DPI & PIXELS/ INCHES OR CENTIMETERS

Hi guys , I am new to illustrator and photoshop I don't have the DPI on my Illustrator and photoshop I only have Pixels/inches and centimeters, How can I have a good resolution equal to 300 DPI that is required for my project?

It depends on what you mean by "Project". The issue is resolution at your output size using a particular output device. Get your hands on an excellent reference book titled: Adobe's Print Publishing Guide. Output requirements, resolution, document raster setting, etc. are all covered and should be an easy read. Get used to the proper terminology. DPi = output resolution ( i.e., 5080 dpi ). PPi = image resolution ( i.e., 300 ppi @ 100% final size ). Adobe does a fairly decent job illustrating halftone screening and its relationship with "Shades of Gray" formulae. This is difficult for the typical user to get their head around. For instance, the Shades of Gray formula reads like this...
Output Reolution divided by screen ruling > squared + 1 = Shades of Gray ( 256 )
Once you understand the background gymnastics going on in the formula, it becomes easier to understand what resolution will be required for your "Project". Most inkjet printers output using 72 lines per inch stochastic screening. So, most people assume that 144 ppi is only required for output at 100%. There are many many variables involved. There are also consumers who believe offset presses use 150 lies per inch ( referred to screen ruling above ) halftone screens and, therefore, require 300 ppi image resolution ( just multiply the halftone screening 2x ). Another element is output resolution which, if you follow the formula, would need to be 5080 dpi in order to render ( output ) a 150 line screen. Sorry to get so technical. The main point is establishing final output size and to create an image resolution that is appropriate for a particular output scenario. Each "Project" is different, but should be pre-established before the document is produced. That means communicating with whoever is going to output the file before you design the "Project".
So, let's say your "Project" is an 8.5x11" vertical flyer that needs a background image @ 8.75x11.25" vertical ( bleed size ). You talked to the printer and they plan to use a 133lpi screen ruling based on a uncoated sheet. Newr Illustrator applications only require you to set the output resolution in the Print dialogs and give you a selection of low - medium - high which is also the document's raster setting choices. You know that the printer will need an image resolution of 266 ppi based on the lpi output screen ruling ( 133 x 2 = 266 ) at 100%. In brief, document raster res setting shoukld be "High" ( 300ppi ). Note: output resolution is independent and you should not have to set it in Illustrator. Many versions back, you could manually set it in the Document Setup dialogs. May direct-to-plate imaging technologies wil assume a 5080 dpi output resolution at the print vendor's facilities.
Class dismissed.

Similar Messages

Depth of field displayed in inches or centimeters

I wish the depth of field would be displayed in inches or centimeters (for those using the metric system) instead of f1.2, f2.8, etc. I wish it would show it like this: f1.2 (2 inches) or something along these lines.
I understand depth of field is not a fixed value. The depth of field changes based on the distance to the subject, aperture and focal length. I'd like to see the camera body doing these calculations in real time and displaying them somewhere in the viewfinder. I'd assume you could toggle it on or off in the menu for those who don't need this.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

If you install Magic Lantern on your camera, it has all the depth of field information available for display on the rear LCD so it is possible.
Here is a video I made that shows how the values change as you change focus distance or focal length.
Mike Sowsun
S110, SL1, 5D Mk III

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.

Camera Raw 7.0.3 pixel crop vs. upgrade 8.0.3 ratio crop (pixel/inches crop removed)

Greeting all,
I just updated my Photoshop CS 6 camera RAW to 8.0.3 from 7.0.3.
I can no longer have the ability to custom crop by pixel anymore. WTF
Am I missing something?
I have a job coming up where I need to edit/crop over 9000 event images for a client.
300 x 240 @300dpi
600 x 400@ 300dpi
1800 x1100 @ 300dpi
1920x1080 @150dpi
1024x768 @96
It used to be so easy, Whay did Adobe remove this simple feature.
Now it's going to take 2x as long for this.
To deal with this will I have to reinall CS6, I already have the standalone ACR 7.0.3.
The cameras are older and older ACR support is fine.
Brian

> I just updated my Photoshop CS 6 Camera Raw to 8.0.3 ...
So you updated to a version that doesn't exist.
> ... from 7.0.3.
... from a version that doesn't exist either.
> To deal with this will I have to reinstall CS6 ...
All it takes to switch from one Camera Raw version to another is to swap a single file (the Camera Raw.8bi file). But hen, who would want to revert to an older version? The latest version has more features, not less. See the workflow options.

