Dpi / ppi distiller

Hey
I have a postscriptfile from InDesign that I want to make into a PDF by opening it in distiller. It contains highresolution photos, vectors and text. Usually I export to PDFs with 300 ppi. Different sources claim that the plotter can plot the accuracy of respectively 200, 300 or, maximum, 600 ppi
My question is; wath dpi(not ppi) should I choose in distillers adope pdf settings?
300? 2400? neither of those?
I have tried to look dpi/ppi up myself, but the information is so contradicting.
I hope someone can help me!

Probably not Distiller Server. If not, I recommend the Acrobat Windows
forum (it's Acrobat Distiller, and comes with Acrobat). There are
several places where dpi/ppi is mentioned in the Distiller settings,
so when you post be sure to say which one you mean.
Aandi Inston

Similar Messages

  • DPI / PPI Problem

    Hi,
    I am hoping that someone can help me.  I am a very novice user of illustrator, I only use it to design my own business leaflets/logo etc.
    I am trying to upload a version of my logo to an accounting package website for use on invoices etc.  The website insists on a file with the folowing attributes: no larger than 930x310 pixels and it MUST be 300dpi.  The problem is that I cannot save the file in CS6 in DPI only in PPI.  I have exported a png and also a jpg at 930x286 pixels and at 72dpi but the website continues to reject the file as being the wrong resolution..... can anyone offer any help or advice please?
    Thanks in advance.

    Matt,
    Two things:
    If they really mean that you need to keep the image at 930 pixels AND 300 PPI, you will have to scale it down to fit. 900 pixels correspond to 3 inches (900/300 = 3).
    When going from 72 to 300 PPI, you should go from 930 to 3875 pixels, not 3879, so you may have a look to see whether your image is off the pixel grid.
    Which exact requirements are you facing, if you can quote it here?
    Edit: Hi Monika and John.

  • How do I increase the resolution (DPI / PPI) of a scanned image on my iMac?

    How do I increase the resolution of a scanned image. i currently am using a new All in one HP Photosmart 5512, I've installed all the proper drivers have a usp cable connecting the AIO to my iMac. I am running OS 10.7.4. 
    The HP Utility icon only allows me increase the file size (image quality) not the PPI/DPI
    Thank you in advance for any help
    This question was solved.
    View Solution.

    Hi,
    You may change the Resolution using the HP Scan application as following:
    Click HP Scan at the top and then click Preferences.
    Within the launched windows select the required Resolution.
    close the Preferences window and perform the scan.
    Regards,
    Shlomi
    Say thanks by clicking the Kudos thumb up in the post.
    If my post resolve your problem please mark it as an Accepted Solution

  • PPI/DPI setting... why do you want it?

    I occasionally see requests for a PPI/DPI setting in Aperture and I just noticed a request for the same in the discussion about Adobe's Lightroom. I've posted comments about why a PPI/DPI setting is not needed, so I'm curious to see if maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to hear some feedback on the subject to help educate myself and others along the way. If my examples aren't exactly clear and seem confusing, perhaps someone else can explain what I'm saying in a much more elegant and easier understood way.
    Here's a copy of my original post about the subject. I've added a few other examples for further clarification on pixel dimensions in relationship to output.
    "An output ppi/dpi setting is not necessary and not relevant and here's why...
    Remember, were talking about pixels here, not inches. Pixel dimensions are all that matter when it comes to sizes in digital photography.
    So when you export an file from Aperture and want something different from the built-in presets, choose "Edit" from the "Export Preset" pop-up in the Export dialog box. You can then add your own settings based upon the output pixel dimensions you would like to have.
    For instance, if you need an 8 x 10 inch image, then take whatever ppi/dpi you would like and times it by those dimensions. A common standard for the web is 72ppi, so your pixel dimensions for an 8 x 10 inch image will be 576 pixels x 720 pixels. A common standard for printing is 300dpi, so then an 8 x 10 inch image will need to be 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels.
    Hence, say you have a 2400 pixel x 3000 pixel file, it would equal...
    - 8 x 10 inches @ 300 ppi
    - 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72ppi
    - 4 x 5 inches @ 600ppi
    - 10 x 12.5 inches @ 240ppi
    - 2400 x 3000 inches @ 1ppi
    All the above listed dimensions will give you the exact same perfect 8 x 10 inch print from a 300dpi printer. In fact, whatever the dpi of the printer, each of the above listed dimensions will print the same size on the same printer.
    Say you gave your favorite printer a file that another image editing application (Photoshop perhaps) says is 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72dpi or any of the other combinations I listed above. Well most printers are set to print at 300dpi, so it would output perfectly as an 8 x 10 inch print. If the printer was set to print at 360dpi, then you would have a perfect 6.667 x 8.333 inch print.
    Again, if you need an 8 x 10 inch print and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 2400 x 3000 pixel file, if you need a 16 x 20 inch print, and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 4800 x 6000 pixel file. If the printer prints a 240dpi, then an 8 x 10 inch print would need to be 1920 pixels x 2400 pixels and a 16 x 20 inch print would need to be 3840 pixels x 4800 pixels.
    So, you see, it doesn't matter what you ppi/dpi is, it can be anything you want it to be. The only thing you need to know is what you want your pixel dimensions to be and choose those based upon what your output device is."
    -Robert
    PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800 GT, 600GB RAID

