Image Size Question

In Photoshop CS6 two of the options in the 'Image Size' dialog box are 'Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement) and Bicubic Sharper (best for reduction). I have assumed this referred to a reduction or enlargement in the height and width of the image but do these options also refer to an enlargement or reduction of the image resolution?
I often keep the height and width of an image the same but change its resolution up or down, so should I apply 'Bicubic Smoother' and 'Bicubic Sharper' when I changing only the resolution? Many thanks for your help.

Hello,
The Bicubic choices refer to if you are changing the number of pixels. If you are adding pixels, that is considered "enlargement" even if the print size stays the same. Look at the top numbers (Width and Height of Pixel Dimensions) in the Image Size Dialog. That shows you any real resizing taking place. Print Size and PPI are meaningless individually. They are just two factors whose product is the Pixel Dimension.
If you are reducing number of pixels, you can choose Bicubic Sharper, but many feel that down-sample algorithm can over sharpen. New in CS6 is Bicubic Automatic, which will apply Bicubic Smoother or Sharper depending if you are up-sampling or down-sampling the image.

Similar Messages

Image size and resolution question.

Is an image at W 48.667 x H 32.444 inches at 72 res the same as an image that I could convert in photoshop to 300 res and then the with "Resample Image" clicked off would be W 11.68 x H 7.78 at 300 res for printing purposes? I'm asking this questions because after exporting 200 images from Lightroom 1.4, putting them into an wedding album I realized the images were not at 300 res but the first size listed above. I'm trying not to have to rebatch and have to put them back into the album. I sent the question to NAPP and got this back"
"If you do the math you'll see that the answer is "no."
48x72=3456 pixels; 32x72=2304 pixels
11.68x300=3504 pixels; 7.78x300=2334 pixels."
I did the math and it comes up to 5760 vs 5830. Pretty darn close. So would an image printed out with both settings print the about the same quality or am I missing something?
Thanks
Bob

Bob's question is a common one. And one of the first that most of us struggled to understand. Let's see if I can shed some light to help clarify the matter.
o The image starts out with a given number of pixels from the camera, scanner, or whatever was its source. The resolution only matters when it comes time to print the image.
72 dpi was once a common resolution for displaying on a computer monitor. Today 90 dpi is more common monitor resolution.
o Let's assume that the image is 3504 x 2336 pixels (which I got from his size @ 72 dpi).
o In "image size", if you do _not_ have 'resample image' checked, all you are doing is _rescaling the image. The image resolution is whatever you enter ...
For example, if you enter 360 dpi -- the native printing resolution of many Epson printers -- you get a print size of 9.733 x 6.489 inches
o Let's say you want to print this image at 360 dpi in portrait on 13 x 19 inch paper with a one inch border on the sides. That would make the short dimension of the image 11 inches and the long would work out to 16.5.
To do that you need to _resample_ the image to change the size. More pixels will be made. The resolution stays at 360 dpi. So check the 'resample image' box.
After resampling to get the print size and resolution you want, the pixel dimension goes to 5960 x 3960 (from 3504 x 2336). Those new pixels came at a price, but that is a matter for another thread and a lot of personal bias.
Hope that helped.
P.S. The answer to your question, Bob, is yes. With resample off in PhotoShop, your original images should have gone to 11.68 x 7.787 inches @300 dpi.
In looking at the rest of your original post, it seems that the export didn't work the way that you wanted. Do I read right that the images turned out to be 11.68 x 7.787 @ 72 dpi? Can't help with that as I don't do Lightroom.

Image size related to screen resolution - Questions

Trying hard to get my head around picture dimensions vs quality vs screen/printer resolution, can anyone confirm if what I think I understand is correct.
My Canon RAW images are 3888 x 2592 pixels. If I export from LR a full sized JPEG (at 100% quality) I get an image that is 3888 x 2592 pixels in size. So the questions:
1) If I open the JPEG in something simple like Windows Picture Viewer and hit the 'Actual Size' button then put simply is each pixel in the picture lighting up a pixel on the screen ?
2) If I zoom out then presumably there are more picture pixels than screen pixels so some data is thrown away and there is some downsizing of the image ?
3) If I zoom in then there is not enough data and there is some intrpolation to upsize the image ?
What I'm actually trying to get to grips with is, if i want to post pics online or e-mail them, when to drop the quality a bit to save filespace and when to change image size.
Cheers

Downsample a LOT for email and quite a lot for web viewing. Not only might they not look as good as they should, people will not be happy waiting for a 3000+ pixel image to download to them.
A "full width"
Of course, if someone wants to print the photo, then you need to maintain the resolution and they should know it will take some time to download.
If you want to see what size others use for the web and can't estimate by looking at it on your monitor in a browser, you can find out the dimensions of a picture you are viewing. In Firefox and windows, right click on the photo and select properties.
flickr, for example, resizes to various sizes. Even though you can upload full size images to flickr, you might not want to do so to protect your full-size image from being used.

