, right?
1 - select the two photos and click on Print.
2 - set Page size to A4 borderless
3 - set Print size to Custom
4 - enter a width of A4's width less .25" and length to A4/2 less .25".
That should give you 2 photos per page with a minimal white border. If you try to set the width to exactly the width of the A4 page and exactly half the length it will revert to 1 photo per page. You can experiment with the .25" dimension a bit and might be able to get it a bit larger.
OT

Best size and specs for Wallpaper photos?

If I want to import some of my jpegs for iPhone wallpaper, what's the optimal size (and other specs, like resolution)?

I wouldn't recommend having lots of huge picture files on ur iPhone...make a folder of smaller versions of the pictures. I think 480-by-320 looks great already...if you want you can add up a little more than that if your going to plan on zooming in to an object/person on the photo (if there's more than one person on the pic) and just crop that one person for your wallpaper then go for a little more than 480x320...

Best printer for photos for Macbook Air

What is the best printer to install with a new Macbook Air for printing nice quality pictures? My old Canon MP960 does not appear to be compatible with the new system.

The last printer driver that Canon released for the MP960 was for OS X 10.7. You may be able to install and use this driver so here is a link from the Canon Australia web site. Note that this driver is not signed for OS X 10.9 so Gatekeeper may block its installation. To get past Gatekeeper, right-click on the installer and select Open from the pop-up menu that appears. You will now have the option to install this driver.
If you have any issue with using this 10.7 driver on 10.9 then there is an alternate driver suite known as Gutenprint, although its photo quality is sometimes not as good as the Canon driver - the extra Photo Magenta and Cyan inks in the MP960 are not used correctly. If you are happy to keep the MP960 then there is another driver suite called Printfab that costs €49 and produces quality photo prints.

PSE 4 -Best Size and Resolution for Burning to a DVD?

I would like to burn a slideshow that is playable on most DVD-players from about 80 RAW files. I plan to "Author" (correct term?) it with Roxio's Easy Media Creator which, I believe, makes an MPEG-4.
Correct me, but I beleive PS Elements 4.0 only makes PDFs or WMV slidehsows. So I have to burn the DVD using another utility.
To what image size and resolution should I reduce my RAW files, so that they can be shown on standard (not HD) television sets?

Hi Julie: Look here:
http://www.danslagle.com/mac/iMovie/video/2002.shtml
That should help.
……I'm using iMovie HD but I'm on a G4 so don't have HD capabilites. Not sure if that matters. ………
No, that doesn't matter at all.

Need extra storage for photos for my ipad ...

I need extra storage for my ipad to store photos on ... I have so far been looking at the Airport Time Capsule & Seagate Wireless Plus.
Can anyone recommend any? Thanks

If you need to offload photos as you have too many, the best way is to plug the iPad into you computer running Mac OSX and dump them into iphoto.
If you want to use something by wireless, without a computer then any network connected hard disk will work much the same. You cannot use file storage directly anyway.. you need to load a file app to start with.
I think use whichever works out the cheaper for you.
Do note the TC is really not designed to do this job and if you already use the TC for Time Machine it is messy loading files onto it. This is apparently a new purchase so you are not using the TC at all..
The TC lacks a method to back itself up.. And this is one of its great weaknesses.. if the TC fails.. and they all fail at some point. How are you going to recover those photos?? From iPad you will not have the tools needed to do backups of the TC to another location.
I have no idea if the seagate has built in proper backup but I would find out.

Print settings for photos for HP Photosmart 3180

When I first hooked up the HP3180 I tried printing photos from iPhoto and could select 4x6 from the iPhoto Print window. I printed several photos easily.
After my daughter had been using the MacBook for several weeks (wirelessly connecting to printer through Airport Express), the Print settings changed. Now, my Paper choices include many choices of strange sets of numbers numbers but none are 4x6, 5x7, etc. Also the Presets used to include "Photo Paper" and other choices. What happened to those settings? Is it Express or Bonjour-related. There is no way now to select 4x6 in the Print window.

