Determining accurate pixel dimensions from screenshots

So, this is a bit of a strange question. Essentially, the company I work for has a large social media presence and is worried about how certain images display on mobile vs desktop. There are a ton of guides out there providing the optimal image sizes, but many lack any mobile image dimensions.
My answer was to take screenshots of each platform to determine the optimal size. However, when I use the marquee tool to measure width and height, my pixel dimensions are very different; especially the ones from my phone.
For example, Facebook says an ideal profile picture is 160 x 160 pixels. I took a screenshot on my Macbook Pro and what I measured was 150 x 150 pixels exactly and my mobile screenshot shows 212 x 212 for the picture.
While the aspect ratio is same (1:1), I'd just like to understand why my monitor screenshots are giving me a different number.; especially because I've been reading that ppi has no bearing on web based images anyway and that 160 pixels should display the same regardless of ppi.
To put it simply, is there a way to accurately determine the sizes of these images via screenshots or am I shooting in the dark for a solution like this?
Thanks in advance!

Similar Messages

Determining Video Pixel Size from Still Pixel Sizes

Hello
I posted a few questions here in regard to establshing good Pixel Sizes in stills for use in FCE.
Tom, and Studio X were very helpful, and I picked up a few pointers.
One thing I still didn't grasp completley was how to determine (perhaps from a simple formula), what the Video Pixel Size would be from a photo's pixel size.
As Tom pointed out:
"A 2400x3000 pixel image may be perfectly adequate and not produce as many imaging problems when scaled in a video application"
And as I discovered in regard to print size:
"An 8" x 10" document that is scanned at 300 dpi has the pixel dimensions of 2,400 pixels (8" x 300 dpi) by 3,000 pixels (10" x 300 dpi).
So then all this being said, is there a way to easily determine what the Video Pixel Size will be from the given Pixel dimensions of a still image?
(Like from a re-sized Tiff in Photoshop)
My version of Photoshop doesn't seem to have that conversion option for determining NTSC Video image quality.
Thanx
Mike

And if I need to zoom in really tight to a small area in a particular still, I should allow myself an image size a bit larger than 1280x720. Correct?< </div>
If only it was that easy. The video screen is roughly 800 by 500 pixels. That's all there are. If you bring in a 1600x1000 JPEG (might want to try TIFF instead) and you wish to see the whole image, it will be scaled down to 25% to fit onto the small screen and all of your pixels will be thrown away or mashed together. It's terribly inefficient and the image gets mushily softened.
If you need to zoom in to a particular spot on the image, imagine that spot as filling the 800x500 pixel screen. You can use a simple ruler and measure the area you wish to be full screen (without any scaling being applied by FCP because that will destroy your image). Now measure the largest part of the image that you want to be on screen at any one time when zoomed all the way out. The ratio of those two numbers is what you will need to scan. Example (highly simplified don't try to argue about the precision) if your big image is 10x8 inches and your desired tight shot is 4x3 inches, you must provide a TIFF that is 2.5 or 2.75 times the size of the tightest area. That tight area is going to be 800x500 pixels. You will scan the 10x8 image to obtain a TIFF that is almost 2.5 times 800 pixels wide or 2000 pixels, by 2.5 times 500 pixels high or 1250 pixels. Do not bother to convert that into DPI. You are targeting an image size measured in pixels. It's got nothing to do with the size of the original image or the DPI. Repeating: Absolutely nothing.
This will give you an image into which you can zoom and suffer no image degradation. It will also give you a tremendous processing hit. FCP just doesn't like to do that kind of scaling.
Umm, doesn't look like I helped much. This issue is highly misunderstood and it's quite confusing if you come from a Photoshop background. giving up concepts like DPI is almost impossible. The only way to get it is to work through the many options Photoshop and video people offer up and try to figure out why some of them don't work for you.
bogiesan

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.

How do you find the pixel dimensions of a photo to embed in Illustrator CC?

We recently upgraded our software from CS3 to CC. I'm having trouble determining the pixel dimensions of the photo I want to embed in Illustrator. In our old work flow, we simply clicked on the object in Illustrator, and then opened a new document in Photoshop, and it would retain the dimensions at our document size in Illustrator. It was then a simple matter to paste the photo into the box, position and crop and save as a PSD file and then place in Illustrator. That does not work any more in Creative Cloud. The object downsizes to 72 DPI while retaining the resolution setting. We need to keep our Illustrator files to the minimum, so embedding larger than needed files is not possible.
I've researched a bit and I see others with similar problems, but I haven't seen a workaround or a way to determine the pixel size. Document info in Illustrator gives the 72 dpi pixel settings, even though the document is set to reproduce at 200 dpi.
This is something that used to be so simple I didn't think much of upgrading. Now my workflow is horrendously long. I have to rasterize the entire graphic and then crop what is the inset photo. If there is a simpler way, please tell me. All the literature is backwards, about placing an already sized PS image into Illustrator. I need the other way 'round.
Thanks in advance for any help.