Question about images....Image Size ... Augh!!!

I am curious about importing images into FCP. I understand that pixels in an image are square and that in video they are rectangular. When I import an image into FCP it looks great, until I export and then they take on a "fatter" look. I know that when you import an image as a Multi-layered Photoshop document that FCP will automatically adjust for it. But if you import a .TIFF, .PNG, or .JPEG that you will need to compensate for it's image size prior to importing.. (which is quite confusing)... I come across images of all ppi, resolution, and size.
Two things I have discovered.... If I import it as a Multilayered Photoshop file and then export it, I seem to lose quality. But if I import it without compensating for image size(it looks better within FCP) and then export it using Compressor with a DV NTSC 4:3 setting, it looks fairly dead on and the image maintains it's high quality.... but I know this is not the way to do it.
So here is my questions...
1) What am I doing wrong? Is there a simple formula to get it correct everytime?
2) Is there anyway that FCP can compensate for pixel changes on a single layer image or do I need to convert each image to a Photoshop Multilayer Document? Why am I losing quality?
3) Is there anyway to import single layer images and have Compressor export it how I see it on my computer monitor?
Thanks for any help....!
Gary

Hi Busso,
This forum discusses the Community Help AIR application and CS5 Help experience.Try posting your question directly to the Photoshop Win or Mac Forum:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/685477?tstart=0

Question on Blu ray image size output and reducing the size

Hi
I have been using encore for blu ray projects which is been proving very helpful. However recently i have had a issue with output size on files. Normally Encore gives me it's estimate that it will fill the disc nicely and provides a image/folder which is about 17-20GB (using 25GB disc) but now out of the blue it's files sizes it outputs has been 24.8GB which technically is less than 25GB but as anyone knows who burns to media, the disc doesn't actually have 25GB of space (something like 23,8 or something, i can't remember without checking). Anyway of course this is a issue because my output size is contantly now coming up to be about 600MB - 1GB over the disc actual size, i figured Encore normally compresses files to fit considering i have burned similar amounts/size media before and never had a issue.
Anyway my issue is the slightly larger file size, i figured the easiest way to reduce the blu ray output size was to of course play with the transcode settings, which usually are set to the default settings for Blu ray (the quality preset is called something like "1280x720p 50 High Quality MPEG-2") so of course i thought to lower the bitrate a little just for a test, so i did just that and cut the default bit rate from 25[Mbs] to 20, i didn't want to lower it too much as it was a test to see what i could save for file size. Anyway so i re-transcoded the file and built another image, sadly the image size oddly enough came out as 26.something GB... so it actually grew in size by reducing the file bitrate which put me at a loss. I was wondering what common ways i could use to lower this file size just by a few hundred MB or up to 1GB in this case without having to remove content from the disc (it would be a waste to not only seperate the content but to use a whole disc for a leftover 600mb-1gb project). I of course want to keep quality as high as possible but i understand when trying to reduce size quality has to normally be hit in these situations so i can deal with a slight loss of quality. I have been browsing the forums here and though some topics seem similar they have the issue of file sizes coming out as 40GB+.
Now im no genius with Encore, normally as said the file size is always between 17-20GB as i figure encore was using a "fit to disc" type feature but because the output size is technically below 25gb but not actually below enough to burn i was wondering 2 things:
1) is it possible to make encore it's self shrink these files a little more, lowering the target size down by 1GB would do wonders but only option i have seen is to have a 25GB disc or DL disc with no option to customize the output size (forcefully lowering it by 1GB).
2) because i imagine the above can't be done i was wondering how to go about reducing the size by around 1GB or so, i don't need like 10GB freeing up so it's only a small amount, as said this is a issue i have had with the last few projects i made and the size varies from needing 600MB - 1GB (it doesn't usually exceed needing 1GB free space... besides when i lowered the bit rate which increased size a lot). In the past i always just cut the bitrate of files down a little (never by lots but enough to free space up) but clearly that failed my test so im at a loss of how to reduce file size without a huge loss in quality.
For the record i have already produced the file as both a image file and a folder and both have the same issue.
Extra info on the project:
It contains 4 Menu's, 13 video files which vary in lengh from short ones at about 5mintues to longer ones which the largest is about 20minutes. I commonly burn this number of video files/space with fine quality and no issue so i would rather not take files from the project.
quality preset details are defaultly as said above set to "1280x720p 50 High quality MPEG-2" settings, i am not on my computer with encore at the moment so i can't post full specifics right now but if you have encore handy you should be able to check.
Tried reducing bit rate but that increased overall size, the actual plan was to hopefully lower the bit rate to around 21 [mbs] (from 25) and then do that for multiple (or all) files until it fitted but after it increased the size i lost hope there, it said the estimated file size (on the individual video) would drop by around 300-400mb but that didn't work.
I have tried both folder and iso which always come out the same size.
Basically my main question/problem is any suggestion to drop the file size by up to 1GB without taking items out the project or a real high loss in quality (i don't mind small loss though as i can apply whatever solution to all files which should help).
Any suggestions what i can try? as you probably gather im not a genius when it comes to this stuff but i tried including what i thought is relevent.