Convert inches to centimeters

Hi,
I'm trying to convert inches to centimeter on the fly, but
nothing seems to work.
<div spry:detailregion="products">{products::height} x
{products::width} x {products::depth} in</div> works fine
but:
<div
spry:detailregion="products">{function::convertMetric}
cm</div><script type="text/javascript">
function convertMetric(region, lookupFunc)
// Format the number in the price column so that it
// becomes a string that starts with a dollar sign,
// and ends with a number that has 2 digits after
// the decimal point.
return "$" +
parseInt(lookupFunc("{products::height}")).toFixed(2);
</script>
Copied right off the API site generates an error.
How is the supposed to work?
Thanks

Hi,
You still haven't mentioned what the error is that you are
getting. Also, look at your SpryData.js file that is deployed on
your testing site, at the top of the file is a comment that says
the version number of the file and the release it is from. What
does it say?
By error, did you mean that you are getting a zero from your
alert? Or are you getting an actual error message in the browser?
The data in a data set will persist, after you load it, until
you either load new data or destroy the data set.
The data set loads its data asynchronously, and only after
you call the loadData() function on it ... if a data set is bound
to a region or detail region on the page, loadData() is
automatically called for you at the time the regions are identified
and processed on the page.
So depending on when you called you getRowCount() and
alert(), there may have been no data loaded yet.
If I understand you correctly, you are simply trying to fill
in a detail region with the dimensions calculated dynamically:
var products = new Spry.Data.XMLDataSet(...);
products.setColumnType([ "width", "height", "depth"],
"number");
<div
spry:detailregion="products">{function::convertMetric}
cm</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
function convertMetric(rgn, lookupFunc)
return lookupFunc("{products::height}") * 2.54 + " x " +
lookupFunc("{products::width}") * 2.54 + " x " +
lookupFunc("{products::depth}") *2.54 + " cm" ;
</script>
You can see a working example of the {function::myFunc} here:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/spry/samples/data_region/Function_colon.html
but it only works in version of SpryData.js released with
Spry 1.6.1 and later. You can get the latest copy here:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/spry/includes/SpryData.js
If you are using an earlier version of SpryData.js, then you
either need to update to the latest, or use a custom column which
you can find a sample of here:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/spry/samples/data_region/CustomColumnsSample.html
--== Kin ==--

Feature Request: Better dimensional meta data displayed

Aside from every other problem with how Bridge lets the user display, sort and interact with meta data (aside from the actual metadata palette), it would be way more useful to have the Dimension meta data displayed under an image shown in 'real world' dimensions.
For example: I'm looking at my 'final images' that have been converted to CMYK, and sized for delivery. At this point Pixel Dimensions are pretty useless. What I really want to do is quickly scan my images, seeing Inches (or CM) with a PPI. My clients never ask for pixel dimensions (unless we are talking about the web, which we aren't) - they ask for 8.76" x 5.34" at 266ppi. It would just be nice to use bridge to double check the image sizes before delivery.
thks
andy

Thanks for you feedback. You wish has been granted (dimensions can now be displayed in pixels, inches or centimeters. Go to Preferences > Thumbnails to select which dimension to display below the thumbnail, or Preferences > Metadata to customize the metadata pane). Check out the free beta of Bridge CS3 (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/photoshopcs3/)
Cheers,
Arno.
Bridge Engineering Manager, Adobe.

How can I set DPI for a document in illustrator?

I'm designing a user interface for iPad (Resolution: 1024x768, DPI:132). Setting the resolution is a piece of cake but when I change the ruler unit to Centimeters, it shows the screen about 36x27cm which is not right (iPad screen is 24.3x19cm).
Illustrator calculates these lengths based on the DPI. But when creating a new document the only available DPI's are: 72, 150, 300 (File > New > Raster Effect). I searched for the answer on this forum and googled it and looked into the help but couldn't find a satisfying answer. I know that Illustrator is a vector design program but there must be a way to set the DPI to an arbitrary value.
How can I have a 1024x768px artboard in Illustrator that is 24.3x19cm? (DPI=132)