    Many of my clients have come to expect me to ftp
    their images cropped, sized and sharpened for final
    reproduction. They say they get much better results
    when I handle all of that. I'm billing by the hour
    for Photoshop type work, so it has become a profit
    center, and I find that when left to the printer to
    sharpen files, and oft times even the designer, they
    do not do such a great job.
    So, the ability to export at a given size and ppi is
    a feature that does not seem at all unreasonable.
    Telling my clients that their requests for files at
    300ppi are unreasonable is unreasonable. It is not
    befitting of a "professional" program to ask us
    constantly to do workarounds for such commonly
    expected capabilities. But it is, like so many
    other "we know best" features, the Aperture way.
    David,
    I completely understand your point and I really do believe that it would be very simple to add a function like this to both Aperture and Lightroom. It's not like such a common setting is a complete mystery to software developers or anyone associated with the commercial arts industry. So, in light of the fact that Adobe, the king of the commercial art software industry leaves a simple common function such as this out of their application also, one has to ask, why?
    I really don't believe for one second that Apple just dropped the ball and didn't include this function just because some believe they rushed a product to market. That just doesn't make any sense. How could you not include what is considered to be such an important function by so many out of an application. Nope, I don't buy it, I truly believe it's not include it on purpose.
    So again, I ask why?
    I keep having to rethink about what is just "photographic". Remove myself from the business of running my studio. Forget about what a photographer needs in order to run their business, I myself use Photoshop, Bridge, InDesign, Illustrator, GoLive, Quark, QuickBooks, many times a week if not everyday. I need all these things and much more in order to conduct business, but business isn't "photographic". Business is business.
    Photoshop is an absolutely wonderful application, but it doesn't do "photography" very well. This is where both Aperture and Lightroom come in. They both ask, what is "photographic" and then only do that.
    And again, I keep coming back to the fact that the ability to control DPI/PPI settings is a pre-press function only, it's not a photographic function, never has been and never will be. It maybe a common function that a photography studio may need, but it has absolutely nothing to do with photography. It's strictly pre-press.
    With both these new products that Apple and Adobe have offered the photographer, I think they're really trying to drive home the point that they want us "Photographers" to really re-think how we've done things in the digital realm all these past years. They want to help us be "Photographers" not just businesspersons that need to run a multi-function commercial art business.
    -Robert

  • How can I view resolution in DPI and not PPI?

    Hi all,
    Under Bridge>view content as list, I got a column of Resolution but the mesurement are ppi and not dpi and i need to see the dpi.
    Anyone knows where can i set it?
    thanks..
    shlomit