Hi and thank you for the reply;
one problem i seem to be having when reducing the bitrate is the file size is oddly increasing from 24.8GB to 26.4GB, i can't really figure this one out as well it's having the oppisite effect. I checked the "streams" folder on output and decided to compare automatic transcoding to manual lowered bitrate and im not too sure where the increased file size is going, i found which video file it was causing the issue, all videos files range or average around 1.6GB each but one file was taking 4.5GB, after lowering that files bitrate it cut it down to 2GB which was of course saving me 2GB from the old file but the overall size had increased which was odd. Seems the other files are all the same so it hasn't tried improving them (so it seems) so i can't make ends of why the size is increasing.
I will try playing with the source file to see if i can do anything that way, if not i will try transcoding in premiere (i have had troubles with this before so i try to avoid it).
Oh and yes i was using Automatic.
Anyway i will see if editing the file outside might help first and see how that works. Thanks again for the reply.

Question on Photoshop Image Size Zoom & Crop

Hello Everyone...
I was wondering if anyone could help me out on a few questions w/ Image Size Zoom & Crop
I use to work at a studio that had their own small software for editing photos. It was setup so you take an image RAW and you could CROP by zooming. So I could take the image and SCROLL to ZOOM in and it cropped away the rest without actually pressing crop. Then you pick what sizes you want, 1 8x10, 2 5x7 and sheet of wallets and WALLLLLLA it prints them out on 3 sheets of paper.
My questions are:
Is there anyway to crop by zooming?
Is there anyway to keep the original size after cropping? Example most of my pics are 12M when I crop they go down to 2 or 3. Why? If I have a picture of 4 people and I want to crop to one persons face but keep the original image size why won't it do that without resizing??
It says that to get the best print quality it should be viewed at resolution 300 instead of 72? is that true? and why?
Is there a way to keep the quality at its best and then just select how many and what size I want to have print out? example of the 3 sizes listed above??
I hope my questions make a little sense.
Thanks for your help in advance

I strongly recommend that you read through the following:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331327
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7636a.html# WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7632a
I also suggest that you mention what version of Photoshop you have when posting. Some functions change between versions.

Question about image size, canvas size and Picture frame

Hi,
This has always been a little confusing so let me describe what my question is:
Assume I have a created a new PSD that is 8 1/2 x 11.
The canvas size is the same 8 1/2 x 11.
I want to put a border around the picture (say 1/2 of an inch all around), and put the finished picture in a Picture frame. After it is in the frame, you would be able to see the entire picture plus the border.
Q. Should I change (reduce image size) of the PSD to (for this example), 8 x 10 1/2. Then increase the canvas size to 8 1/2 x 11. After I increased the canvas size, do a Paint Bucket fill with white (to create the White border)? then print the changed size PSD on 8 1/2 x 11 paper so that it will fit into a 8 1/2 x 11 picture frame
I realize I could have just created the new PSD to be 8 x 10 1/2 in the first place.
Hope I made this somewhat clear.
Bob

1: Decrease the size as you describe.
2. Go to File>New or Ctrl N
3. Make the box 8.5x11. Make sure the other data conforms to your image.
4. Now,holding down Ctrl-Shift, Drag the image to the new box and release the mouse. Your image will be centered in the box.
Note: there may be a method to do this including any adjustment layers, but I usually only do this as a last step, flattening a copy of the working file.