All of the directions received from all parties still do not solve this problem.
The correct printer Epson Stylus 2200 is selected in System Preferences as well as in PS Elements. There are any number of dialogue boxes that open none of which allow a selection for type of paper or quality. It even warns you when ready to print that the quality is only 220 dpi.
With my photo on the screen and a Command P or selecting print from the PSE File Print Menu the screen has the following settings
1. Select Printer          Epson Stylus Photo 2200
2. Select Paper Size    Letter
3. Select Print Size      8" x 10"
x     Crop to fit
Print 1 copies of each
Help     Page Setup     More Options....                         Print     Cancel
Page Setup
Settings          Page Attributes
Format For:     Epson Stylus Photo 2200
Paper Size     US Letter
Orientation
Scale
More Options               On the far left Printing Choices/Custom Print Size/Color Management
Printing Choices
Photo Details                              Iron On Transfer
     Show Date                                        Flip Image
     Show Caption
Show File Name
Border                                        Trim Guidelines
     Thickness     Inches                         Print Crop Marks
     Background
System Preference all settings are correct Epson Stylus Photo 2200.
Note again all suggestions received work just fine if in IPhoto Command P opens screen with a selection called presets and it allows selection for photographs and type of paper.
Again thank you all for your help and patience.

How can I set export size for photo's ?

In iphoto I used to name and size each photo for export - can't find this feature in photos.app, hope there is a way of doing it still ?

Hallo -
select the picture and then export. Besides the file type ( jpg ) there is a small arrow downwards. If you click, then you may choose the size and quality as before.
Hope that helps

Best Size for Web bound Video Clips

I have been making all my videos at 320x240 pixels, is that still the best size to go for or should I be brave and go a bit bigger, if so how much bigger? Any advice from you experts appreciated.

Bigger is always better.
But you don't have to change what you've already published as there are simple html codes that can "change" the default dimensions of your QuickTime files. There are plenty of other html "tricks" that can change the display properties of those files.
Trick number one; the "Scale" command:
Most applications use the default size of the QuickTime file as part of the html code but you can do more.
Scale="tofit". The "tofit" command overrides the actual dimensions and uses the values you enter in the html code.
This allows you to use a 320X240 file and display it at "double" size by simply adding the command and changing the values in your page code. In most modern video codecs (especially H.264) your file will look just fine at double size but you save the bandwidth by using a smaller file size.
QuickTime Media Link (.qtl) file. These are simple text based files that automatically download when clicked and launch the file via the QuickTime Player app. These files can have "special" properties (like Full Screen playback) and even open the QuickTime Player app (even if not already opened).
Since they are text based files you only need a text editor to create them and they can be inserted in any Web page as a "link". Nothing loads (no bandwidth used) until the URL is clicked. One of my files as an example:
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/.Public/Tiny_Movie.qtl
You can also use the special "href" tag code to "call" the QuickTime Player app (bypassing the browser plug-in). Another example:
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/64/
Lots of tricks you can do to make "small" files look "large" and save bandwidth at your Site.

How to reduce the size of photos

I want to reduce the size of photos, for example 50% samller. Please give me the steps in iphoto, but outside prepairing photos for export/mails.

If your talking about reducing the photo by percentage, from within iPhoto to leave in the Library, there is no way that I know of to do that. You must either Export or Send to Email. And even there, now way to simply select reduce by percentage. You would need to detemine the resolution in pixels of the original and reduce the pixels by half.
I would use Graphic Converter to do that. It has a scaling feature to reduce by percentage.

Best Block Size in Raid for Photo files

I am setting up my two drive striped RAID 0 and came to a screeching halt at the raid block size.
This RASID is strictly for photo scans and PS CS2 photo files, mostly high res, some medium JPEGs.
Adobe says PS CS2's default block size in 64K, if I can believe the technical support guy, who said it off the top of his head, after not understanding what I was talking about.
Apple Tech support first knew nothing about it. Then, after checking all over for quite some time, said 32K is adequate for what I am doing but 64K is alright. In other words, he said nothing.
What would be the best block size for my purpose and why.
One scan file size that I just checked is 135.2MB, another 134.6 MB and that is typical. JPEGs are, of course, smaller, ca 284 KB. Photos with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II run 9mb up to 200mb after processing. No other tyhpes of files will be on this drive.
What would be the ideal block size and why?
Thanks much,
Mark

The default 32K is for small random I/O pattern of a server. Use 128/256K for audio and video files. And 64K for workstation use.
the larger block size gives the best performance for sequential I/O. Someone mentioned an AMUG review of CS2 tests that showed that 64K.
Because this is probably a scratch volume, you could always test for yourself, and rebuild the RAID later and try a different scheme. Sometimes that is the best way to match your drives, your workflow, and system. There are a couple CS2 scripts and benchmark utilities to help get an idea of how long each step or operation takes.

'Photo's resizing? Best size for best quality?

Hi, I want to put a London underground tube (metro) map on the 'Photos' section on my iPhone. I know that iTunes resizes all images before they go onto the phone, but that is the best size and quality to ensure the image comes out the clearest on the phone? Thanks.