    Shlomit,
    Strictly speaking, images do not have dpi (ever), only ppi.  Images are made of pixels, not dots.
    Dpi refers to prints.
    However, in everyday use, the terms are loosely used interchangeably.  They work out to exactly the same thing (same numbers), but ppi is the correct terminlogy.
    See:  http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html
    DPI, PPI, SPI - What's in a name?
    Printer ink dots and image pixels are very different concepts, but both use the term dpi in their own way (dots per inch).
    Inkjet printer dpi ratings refer to printer ink dots (the four colors of ink), which is NOT AT ALL the same thing as image pixels. These are such different concepts that some people think we should reserve the term dpi for those inkjet ink dots, and reserve use of ppi only for image pixels. Not a bad plan, except that this view fails to recognize real world usage.
    We may hear scanning resolution called spi (Samples Per Inch), and that is indeed what it is. We often hear image resolution called ppi (Pixels Per Inch), and that is indeed what it is. The spi and ppi terms are correct. But historical and common usage has always said dpi for image resolution, meaning pixels per inch, and fully interchangeable with ppi. Pixels are conceptually a kind of colored dot too, and resolution has always been called dpi, for years before we had inkjet printers. Dpi is just jargon perhaps, but it is a fact of life. Scanners and scanner ratings say dpi too, meaning pixels per inch (see dialog pictures here, here, here, and here).  I habitually always say dpi myself, but I did try to switch to ppi in the book version.
    We may use the term of our own preference, but we need to understand it both ways. Some photo editor programs have switched to saying ppi now, which has much to be said for it. But others have not switched, so insisting on conformity for others to only say ppi will necessarily encounter much frustration, because the real world simply isn't that way, and obviously is not ready to switch yet.
    My point here is that we must understand it both ways, because we will see it both ways, often, in the real world.
    It's easy, not a problem - the idea of printing digital images is always about pixels per inch, so when the context pertains to images instead of printers, all of these terms, spi, ppi, and dpi, are exactly the same equivalent concept - they all mean pixels per inch.
    There is no problem understanding any use of dpi if you know the context. It always means the only thing it can possibly mean. If the context pertains to images or printing pixels, dpi means "pixels per inch". If the context pertains to inkjet printer ratings, dpi means "ink dots per inch". There is no other meaning possible. This should be clear and no big deal - the English language is full of multiple context definitions.

  • Any way to change PPI when choosing save for web?  Seems to force 72 ppi/dpi

    I'm doing business cards for clients and submitting them to the printer in PDF which works out just fine.  However when I submit a jpg as a proof (to show orientation) they complain that I should do a higher resolution for the proof.  Illustrator seems to force 72 dpi/ppi (I realize these aren't exactly the same thing) when I use save for web.  If I use "export" instead Illustrator doesn't seem to honor my crop dimensions and I get an export that bares no resemblence shape-wise to the original document.  Why can't I just put 300 ppi in somewhere and get a higher res output?  Thanks for your help!
    Patrick

    It was because the business cards had a particular curved die-cut and they wanted to know exactly where I wanted the cut.  I sent them a 250pixel wide one and they bitched about it but did it.  Yes I sent them a PDF for the printing and it turned out just fine... I just wanted a quick raster export with curved die-cut lines and couldn't do anything other than 72dpi apparently.
    edit: Was also trying to send a client a quick jpg or png proof today and couldn't do anything bigger than 72 dpi (in save for web)... when I tried to export a png instead the cropping was way off.  I remember crop-area-make in older versions of Illustrator but apparently they took that option out while still requiring it

  • How iget 100 dpi resolution image from hp 1005mep

    How I get 100 dpi resolution image from hp1005mep 
    When I scan a document I always get 96dpi image 

    the resolution is 180 dpi.<<<</div>
    At what image size? The dpi/ppi is meaningless unless you relate it to an image size. 180 dpi at 12X9 is the same as 360 at 6X4.5 and both are about 3.9MP.

  • Aperture 2 Export DPI Settings

    I've wrote on this subject before, and I have re-read all the responses. I have yet to have a clear understanding of the "DPI" setting in the export dialog, and the default setting of 72 DPI. I am quite familiar with DPI, PPI, pixel count and dimensions, and resolution as it is determined by print size and pixel ratio. I'm still not clear on why Apple has this box here, and why they call it DPI.
    I know DPI and PPI can and will be interchanged and being aware of context in this area is important. But what purpose does this DPI box serve? What is it doing in the export dialog box, and how does it effect you by changing the 72 DPI to lets say.....260 DPI?
    Does anyone have a clear answer on this? I've been searching the entire manual and can't find anything that details this little box, its function, or reason it is there.