2 questions - change image size within print cell, and saving print template w/ specific images

Hi,
Searched the forums for the answer to these but couldn't find much.
1. Is there a way to change the image size within a cell (under print module). For example, zoom in 140% on a a specific image but still have it within the original cell size?
2. Say I create and fill in an elaborate print template with my images - is there a way to save the FILLED IN version of the template to edit at a later time? For example if I wanted to load it back up w/ all the original images layed out in the print template, but maybe change a few and resave as jpeg?
Thank you!

Hi
I'm not sure but maybe you can use a rectangle to hold the .ai image, resize the rectangle and fit proportionally the image inside it
hope this help
Eli

Question about image size of multimedia messaging!

Is there any way to send the images of original size . I mean when your select large size in settings still the picture is resized 240*180 . isn't there anyway to send images of size 640*480 ?? by mms
i want to send images of their original size ...
Please kidnly help me !!!!

It depends on two things: The phone model and whether the operator's MMSC allows it (or has a size limit).
On S60 based devices like then N73 or others, you can open the "Messaging" app, hit "Options", select "Settings", then "Multimedia message" and change "Image size" to "Original".
This won't help if the operator's servers then reformats the image, or refuses to send it alltoghether because it is too big.
And, of course, even if you get past both your own phone's limitations and the operator's networks, the recipient's device must also be able to handle it.
If you want guaranteed delivery of original, unmodified images, use email instead of MMS.

How can you find out an individual image size from multiple images on a canvas

This is probably a really really simple question but I can't for the life of me find how I can find out an individual image size from multiple images on a canvas. eg I have 3 photos i want to arrange 1 large and the other two next to it half the size. How can I edit individual image size on the canvas as when I select the image on a sperate layer I want to resize it just resizes the entire canvas and not the individual image
Thanks

I want to know they exact dimensions though. You can get them by dragging to the 0,0 corner and then reading off of the ruler scale on the sides but its fiddily as you have to zoom right in and work it out. I know in photoshop there is a ruler but is there any other way in Elements?

Photo gallery image size

Hi. Is it possible to adjust the photo gallery module's code in a way that makes the image that gets displayed on selecting the thumbnail image display no larger than the browser? I have a client that's uploaded image that are pretty large and would prefer not to have to save them as smaller images if possible.
Thanks
Grant

Are you by any chance saving as a JPEG or TIFF file?
The image size that Photoshop displays is the uncompressed file size - if you save in a format such as JPEG the image is compressed, which will result in a smaller file size.
Below is a comparison of the same image in Photoshop versus the compressed file saved to my computer:
Here's a more technical explanation of what's going on: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15184/why-does-photoshop-show-my-jpeg-files-unusu ally-large
EDIT: If you want more accurate control over the image file size when saving, try going to File > Save for Web... You'll be able to choose your file format, and then see the resulting file size in the bottom left-hand corner of the window:
I hope this helps!
Cheers,
Kendall

Image size and resolution....just when I thought I understood!

I couldn't find this question anywhere else, but I can't be the only one who's come across this:
I have an image in a folder...finder/explorer tells me that it's 638px X 479px, and 234KB.
I open it in Photoshop and go to Image Size. PS says it is indeed 638x479pixels, but that it's 5.4" x 4.06" at 300pp and the "pixel dimensions" add up to 895KB?
(Then, when I place it in InDesign, at 100%, it measures around 2.1" x 1.6"? What's going on? If I input those dimensions into the Image Size dialogue box in PS, without resampling, it would have to be 750.25ppi. Obviously it's not.)
How big is this file really? Which program do I trust...windows explorer or photoshop?

The ppi resolution is simply a number stored with the file to indicate how large to display the image. The height and width in pixels are part of the image data itself. So the pixel dimensions are always the number to trust.
You can open an image in Photoshop and in Image Size change the resolution (ppi) and if you don't check Resample Image the actual image data don't change at all, only the number stating the pixels per inch.
The reason the Pixel Dimensions size in KB is different in Photoshop vs. Explorer is that the file is likely a Jpeg, which is compressed. When Photoshop calculates pixel dimensions, it does this based on an uncompressed file (each pixel=3 bytes for an 8-bit RGB image.) When Jpeg compression is used, a pixel can be much less than 3 bytes, and the actual number varies depending on the image quality and how detailed the image is.
To see this, save your image as an uncompressed Tiff format and the size will very closely match the pixel dimensions. But if saved as a Jpeg, it will be smaller but still the same height and width and the same ppi.
If you are using CS3, it automatically uses a form of lossless compression if saving in PSD format with "Maximize Compatibility" disabled. So in this case the file size will also be smaller than the pixel dimensions number, but if saved in Tiff, it will match that number instead.