Alex,
only when I'm printing or saving the image for the web, Illustrator will ask me the actual width.
Almost. Illustrator won't "ask you for the width." As with any program, when you export a vector graphic to a raster image, you have the opportunity to specify its resolution, in number of pixels. Illustrator tries to "simplify" (and thereby often confuses) this process by providing different interfaces for the same thing. The so-called "Save For Web" interface is just another way to export a raster image (and other web-centric things, like slicing). The settings available (or at least the ones most prominate) differ between the straightforward Export dialog and the Save For Web dialog.
My question is: how illustrator calculates these measures?
Again: When Illustrator's rulers are set to "Pixels," they are really set to points. A point measures 1/72 inch. So Illustrator assumes a "pixel" is scaled to measure 1/72 inch, even though it may not be in a particular raster image object you have on the page.
But when you export as a raster image (in other words, rasterize the artwork), you don't care what those pixels are scaled to due to the actual, physical, hardware dimensions of the device's monitor pixels (so-many centimeters by so-many centimeters). Regardless of whether the device's hardware pixels are gigantic or microscopic, you just care how many of them there are. So long as you export your finished artwork rasterized to that number of pixels, it will effectively be scaled (in terms of actual measure) by whatever device it is displayed on, becasue the device is going to "turn on" a monitor pixel for each pixel in your image.
In other words, when designing purely for electronic displays (as opposed to printing), forget all about PPI, or DPI, which are nothing but scale factors, and forget about the actual measure (centimeters x centimeters, inches by inches) of the monitor.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 15-inch-diagonal Toshiba laptop, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 10-inch-diagonal Acer netbook, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels, and it will display at a smaller actual size than it does on my Toshiba, because the Acer's monitor pixels are smaller than the Toshiba's monitor pixels.
But even though the image's actual measure is smaller on the Acer, and even though your image occupies the exact same number of monitor pixels on both the Acer and the Toshiba, I will have to do some scrolling on the Acer because its monitor has fewer hardware pixels.
So if I'm designing images to fit neatly on my Acer without the need for scrolling, I care about its screen size in terms of number of hardware pixels, not in terms of actual measure (centimeters or inches).
I want to be able to set the lines and curves in terms of pixels.
Because Illustrator considers a pixel to be a particular measure (1/72 inch), work with your rulers set to either the bogus PIxels or to Points (which, in Illustrator, is the same thing). Forget about the dimensions of a device screen. It doesn't matter.
If you want to also spec type in terms of "pixels" you can also (pointlessly) set your General Prefs to use the bogus Pixles as the "Unit Of Measure". But this is pointless because in Illustrator, a so-called "Pixel" is, in fact a point already, and Points is the default UOM for type. Either way, you have to realize that any measure for type (using "Pixels" or Points) is a measure of the font's em-square, not the measure of the actual glyphs. So setting your type to "9 Pixels" doesn't mean the type characters are going to occupy 9 pixels in height.
But you can proceed to specify line weights, box sizes, etc., etc, in terms of ruler units (bogus pixels or legitimate points).
Alternatively, if you want, you can set your rulers to Centimeters. And then as you draw your boxes and set your stroke weights, you can specify them in terms of Points or "Pixels" by just typing "pts" or "px" after the measures you key into the various dimension fields.
But after all this is said and done, the point you're missing is still this: All that means nothing if you don't export the resulting images to the number of pixels that you want them to occupy on the device you are designing for. In other words, you can work with your Illustrator rulers set to "Pixels" all day long; but if you then export the artwork to a raster format using a Pixels-Per-Inch setting other than 72, It won't be the right size, because Illustrator still thinks a Pixel measures one point.
So regardless of how you have your rulers set while working, it is just simpler (and more legitimately meaningful) to export your raster images in terms of number of pixels (N pixels x n pixels), not by PPI. That brings us full-circle right back to where your question started: There is no document-wide PPI for an Illustrator file.
But what you have to understand is this: If your design includes already-rasterized objects, the number of actual pixels included in each of those raster objects is entirely independent of whatever Illustrator's rulers say they "measure" in "Pixels". That is very important. Because if you use as part of your design a raster image that is scaled to anything other than 72 ppi, and/or that image does not align to a point-size increment of Illustrator's grid, then when you export your final product, that image is going to be re-rasterized to whatever PPI you export, based on its on-page position and the quality of that image is going to be compromized. That's why it's important to understand that "Pixels" is bogus as a unit of measure in a program like Illustrator.
In pursuit of web- and device-centric creative markets, Adobe continues to add confusion-generating "conveniences" to Illustrator. For example, to workaround Illustrator's problematic antialiasing, version CS5 added a feature called Align To Pixel Grd which causes vertical and horizontal strokes to align to whole-"pixel" increments, to avoid antialiasing of those edges.
There are also probably templates in your AI installation (depending on version) already set up for mobile devices, and there's the whole "Device Central" online thing, if you're inclined to use that kind of thing. So look up and read about those features.
JET

DPI vs PPI - a definitive answer?

I've looked back at some previous discussions of the DPI setting in Aperture, and I've also read some online explanations of DPI vs PPI. Apparently software applications sometimes confuse the two, and I suspect that this is the case with Aperture but I haven't seen this definitely specified. Photography competitions that ask for high-res files often ask that you use 300 PPI (not DPI); but previous discussions of Aperture suggest that the DPI option (there isn't a PPI option) should be set to 300 for high-res exports. In other words, Aperture seems to refer to DPI when it should be referring to PPI. Is this correct?