I think I have a workaround: Make sure the clipboard settings are on 72 by cutting and pasting a 72 dpi file in PS, as it seems Illustrator images are seen that way, no matter what the output resolution is. Click on Photoshop and start a new document. It will retain the proportions of the Illustrator image in 72 dpi. Then open image size and make sure the resample box is checked. Change the resolution to the desired, in my case 200.. Then place and crop your photo, and save the PSD file. Open Illustrator and place the PSD file. This works for me.

Batch exporting pixel dimensions

i want to export pixel dimensions from many images to text files in a batch process. the information can be exported as a metadata template from file info (camera data 2), but i have been unable to record the necessary actions. when i try to record the actions, nothing is recorded other than opening and closing the file. ideas?

That sounds like a script may be better suited for that task.
Have you tried posting over on the photoshop scripting forum?
Photoshop Scripting

[svn:osmf:] 9861: Fixing bug where sizing pixel from the previous run of updateIntrinsicDimensions would prevent the dimensions from being decreased .

Revision: 9861
Author:   [email protected]
Date:     2009-08-31 23:08:03 -0700 (Mon, 31 Aug 2009)
Log Message:
Fixing bug where sizing pixel from the previous run of updateIntrinsicDimensions would prevent the dimensions from being decreased.
Modified Paths:
    osmf/trunk/framework/MediaFramework/org/openvideoplayer/layout/LayoutContextSprite.as

When I export photos from Aperture, the pixel dimensions are halved thus losing data. I have set the export preferences to export at original size, to no avail. This happens even if I just drag to the desktop and then back, or if I export into my iphoto

When I export photos from Aperture to desktop or iphoto I lose pixels. The pixel dimensions are halved, despite setting the export preference to export at original size. Anyone know why or how to correct this?

Dragging an Image from Aperture exports the Preview. Preview parameters are set on the Previews tab of Aperture preferences.
Are you seeing the same results when you export using one of the export commands?
Is so, confirm that the settings in the selected Image Export Preset ("Aperture➞Presets➞Image Export") truly represent those in the Image Export Preset's name.
HTH,
--Kirby.

What are the pixel dimensions of emailed photos from a 4S?

Don't have a 4S and I'm wondering what the pixel dimensions (e.g. 1280x960) are for the Actual sized photos, Large size, and Medium size when you email a photo.
Thanks!

See Optimizing performance in your iBooks Author books
Density is discussed by Apple in this context as 'dpi'...
132 - iPad 2
264 - new iPad
At the top of this forum there are popular links listed on the right, including image sizing etc. Be sure to study those existing/previous threads on this topic.
Good luck.
Ken

Scanned handwriting in Tiff - DPI/pixel dimensions requirements for Printing

Namaste'
I am preparing to have a book printed of my Teacher's sayings in His own handwriting from His diaries.
The sayings were in ballpoint pen and some 20 years old.
We scanned them by a Greyscale hand scanner in 300dpi.
I have since cleaned and cropped them, so the 300 dpi standard is no longer there.
Since they are old, done with ball pen and not very thick, it is not realistic to take them "out" of their context, so they are on white background.
When I look at the scans info, it says 400dpi (the handwriting and the white background) but when I look at what the pixel dimensions say, they are all under 1 mb, mostly in the 300's to 700's k.
I do not understand this.
I was told 240dpi smallest.
What is the relation of pixel dimension to dpi? And how do I know this is enough?
Can anyone help clear this up for me?
When I take them down to the local printer and run them on their machine,for testing, the images look fine.
I am using PSCS3.
Thank you.
A-Girl

When I scan linework art like signatures, handwriting, pen-and-ink drawings, etc., I set the scanner for 2400 PPI at print size, 1-bit/lineart/monochromatic/bw mode (your scanner software should call it one of these, the important bit is that it is NOT greyscale mode).
The reason for this is most imagesetters and platesetters output at either 2400 or 2540 DPI, so scanning at or close to the output resolution provides the crispest appearance. If you are outputting to a laser printer or other desktop device you could scan at its output resolution, 600 for example, but a 2400 PPi 1-bit file is not large at all so why not "future proof" your scans so if you get them professionally output later they are at maximum quality.
Using a 1-bit file eliminates any soft edges as you would have with a greyscale image, and 1-bits can easily be made to have a transparent background so placing them into a layout is a piece of cake.
My best advice to you is to detemine your output size, then re-scan at 2400 PPI at the correct size.
To your other question, pixel dimensions refers to the actual number of pixels in the image, and is the only true measurement of resolution for a digital image. Until you determine the print size PPI (pixels per inch) is irrelevant, and the PPI will change based on the output size: if you have an image that is 2000 pixels wide and you print it at 10 inches then your PPI is 200 (2000 / 10). If you output at 5 inches then the PPI is 400 (2000 / 5).
DPI (dots per inch) refers to the resolution of an output device. The two are commonly used to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms -- digital images contain only pixels, never dots, and printers output with dots, never pixels.