    All the DPI setting does is tell the software that you open the file up in how to display rulers. It will have no effect on output quality what so ever.
    Here is a blog post I wrote on the subject, I hope this helps.
    http://www.bokehbrothers.com/2010/02/09/dpi-what-is-it-and-what-are-the-myths/
    Bill Debevc
    sshaphotos.com

  • DPI Scaling on Multi-Monitor (Windows 8, 8.1)

    Hi, I have two monitors, one internal and one external, configuration goes as follows:
    MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012) Native display/monitor
    2880x1800px
    15.4"
    221 PPI/DPI
    Detected by Windows as: "Generic PnP Monitor"
    LG D2343P External Monitor
    1920x1080px
    23"
    96 PPI/DPI
    Detected by Windows as: "LG 2343(Digital)"
    I want to make both displays to work together with different "DPI Scaling" on Windows 8.1 Pro Preview so GUI elements render correctly scaled between them just at it happens on Apple OS X, I have read an excellent article which shows how to change and customize this settings but settings apply over all displays and there isn't a way to make windows know the DPI/PPI of the Retina monitor.
    http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/28310-dpi-scaling-size-change-displays-wind ows-8-1-a.html
    How can I achive this?

    Hello. I have the same setup - Windows 8.1 on Macbook Pro Retina and Thunderbolt display.
    What I've noticed is that in the device manager both the Thunderbolt display and the Macbook screen show up as "Generic PnP Monitor," and I am wondering if these generic device drivers are not passing the correct resolution/screen size informations to the OS.
    Maybe Apple can create customized drivers for each one of their monitors instead of using the generic driver?

  • Basic question about PPI

    does the measurement of ppi apply whether you are doing print or onscreen work? Thanks.

    These terms DPI and PPI are basically used interchangeably. Purest  will argue PPI  Pixel Per Inch is a display term and DPI Dots Per inch is a printer thing.  All that really matters is that you have to know how devices work.
    Displays basically have a fixed resolution that is they are run at a single setting in the divice driver while setting can be changed they normally are not. LCD in particular are usually run at their native pixel resolution for the look best that way.  LCD Native Pixels are something like 1600x1200.  That the maximum Physical number of pixel the display can display.  You could run the display at 800x600 half resolution what the display driver would do in the case is it would user 4 native 1600x1200 pixels to form one 800x600 pixel.  The image would be larger and softer and not as much information would fit on screen compared to running at 1600x1200.  If you ran that display at 1024x768 the image would still look good the display driver has to be a bit more creative rendering pixels. However 1600x1200, 1024x768 and 800x600 all has a 4:3 aspect ratio the sane aspect ratio as the physical display.  If you ran the display a 1280x1024 the image would distort because is a 5:4 aspect ratio. not proper for the display physical aspect ratio. So if you have a UXGA LCD you will be running it a 1600x1200 because it look best running at 1600x1200.  If your display is a 20" display its 4:3 aspect ratio sides measure 16"x12"x20" diagonal the old 3,4,5 triangle. Its DPI||PPI resolution is 100 if it were a 15" display its resolution would be 133DPI||PPI
    Printers can print at any DPI up to their maximum resolution.  Your image DPI resolution does not have a direct correlation to your printers resolution. Your printer uses its higher resolution to paint in your images larger pixels.  Many drops of ink are use to paint in a pixel. The setting you  see for you printers resolution is often settings like 360, 720, 1440, 2880 DPI.  These are more or less a quality setting higher setting will result in higher quality pixels being painted in.  The higher setting are only available when high quality paper is being used for more ink will be laid down to paint in finer high quality pixels and low quality paper would become soggy wet.

  • Too small menu fonts!

    hi there!....
    I have a ultra high resolution monitor and even when I select "large" font option
    in Preferences/Interface/UI Text Options all menus are to small....is there
    any way to make them bigger........
    thanks
    ciao.......

    thaanks a lot Mylenium!.....
    no, whatever I do with the custom size DPI/ppi in Windows 7 it does not
    efect font sizes in PS menus.....
    the same problem is posible to resolve in Mozilla Firefox with CSS (cascading style sheets)
    so I was hoping there is something similar with PS...
    small fonts and tools are a big problem with 2560x1440 resolution.....
    thanks one more time
    ciao and have a nice day
    bibo

  • CS4 – What am I doing wrong?

    I am using CS4 on the Windows platform.
    STEP 1 - I was creating “Out of Bounds” photos. My “new” was 8½ x 11 landscape at 300 dpi. I placed a jpg that was about say 12megs. LARGE FILE!
    STEP 2 - After creating my psd I did flatten the file, crop it (reduced size), and made 200dpi to get file to about 6-8 megs and saved as a jpg.
    It would not email(!) so I opened in Corel and dinked with it finally changing it to an 8 bit mode and it would email fine.
    How, in Photoshop, can I do steps 1 and 2 and get it to work? What am I missing\doing wrong? I can't believe it's that hard and I am missing something VERY simple.
    I will be slow to respond to helps today – will respond after day trip.
    Thanks in advance for any help.