LondonDave wrote:
Photography competitions that ask for high-res files often ask that you use 300 PPI (not DPI); but previous discussions of Aperture suggest that the DPI option (there isn't a PPI option) should be set to 300 for high-res exports.
PPI and DPI are often incorrectly used interchangeably but most of the time the improper usage does not hurt anything. However IMO we should ourselves endeavor to use the terms properly. Aperture uses the dpi term correctly because it is referring to an output device.
Much of the time "photography competitions" are just stealing your image one way or another, so the image spec is just to get it into the form they want to harvest. <OK I am a cynic...>
When the contest spec is making sense usually it is just specifying linear size (inches or centimeters) x ppi (like 300 ppi) to achieve consistent linear pixel dimensions, which are what really matter. So if they want to harvest what would be typical 8x10 print quality image files they specify 8" x 10" at 300 ppi: the important net result is that every contestant provides a (8x300) x (10x300) = 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels file.
Or they could specify 24" x 30" at 100 ppi: net result (24x100) x (30x100) = 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels file.
Or maybe it is a size-righteous competition, in which size as viewed matters. After all, we all know some pix show well small while others demand large presentation. In that case they may only specify the ppi. The photog determines the presentation size. E.g. 300 ppi is specified and one wants to present at 4" x 4" it would be a 1200 pixels by 1200 pixels image submission.
-Allen

Copy from illustrator, paste in photoshop. My image is now tiny and pixelated

My coworker and I just updated my photoshop CC yesterday and we are both having the same problem, so here is what happens:
I draw a vector image in illustrator, say its a square that is 1x1". I copy it from illustrator, and go to open a new photoshop document. My preset is "clipboard" which means it should give me a 1x1" square that is the resolution that i have set (in my case it is usually set at 1200 DPI), but instead, it is now setting it to .6x.6 inches. Then when I have the document open and paste it in, it is pasting it at a very low resolution and a smaller canvas size than my image is.
If I dont use the clipboard preset and type in my own size, the resolution is fine when I paste my shape in. This works for shapes that are exact dimensions, but if I have a shape that is 2.2034x3.4565, its a little annoying to have to figure out that dimensions in illustrator then type it in when creating my photoshop document, epseically because I am doing this over and over throughout the day (creating bitmapped tiffs from vector illustrator shapes). Its also annoying to have to make it bigger then crop it down after I paste it in.
Before the update, the clipboard preset would size it exactly to the size of my shape I copied from illustrator and the resolution would be fine.
I am hoping it is something simple that I just need to check or uncheck, but I dont know where to start.
Anyone know how to fix this?

I have the same problem, but I found a workaround. It may be the same procedure Sarahjane_72 used. It adds two steps to the import: Copy the AI vector art, switch to PS, hit command-N, then, when the Paste dialogue box appears, *first* switch the box's units from pixels to whatever you use-centimeters, inches, picas. *Then* switch the scaling factor, e.g., 72dpi, to your preferred size, e.g., 300dpi, and the image should paste at the correct size. If you reverse the sequence and change the dpi first, it will not work, and the results will be unusable. I have no idea why it works one way and not the other, but switching first from pixels(a scaling factor) to an exact measurement in inches or centimeters seems to make all the difference. I've asked this question in other threads. Nobody has an answer, but I can tell you that this glitch survived a reformatting of my HD to get rid of a malware infection, followed by a re-install of the Adobe CC apps. So it seems to be due to some change in Photoshop. It's a big waste of time and I hope it wasn't consciously added as an "improvement".

Saving in 300 DPI?

Hi there! Wondering if anyone has an answer to my frustrating question.
I do commerical graphics for many clients, and I usually start off with a new canvas of 1200x1200 px in 300 DPI..however, when I export or save for web & devices, the resolution changes usually to 150 or sometimes even to 72 DPI wether I'm saving in JPEG or PNG. I need these graphics in 300 dpi..
I'm guessing it has something to do with compression settings, but I'm just not sure. This is a very big problem for me. Any help is greatly appreciated.
(I'm using CS4)
TIA,
~Jess