Matching InDesign and Photoshop Pixel Dimensions

I'm attempting to use InDesign to determine pixel sizes of a baseline grid and typography that will eventually be used on a webpage. Since Photoshop doesn't have a baseline grid or a baseline grid snapping feature, I thought I might be able to make something work in InDesign.
Unfortunately I'm running into a problem, where pixel dimensions in InDesign don't seem to match up with pixel sizes in Photoshop. For example, with documents at 100% view in both Photoshop and InDesign, a 100px square appears larger on screen in InDesign than in Photoshop. It's as if InDesign is rendering the view at a different resolution than Photoshop.
Above you can see a square made at 42 pixels in InDesign viewed at 100% zoom (though InDesign insists on displaying the size as points) with the same square screen-captured and opened in Photoshop. The square is actually measured at 54 pixels.
How can I get InDesign to display the same pixel sizes as Photoshop?

True enough on both counts! Relative resolution and scaling is definitely helpful for print design (I learned early on what scale to view in order to preview onscreen at what would be actual physical size--the reverse of double-clicking the zoom tool now, I guess.)
But I see no reason why we can't have it both ways. Isn't that the whole point of "web" or "Digital Publishing" intent in document setup? Why not have Indesign switch to 1-1px scale when you create a document set to web intent? Wouldn't be any different, functionally, than what the script does, it would just revert to physical scale when I open a print document. Seems like it should be obvious that the preview scale when creating a web site should be 1 pixel is 1 pixel--my browser isn't going to display my website at 123.7% scale. Or that if you chose the "iPad" digital pub template, the display scale should be twice that of a (theoretical) Retina display iPad. It's functionally just a different number, right? That is, if I were writing a script, I could theoreticall specify any resolution I wanted to get the desired display scale.
Ok, so now I'm turning this into feature request, I know, and the question has been thoroughly answered. But it needn't be that complicated--all we really need is a place to CHOOSE what mode to opperate in, right? If Adobe really prefers not to open the output-intent-view-scale can o' worms, then why not leave an Acrobat-style resolution preference where I can type in a number? The obvious advantage of that over the script solution is that it's easy to set or reset.
Aside: while we're on the topic of having it both ways in regards to using Indesign for more than print work... Why not include the option to set the document color profile (most likely to sRGB) when I choose "web" intent in a new document dialog? Oh! And give me actual RGB black and white color swatches in "web" documents.
I'm just excited about the idea of Adobe taking a few more steps in the direction they've started with the whole document intent feature set in Indesign. A more inviting web design environment wouldn't in any way keep me from continuing to use Indesign for print work (all day every day). What is there to lose? Not like they're developing Fireworks anymore, and Indesign already makes more sense for web than Illustrator. ... I'm sure it's a HUGE internal debate at Adobe. Probably some Fireworks replacement app in the works that I don't know about.

How can I create accurate decimal dimensions when creating a new document or using the art board in Illustrator CS6? When I type in a number with a decimal, it automatically rounds the number up.

How can I create accurate decimal dimensions when creating a new document or using the art board in Illustrator CS6? When I type in a number with a decimal, it automatically rounds the number up.

For my part you are welcome, sdowers.
Unfortunately, the uncertainty arising from the rounding has been up several times here in this forum.
I just came to remember a warning that needs to be given:
The rounding of the representation of a numerical value may be harmless in itself, but if you use it for any operation that changes the value, such as multiplication or whatever, things will go wrong because the operation will be made on the basis of the rounded value instead of the true value. So, as in your first case in post #2, 39.625 rounded to 39.63 will become 79.26 instead of 79.25.

Is there any way to batch change resolution, but not pixel dimensions?

I was changing the resolution of my digital photos from 180 to 300 ppi individually as I edited them, but sometimes I would forget. Since I need the higher resolution for printing, I decided to automate that step by using PSE's "Process Multiple Files" feature. I noted that the Resolution selection was grayed out until I checkmarked "Resize Images." Since I didn't want to change the number of pixels, I left those fields blank.
When I started the automated processing I noticed it was terribly slow, so I cancelled it and looked at the resulting files. They had more than doubled in file size because PSE was nearly doubling the Pixel Dimensions! I don't want to try a work-around by "resizing" to the current pixel dimensions, because the processing still takes about 45 seconds per file, and if I've cropped the photos, the pixel dimensions vary. Is there an automated way to change only the resolution in PSE . . . quickly?
Also, I really wanted to double the resolution from 180 ppi to 360 ppi, but PSE limits my choices to either 600 or 300 or less. I've read about Scripts, but I don't think PSE supports them. I have version 6.
Thanks for some help.