Really hard to say. Quality is subjective. But the "optimizing" a sync does does make it hard to get large images onto the phone and still look good to zoom in if you have that much detail.
Will say, what a person did for the NY and DC subway/metros maps, they took the image and sliced it into multiple pictures, each being the size of the screen (so resize the original first to be proportional). Then they named them in order from top left to bottom right. Then made a folder named SubWayMap and put those images in it and put that folder in the folder they sync
In the end, they can access their photos, all the thumbnails side by side reveal the full map, then you click which part of the map to see (thus go into one image) and that image could zoom and still be clear to read what they needed.

What is best size pixel for photo to put into movie

Hello,
I am making a "home made" movie". It will be a mix of video and photos.I hope to keep the length to 20 min.
So my my PC (VISTA) does not chunk down on me I need some advise on what is the best size pixels ration of photos to import into Premier pro
thank
ken

When you need to pan and "zoom" then you need to increase the resolution so that when you "zoom in" (using scale) you never scale beyond 100%. For example if you want to zoom in to show an area that is a quarter of the size of the entire image you need to double the resolution. In Steven's example you would need to create your still with a resolution of 1440x1068.
Cheers
Eddie
Forum FAQ
Premiere Pro Wiki
- Over 250 frequently answered questions
- Over 100 free tutorials
- Maintained by editors like
you

Pre-Size Your PPI for Best Print - Once Good Advice Still Good?

In another thread someone mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.
For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys. One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers. Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
So it's time to question the old rule of thumb.
Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
1. Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
2. Does it help or matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to help answer these questions.
I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches: http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/Ghirardelli.jpg
Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times. The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode. This was the result:
I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images. Here are my observations:
Naked eye:
The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.
I could not detect the inkjet dots. Smooth objects look smooth.
Jeweler's Loupe:
I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.
At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.
The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints. But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".
Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.
Macro Photo:
Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos. I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better. As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results. But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused. Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.
The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print. Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.
Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower). This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.
Left to right, top to bottom: 1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
Conclusions:
Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer. It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old).
Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.
When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher) I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh). I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.
It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.
Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.
I encourage you to experiment and report your results with your particular combination of gear.
Your comments are welcome!
-Noel

Noel Carboni wrote:
Jeff Schewe wrote:
I would never suggest people actually downsample though...why waste the pixels?
Exactly. There was a statement in another recent thread that downsampling to be an even fraction of the print dpi was important to do.
It might have been a misapplied extension of the advice to upsample. It's not been all that long that we've had big enough high resolution data that even makes downsampling a possibility.
-Noel
I believe I was the one to make that statement, which was based on recommendations by an Epson Print expert at a seminar demoing printers. He showed to prints from the same file, one set at an even multiple of 720 and the other some random number. It was subtle but visible the difference. That was probably 5 years ago.
In the meantime, I have made extensive tests of prints on my Epson 3800 trying many combinations of single pass, hi speed, Super fine print (2880x1440) and down to the basic level.
Everything evened out at 720 dpi. At 360, which is where I output from ACR, I can make an 8x12 print with no resampling whatsoever. Upping that to 720 and pushing the printer hard (2880x1440, single pass on Canson Platine), I see a discernable difference in the smooth tonalities.
As I understood you from past conversations, you employ the maximum output size from ACR which in my case, would double the file size by upsampling, and if necessary, downsample from that. I am not comfortable doing that as a default operation, but perhaps Jeff S might step in here and clarify. After all, ACR does offer that option! But my file size now goes from ~70MP to 143 MP, cutting my storage capability by 1/2. It's not a trivial matter when two of us here can run 600 to 800 images in 1/2 day!

Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution) Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution) Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

You're welcome, and thank you for the reply.
2) Yesterday I made the subclips with the In-Out Points and Command-U, the benefit is that I've seen the clip before naming it. Now I'm using markers, it's benefit is that I can write comment and (the later) clip name at once, the drawback is that I have to view to the next shot's beginning before knowing what the shot contains.
But now I found out that I can reconnect my clips independently to the format I converted the master clip to. I reconnected the media to the original AVI file and it worked, too! The more I work with, the more I'm sold on it... - although it doesn't seem to be able to read and use the date information within the DV AVI.
1) Ok, I tried something similar within FCE. Just worked, but the file size still remains. Which codec settings should I use? Is the export to DV in MOV with a quality of 75% acceptable for both file size and quality? Or would be encoding as H.264 with best quality an option for archiving, knowing that I have to convert it back to DV if I (maybe) wan't to use it for editing later? Or anything else?
Thank's in advance again,
André

Best size for photos for ATV?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for