Jess,
...I usually start off with a new canvas of 1200x1200 px in 300 DPI...
No, I'm sorry, but you don't. Not in Illustrator. This statement reveals the basic misunderstanding you are stumbling over.
There is no "canvas" in Illustrator in the sense of a program like Photoshop, in which you open a "blank" document of a certain number of pixels, with each pixel just initially being white.
There are no pixels when you create a new Illustrator document. There is just a literally empty document. No pixels, no nothing. It contains no pixels at all, even if you have the rulers set to its ridiculous selection of "pixels." (You'll know why this is ridiculous in a few minutes.)
An Illustrator file contains objects, not pixels. Those objects can be of several different types. One type of object an Illustrator file can contain is a raster image, and raster images, of course, contain pixels. But until there is a raster image on the page, there are no pixels at all. And even when there is a raster image on the page, its scale (PPI) has absolutely nothing to do with the "pixels" of the page rulers.
When you export an Illustrator file as a single raster image--using either the Export dialog or the Save For Web & Devices dialog--that's when you create pixels. In fact, if there are already any pixels on the page (in raster images), those pixels are going to be resampled to new pixels to become part of the one big raster image you export.
Consider: Each raster object on the page in Illustrator is independent. Each one can have a different scale (PPI). So even if your document sizes is ridiculously called "1200 pixels x 1200 pixels", it is not. Consider this example and then tell me how it could be:
Suppose you have drawn a 4" x 4" rectangle on the empty page. You have then rasterized the rectangle at 300 ppi. Clearly, the raster image now contains 1200 x 1200 pixels. But the page rulers say it measures 288 pixels on a side. How can that be? Read on.
so a 1200 x 1200 pixel document at 300 ppi is 4 inches x 4 inches.
In Illustrator, this is absolutely not true. A 1200 x 1200 "pixel" document in Illustrator is certainly not 4 inches by 4 inches. It is 16.666 x 16.666 inches. This is because of one simple fact: The "pixels" referred to by Illustrator in its Document Setup dialog and in its rulers are not pixels at all. They are points (1/72 inch).
If you don't believe that, do this simple exercise:
Create a new document in your customary way, 1200 x 1200 with Pixels as the unit. Now stop here for just a moment, and look in that document setup dialog for where you tell Illustrator what PPI you want the 1200 x 1200 document to be. Can't find it. It's not there. There is no PPI in an Illustrator document, so you cannot say a 1200 x 1200 pixel Illustrator document is 300 ppi. (If it's anything, it's 72 ppi, but even that is skewed logic.)
Now rightClick the ruler and change the unit to inches. How big is the document?
Look at the 1" mark on the ruler. Change the ruler back to Pixels. How many "pixels" are converted to an inch? Keep doing this. Use any trick you can find in Illustrator to make its rulers convert an inch to anything other than 72 "pixels."
Now answer this: How big is a pixel?
You can't answer that question because a pixel can be any size you want it to be. It's like asking 'how big is a space?' The very fact that you can scale an image to any ppi you want (make it 1200 ppi or 12 ppi, without adding or destroying any pixels) prooves that a pixel has no fixed measure. And that's why it's ridiculous for a program like Illustrator to use "pixels" as an absolute distance measure in its rulers the same way it used inches or centimeters. It's pure nonsense.
If a pixel has no fixed measure, then how in the world can you use it as a unit of measure on a ruler? You can't; not legitimately, not in the sense of measuring dimensions of objects or pages. (Remember? Illustrator handles objects. Illustrator's rulers tell you the size of the objects.) Anywhere on that page, there may be a 1200 x 1200 pixel raster image, somehow occupying 72 "pixels" or 3000 "pixels" or 150 "pixels" of your page. Used as it is in Illustrator's rulers, "pixels" is nonsense.
Illustrator's "pixel" rulers are a complete sham. You can put a 1200 x 1200 pixel image on an Illustrator page and make it "measure" any number of sham "pixels" according to Illusrator's rulers you want. Therein lies the answer to your question:
Forget about Illustrator's rulers as being a count of pixels. It is not. It's a measure of 1/72" units (in other words, points). Do not think of the sham "pixels" on the ruler as being pixels. Think of them as being what they are: points. Then your confusion will begin to clear.
Better yet, don't use sham "pixels" as your ruler units at all. You want a 1200 x 1200 pixel raster image exported from Illustrator at a scale of 300 ppi, right?
You've been told you can't do that using the Save For Web & Devices dialog. If you've read and understood the above, you should now know that is not true. You would of course use the Export dialog to create a raster image that embeds a scale factor other than 72 PPI in the image file, because the Save for Web & Devices dialog assumes a browser which ignores the scale factor embedded in a raster image file. But for the sake of understanding, let's use Save For Web & Devices anyway:
Forget about Illustrator's sham rulers. Create your document the size you know you want it to be: 4 inches x 4 inches.
Create your artwork on the page. You can use raster images, text objects, vector objects, or any combination of those.
Now you want a 300 PPI raster export of your whole 4" x 4" page. Third grade math tells us that will require 1200 x 1200 pixels.
File>Save For Web & Devices. The Save for Web & Devices dialog opens. Select the raster file type you want, either JPEG or PNG. Go to the Image Size tab. What do you see? Original Size and settings for New Size. Original Size is 288 x 288 pixels (See? Illustrator unyieldingly considers a pixel on its rulers to mean 1/72 inch). But you can enter 1200 x 1200 (or any other desired pixel count). Click Apply.
Save. Select Images Only.
Launch InDesign. Import the image. Note the size. (Does 16.666 ring a bell?) In the Scale X Percentage field, key "4 in". (That's right, key an absolute value into the percentage field.)
You now have a 1200 x 1200, 300ppi image. You did it using the Save For Web & Devices dialog. And you didn't even use Illustrator's ridiculous "pixel" rulers.
JET