Thanks for your input, and you may be right, but I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure this out. I know it's the same photo on my monitor, but I keep reading that print resolution (ppi) is different from pixel resolution (i.e. 2000x3000.) This is my situation-- I'm sending the photos to a publisher for printing in a book. The publisher did not specify a size in inches--in fact I think the photos will be different sizes when printed on the page. They told me to send the photos in at 1600x1200 pixels. I've heard that 300 ppi is the standard resolution for publishing, so to get decent quality printing of my photos I thought I should increase the resolution from 180 to 300. But thinking about the different sizes, it seems that the resolution (ppi) will change depending on the size the photo is actually printed. At 300 ppi, a 1600x1200 photo will be printed at size 5.333" X 4". If a photo is printed full bleed on the cover of the book that is 8" x 10.667", then it will be 150 ppi. So, I guess you are right that I don't need to worry about the ppi resolution for the book photos.
Now, let me figure about what I need to print my own 4x6 photos. My digital camera was set to 16x9 jpg, so my workflow is to make PNG copies to work with and after editing, save them in the 16x9 format before cropping at 1600x1200 pixels, then sharpening before doing Save As jpg in Book folder. I was thinking I needed to change the resolution to 300 ppi when saving in the 16x9 format so if I want to later make 4x6 prints, I'll have good quality prints. But you have made me think a little harder--what I do is choose the 4x6 crop tool which takes care of whatever ppi resolution is needed for that size print. Oh good, you have saved me extra work. Thanks!
(BTW, I choose the 16x9 format because I was planning to use the photos in a widescreen slideshow, but my husband wanted something he could hold in his hand--hence, the book . . . and a lot of cropping!)

How do I change DPI in Photoshop CC without changing the pixel dimension of the file?

I used to be able to do this in Photoshop CS6 by simply clicking the check boxes in the "image size" dialog box:
scale styles
constrain proportions
resample image
(all boxes UNCHECKED)
Then input the dpi (usually converting a 300dpi print file to 72dpi for web). And the pixel dimension will stay the same.
In CC the only option I see is "scale styles" which does not apply to the pixel dimension of the file.
Please help. I would hate to have to do this function in CS6 all the time.
CS6:
CC:

Just uncheck the [ ] Resample checkbox, then change your Resolution.
Change the units from Percent to Pixels if you want to see pixel dimensions.
Once you've successfully run it through (after OK), note that it will remember your units settings the next time you use it.
-Noel

Would a photo with 70MB in pixel dimensions but low resolution print clearly?

Hi there,
Here is a snapshot of the image size window:
Is it true that if pixel dimension is very large in size than the resolution number under document size doesn't matter ?
I really woudl appreciate your help in telling me if my photo will print clearely choosing the belwo document size.
Many thanks!

This is the easiest way for you to get an acurate idea of what your image will look like printed...
1) Create a new document the size it will be printed and set the resolution to 300dpi (pixels/inch). (Due to the size you are going for I suggest using RGB instead of CMYK)
2) Open the file you created and (using the 'Move' tool) drag it onto the newly created document.
3) Zoom in to 100% and what you see is what you get when printed.
The distance the print will be viewed from is important however, for example, if it's a billboard the viewer is pretty far so the quality is pretty forgiving and a resolution of 200dpi should work.
Feel free to hit me up and send me one of the pictures and I will give you an acurate judgement on how they will look printed at that size.

Image files with large pixel dimensions display out of focus in a Bridge viewer?

I Create image files with pixel dimensions 2048x1365. When I display these files from Bridge on my Mac, either by pressing the space bar or in a slideshow, the images are out of focus. If I left click or click/hold and move the images slightly on screen they display in sharp focus. Unfortunately, although landscape-orientation images display correctly with no change in position or size, portrait-orientation files are enlarged and display with top and bottom off the screen. The pixel dimensions of my monitor are 2450x1600 so, yes, if portrait images are displayed at 100% they should display off screen, but this does not excuse the out of focus display of landscape files on this large screen. Nor does this explain why the portrait files are out of focus when they fit on screen. When the same files open in a Camera Raw window they are in focus. When they open in Photoshop at 100% the files are in focus.

Hi, Clay. Photoshop.com has its own forum, so you might want to post this there:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshopdotcom

Determining accurate pixel dimensions from screenshots

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for