    First, thanks for responding. I have no problem you questioning my question…that’s why I like to call people rather than email or post things if possible. Let me try to clarify.
    The directions I was given to create a OOB were to 1. create a new file 2. and PLACE the photo, 3. create a new layer for the background color, 4. and later a new layer for the frame to be created. In the process the photo is rastorized.
    I understand lowering the image size and the dpi (ppi) adjustments. After I flatten the whole psd file and save it as a jpg I have a file size of 26.4 megs. After I RESIZE and RESAMPLE I get a very reasonable 5.61 meg file with a mode of RGB and 16 Bits/Channel.
    So far I see nothing unusual with what I’ve done and have a reasonable file size to email.
    When I email it using a web mail program it won’t attach so I reduced the size to under 5 megs, still no cigar. The web mail program, Yahoo, has a higher file limit than 5 megs, yet oddly enough when it was sending it grew to 8 megs. Maybe this is normal but I have usually seen the size reduce, not enlarge.
    With that scenario, I then went to Corel and made it an 8 bit file (I know I could have done it in PhotoShop), and then it worked.
    That boils down to why it won’t work as a 16 bit file
    So before responding to your posts I went back in a did exactly as stated above (I do save psd files!). Using a POP account I sent it to another POP account and it seemed to work. I then sent from a POP account to Yahoo account and the file showed in thumbnail, but would not open. In Yahooo file size now shows 5.85 megs. If I downloaded (not saved) and opened in a graphics program it would open, but refuses to open in the web mail program. So, could it be Yahoo, more than likely….however today the larger file is attaching.
    Ok, maybe the electrons weren’t “electring” and the bytes suffered from “underbyte” yesterday and this morning.
    I did have to respond to your posts out of respect for you taking time to read and answer my initial post. If I was premature in posting I apologize, but I was baffled!
    Respectfully,

  • Placing a PDF file in an InDesign Doc and PDF again for a vendor- Good or Bad?

    Current debate in the graphics department is
    Is it good or bad to place a PDF (general Press Quality) into an InDesign document and then creating a new PDF file with print vendor settings from that document?
    My thought is that you in some cases are double compressing, lower dpi images getting compressed, RGB color mode images okay on layout but now are converted to CMYK and shift in the PDF.
    Are there other issues and if so what are they.
    Also is there an easy way to check ppi, color mode and compression of an acrobat PDF? I mean other than doing a preflight and searching into each image folder twenty levels deep. FlightCheck and Enfocus are not options,
    too many vendors and not enough time.
    Thank you all in advance for your words of wisdom.

    Dov, I just got off the phone with a trusted professional in the Prepress field at a quite reputable print house, and he said "Dov is the guru of PDFs, ask him this...Will the InDesign CS3 preflight see the characteristics of a PDF (color mode, dpi(ppi), compression) if the original placed PDF is created as a pdf .X4 (1.7)? Ask him also if you were to use one form of compression (say lossless) in the original PDF, and then another form(say lossy) in the vendor PDF would it hold both or convert the first PDF compression to the second form?"
    Any other responses are also welcomed.

  • How do I make a logo designed in Illustrator hi-res for print use?

    e

    OldBob1957 wrote:
    A PDF keeps vector objects as vector, and thus resolution independent. Only if you have raster effects (drop shadows, gradients, or the like) would you need to worry about things like Press Quality -- though if you will be using PDFs much at all, it is a good idea to get into the habit of using the Press Quality setting for final output.
    Yup... and the default Illustrator also keeps the resolution of the ai file. (Caveat... you'd probably have to have created the file at 300 dpi/ppi???)

  • How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

    I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6.  (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
    I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
    I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
    Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
    (1) (1)   Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage.  Then dragging the first one into the base document.  It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image.  Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
    (2)   (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
    (3)  (3)  I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it.  No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
    (4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715  Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
    Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means.  (Or even in a different program!).  Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes.  Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help.  [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

    For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
    Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
    That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
    Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
    If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
    In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
    With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
    But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
    Why this happens has to do with simple math.
    inches x ppi = pixels
    Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
    When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

Maybe you are looking for