Text Appearing as 1-Pixel-Sized Boxes in CS2

Greetings,
I'm having a problem with text inside Photoshop CS2. I've never had this problem before so I'm not sure what's causing it or how to fix it-- obviously.
I first noticed this problem when I was doing some work in Photoshop earlier today. I was working on a 1024 x 1024 image and noticed that when I tried to add text that I couldn't see it at all. It wasn't hidden behind any layers as the text layer was at the top, the opacity was set to 100%, the layer wasn't hidden, so it should have been visible... but it wasn't. I tried increasing the font size up to the max but again I couldn't see it.
Wondering what the heck was going on I created a new image file at 190 x 190 pixels and tried to add in text. This time something appeared and I realized why I couldn't see the text on the previous piece... because the text, for some reason, is appearing as tiny 1 pixel by 1 pixel sized boxes (and the font size is set to 72). If I lower the font size to anything below 72, than the boxes simply disappear. It doesn't matter if it's custom font or the standard font, it all does the same thing.
I was doing some work yesterday in Photoshop so I'm not sure if I accidentally hit some option that's causing this and I didn't realize it; though the text was working yesterday...
I've been trying to trace back through the option panels to see if there's anything that might cause this to happen but I haven't found anything yet.
Does anyone happen to know what's going on here and how I can fix this?
Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time.

> Well, I went into Image > Image Size and it does look like the resolution is set to 1 (I don't remember ever changing it, but who knows). But if I try to set the resolution to 72, the width and height jump up to 73,728 pixels... which, when I tried to have it increase to that size, made Photoshop and my computer wig out and took me an hour just to get the program to close.
For sure you had "Resample Image" checked. You should have had that unchecked. You don't want to re-sample (increase or decrease the number of pixels), you just want to change the resolution-to-dimension relationship. You want to increase the resolution without re-sampling, which will cause your dimensions (in inches or centimeters) to decrease (probably by quite a bit if your resolution was set at 1 pixel (per inch?).
All this works better if you sort of think things through beforehand. If you know you are producing an 8.5"x11" sheet and you know that you will be printing it out at about 300 pixels per inch, then you create your canvas with those dimensions and resolution or, if you are using an image instead of a blank canvas you crop and Image Size the image to that dimension and resolution. Then, when you add your text, the font size in points will be roughly what you would expect from a word processing application. 10-12 pt text will come out similar to a normal "typewritten" text document, for example.

More on DPI, worth reading if you scan and stuff with stills

Even seasoned professionals can't agree on this topic. I'm taking these statements out of context from a listserve and I am posting them without attributing the quotes to real people except to say they are pros. They should know what they're talking about. Yet they don't. Neither do I anymore.
The first salvo:
The 72dpi thing is a myth. The number of pixels is the number of pixels.
72dpi is a print term. The size of the image determines the number of pixels
that will be in each inch of the print.<<<
The counterattack:
<div class="jive-quote">I wouldn't call it a myth, especially since this question specifically
relates to print resolution. DPI is a printer term, but it is also more or
less equivalent to PPI (dots vs. pixels). Pixels are the real resolution
and the "pi" part is merely how many of them you spread over an inch.
This info is metadata reference embedded into the graphic file, so if
you open an image exported from 1080i video as a graphic file, Photoshop
and most other graphics apps will ID this as 72 dpi. At this relationship,
1920x1080 will print an image that is 26.667 inches x 15 inches. If you change the dpi setting under image size, WITHOUT resampling the image, from 72 to 144, then the printable dimensions are cut in half to 13.33 x 7.5 inches. Obviously the smaller you make the image, the more pixels/dots are crammed into an inch.
More dots equals higher APPARENT resolution.
So, although not a true "absolute" value, dpi is still a valuable rule of thumb
for comparison. 1920x1080@72dpi would have less visible "quality" than
a theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed), when both are printedto fill an 8x10inch image area.
If, for instance, you wanted to have a 3D artist create CD cover art (approx 4in.x4in.)they would have to create/render a file that is 1200x1200 (or even biger yet).
Even if this opens in Photoshop as 72dpi, when you change this setting (without resampling) to 300 dpi, the image will correctly print at 4x4in. instead of 16.6x16.6 inches.<
The last rejoinder:
<div class="jive-quote">So, although not a true "absolute" value, dpi is still a valuable
rule of thumb
for comparison. 1920x1080@72dpi would have less visible "quality" than
a theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed), when
both are printed
to fill an 8x10inch image area.
Unfortunately that's not true. As mentioned earlier correctly: a
pixel is a pixel - though dpi is not a 'myth'.
A 1920x1080@72dpi and 1920x1080@300dpi do have a 1920x1080 absolute
count of pixels - so the same resolution/quality. If both of the
mentioned images will be printed out to an 8" wide picture the amount
of pixels available is 1920 (horizontally) in both cases - so no
quality difference, at least when using the same printer.
Changing the dpi will either scale the visual size depending on your
device or the printed size ( also depending on the printer's
capabilities/resolution). Printing the big wallpapers/advertisements
is actually done at around 45 dpi - while it's always a good idea to
have a multiple of the print resolution as source resolution, we
could say we take 90 dpi for a better quality. In the above example
the resulting image size will be around 21" width - in case we map
the available dots directly we'll get 42".
That's what dpi means, dots per inch. If you display/print 1920 at 72
dpi you will get a width of 1920 dots / (72 dots / inch) = 26.67
inch, if you display/print 1920 at 300 dpi you will get a width of
1920 dots / (300 dots / inch) = 6.4 inch. That's quite simple math,
and if you keep the unit types during the calculation, it will show
you whether the calculation is done correctly - dots / (dots / inch)
= dots x inch / dots = inch.
Talking about video and dpi might make sense when it comes to
(control/broadcast/LCD) monitors: so comparing a cheap 14" 320
horizontal lines consumer one to a 14" 800 line studio monitor would
make ~29 dpi versus ~72 dpi. Comparing the same 14" studio monitor to
a 20" 800 line one, will result in ~72 dpi versus 50 dpi. In any case
the source pixels from the image are mapped/interpolated to the
output device's resolution.
It's the same with timecode: if you got 150 pictures, you got 150
pictures and the won't get more or better if you let them run on 1
frame/second, 60 frames/second or 120 frames/second - only the time
it needs to display them does change. But recording with a high-speed
camera at 120 frames/second will give you a much higher motion
resolution than recording with 60 frames/second - and the double
amount of pictures.<
Wait, there is MORE:
<div class="jive-quote">I'm afraid you misread my explanation and qualifiers.
Note the "theoretically" and "if it existed" in:
"theoretically native 1920x1080@300dpi (if that existed)".
In Photoshop you can create both a 1920x1080@72
and a 1920x1080@300. As I explained, the dpi is merely a
metadata reference for the printer. What this value is set at
DOES change the SIZE at which an image is printed at, but
NOT the resolution. Since the same number of pixels squeezed
into less space APPEARS sharper to the eye, 1920 printed
in half the size will look like it has higher resolution than
if it is bigger (viewed at the same distance). In Photoshop,
the dpi value is really just a cross-reference between actual
pixels and the physical dimensions at which these should
be displayed.
The final installment:
We are saying the same thing really, but since the point of
this thread specifically relates to printing a still, the dpi
measurement as a point of reference is still valid. Basically,
what the client really wants to know is, 'at what point does
this printed image start to look unacceptable?' Of course,
that depends on the size at which it is to be printed and
the target medium (such as newspaper versus glossy paper).
bogiesan

The 'DPI Doesn't Matter' comments are generally directed at statements like: " I imported this 300dpi image into FCP and it's wonky. Why does it look like the dog chewed it?"
Yes, scanners measure resolution in DPI. So, to clear things up ... (yea ... right!), Below is the formula which describes the relationship between pixels, physical size (in inches) and DPI. This is an elaboration of Patrick's post.
physical size x DPI = pixel dimension
If you have a 10" wide image and scan it at 300 dpi you will have a 3000 pixel wide digital image. A pretty large image. But what if you want to end up with a 750 pixel wide image?
The equation is transformed into:
pixel dimension/physical size = DPI
so, continuing the previous example, you want a 750 pixel digital image and original media is 10" wide. 750/10 = 75. Set the scanner at 75dpi, verify the resulting file will have a pixel width of 750 and you are good to go.
Just to make things less clear - some more sophisticated scanning software (Silverfast Ai, for example) will also let you put in a multiplier (the Q factor) to the dpi setting which in essence is an oversampling ratio. Set that to 1.0 and your numbers will be as you set them.
Again this is simply to get the file into a pixel dimension that will work in FCP.
x

Fireworks CS3 - mm not pixels

How do I change settings in Adobe Fireworks CS3 to display mm and not pixels?
I am trying to get image the exact size to paper size.

Images are rectangular blocks of data...how wide by how tall, and what color in each. Kind of like a spreadsheet, only...all you see is the color data.
The dpi or ppi (dots per inch or pixels per inch) is only important when you go to print an image, and even then, it depends on the output device and the use. When you print, you can stretch or shrink any image into any physical dimension. What you want to do is create an image that prints acceptably well at the size you want on the output device in question.
The basic formula is size (in inches) * dpi = pixels.
There are other factors to consider, however. For a high-resolution printer, you generally don't need to use the printer's dpi to produce an acceptable image. For instance, if you have a 2400 dpi printer, you could probably create an image using 600 dpi in your calculation and be happy. If the print is meant to be viewed at a distance, then you can use a lower dpi in your calculation than you might if you are producing something to be held in the hand and read. For example, a banner to be hung high in a large room, could probably be produced at 200 or even 100 dpi.
Summary. Image data is based on pixels and color information. It only touches physical dimensions when you output; you must incorporate the specifications of the intended output device and you should also consider how the piece will be viewed. Let go of the concept of a graphic file being a certain physical size. It isn't.

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.

How to get 72 DPI on PowerBook G4 (1440x960) without black bars?

I love the high resolution screen on my PowerBook G4 (1440x960) -- but sometimes this ultra-high resolution screen is difficult to read. For example, screen fonts are designed to display at the proper size on 72 DPI screens, but on this screen they look tiny because the pixel density is well over 100 DPI. In many cases, this problem can be solved by simply increasing the point-size of fonts. I have also written Apple to request that they reprogram OS X to eliminate the 72 DPI limitation on WYSIWYG (too complicated to explain).
In the meantime however, I wonder what resolution I could set my screen to in order that it would display at 72 DPI (or close to it, like 80). So far, the only other widescreen resolutions offered in the Displays control panel force you to have black bars because they do not match the screen's dimensions:
1280 x 800 (should be 854)
1152 x 720 (should be 768)
1024 x 640 (should be 682)
720 x 480 (this is proper but way too low for anything but MiniDV video which has its native rez at 720x480)
This PowerBook's usable display area, by my measurements, is 12.5625" wide. Assuming this is correct, 720x480 yields ~57 DPI. 1024x640 yields ~82 DPI. To achieve 72 DPI, one would have to use 904x602 or so: lets just say 900x600.
So my question is: how can I set my display resolution to 900x600 or thereabouts? Barring that, is there a way to set it to 1024x682? Given the flexibility of QuartzExtreme, I fail to accept that this is not feasible technologically, nor do I care to continue straining my eyes trying to read 10-point fonts that are actually 6-point fonts due to the ~115 DPI pixel density of this awesome screen.
At 1440x960 on this screen, unless you are working in a program that does not rely on OS X's text-rendering engine, fonts appear at 62% of their listed point-size. Here is a list of the point-sizes that things actually appear at:
9-point = ~5.7-point!!! (>.< [<- = squinty eyes])
10-point = ~6.3-point (q.q [<- = crying eyes])
12-point = ~7.5-point (sigh)
For fonts to display at their proper WYSIWYG sizes on this screen in a browser, menu, TextEdit, or other program using Apple's text-rendering engine, they must be set to ~1.6x their proper point-size. Approximately:
to get: | set to:
12-point | 19-point
10-point | 16-point
9-point | 14-point
Of course, this should not be this way; the Mac is supposed to be WYSIWYG. Back in the old days, WYSIWYG was one of the main things that distinguished Mac from PC.
Now, lack of WYSIWYG is one of the main things that distinguishes Mac OS X and recent Macs from Systems 1-9 and vintage Macs. And it's killing my eyes! The text in some of my programs isn't much bigger than the text on the back of my credit-card bills. Help me... and write Apple letters to fix this.
-=DG=-

Once you change the displayed resolution, of course, you lose any use of the higher DPI of the screen.
OS X 10.4 has an experimental developer tool for matching output to the screen DPI, but it causes many applications to malfunction (including most of the core OS). 10.5 (Leopard) will properly deliver this ability.
(and yes, it is sad that it's taken this long to address this quite fundamental issue. At least Acrobat Reader has an option to take account of the display DPI when rendering fonts.)
Here's some links about this resolution independence:
http://dustin.waterfallsw.com/2006/05/one-feature-to-expect-in-leopard.html
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/23/3720
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/20#scalable-ui

DPI & PIXELS/ INCHES OR CENTIMETERS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for