Aperture/Photoshop plug in and image size

I'm having a problem I don't really understand. I have Aperture 3 and I have CS5 that I'm trying to use as a plug-in for Aperture. This is half an Aperture question and half a Photoshop one so I hope someone can answer it for me.
In Photoshop I made an "action" that is a sort of raised beveled watermark for my photos.
I open one of my images in Aperture and "fix" it - soften the skin, blur the background (whatever...) then I go to the top menu item "Photos" and go down and pick "edit with Adobe CS5." And my image opens in Photoshop. I go to the menu and pick the watermark action but when it works my watermark can't really be "read" because it's not fitting on the photo, it's too big and falls off the edges. The photo is 1241x1280 px.
But here is the odd thing. If I take that same photo, the very same size 1241x1280 and open it directly in photoshop, completely bypass Aperture, and run the watermark action, it's actually a bit small (but usable) it fits fine in the very same photo! When I check the image size in Photoshop it is the same size (regardless of if I open in photoshop directly or go there from Aperture).
So this problem only seems to happen when I edit the photo from Aperture. I'm new to both Aperture and Photoshop (crazy to try and learn 2 programs at once) and I don't know if I can make just the watermark layer in photoshop smaller. But again it fits fine if I apply it directly from Photoshop bypassing Aperture.
Does anyone know why this happens and how I can make the watermark work? Or can I make a watermark in Aperture?
Thanks for any help,
Susan

susan-kelly wrote:
Like I said when I rescale it they way you said to do in photoshop it changes the size and distorts it a bit.
If you hold down the 'Shift + Option' keys while scaling, the text, shape or raster object will not distort and will resize from the center (AKA - maintain aspect ratio).
I run the full version of PS, so am not sure if the commands are exactly the same if you are running PS Elements, but there is a command at 'Layer menu > Layer Style > Scale Effects..' which can be used for scaling the bevel settings to match the scaling of the watermark item.
One exact way to do this in PS full version is to choose the Edit > Transform > Scale command and then use the option bar fields under the main menu bar to change the 'H' (Height) and 'W' (Width) percentages equally (to say 70% in each) and then use the aforementioned 'Layer........Scale Effects' command and enter 70% in that dialog. This should reduce the watermark and effects appropriately without distortion.
Note - indeed both programs are very deep (especially PS), but that just gives you more fun to learn as you go. Don't worry about mastering either, just work within a structured workflow so you can take the steps at your own pace.
Again, I am not sure what version of PS you are running, but the one book I suggest looking into more than any other is at the link below. It is somewhat dated, but the information is completely relevant and covers the general usage of Photoshop to make anyone comfortable with the tool set.
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Unmasked-Science-Selections/dp/0321441206/ ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307824869&sr=8-1
The companion website is still up and you can download all the images used in the book if you want to practice on the same images he outlines. Well worth a look if you want to learn Photoshop.

Where is it possible to batch process the size of images?--I am able to change pixel dimensions in image processor but not image size in inches.

Hi- I need to batch process images for video project. I am able to change the pixel dimensions in the image processor but don't seem to have the option to change image size in inches. Please advise! Thanks

You don't need inches for video (or screen viewing in general). It all goes by pixel count. Inches is for print, nothing else.
But to answer the question, you can run actions in the Image Processor, and this is where you set size in inches. Just bring up Image Size, uncheck "resample image", and specify size. You'll notice resolution changes to reflect the fact that the existing image pixels are now redistributed over the new print size.
But again, screen doesn't care about size or resolution. It only counts pixels.

This is about the still image size changing from what I see on the computer monitor and what the burned DVD shows on the TV

I have Prem.El 12 and have used PE4 for years. I have a new PC that runs Win7Pro. The still images on the computer monitor are within the "safe margins". The still images after the movie has been burned to a disk are MUCH smaller on the TV screen. Is this an issue of 16:9 vs 4:3 ratios? My TV is 4:3. Can I tell PE12 to make the movie a 4:3?

retchemteach
Although I have seen your post of today in my Inbox Email Notifications, that post has not yet appears in this thread. It will probably will sooner or later. But, to keep things moving along....this is a copy of what I am seeing as your message of today in my Indox Email Notifications
Thank you for your patience in the time it is taking me to get back to you.
I am still trying to buy some DVD-RW discs and will hopefully do that in a
bit. Meanwhile, I have more info for you and some simple (I hope)
questions. If you want to insert your answers, that would be fine.
My camera (for stills and video) is set to the 4:3 ratio. It is capable of
being set to a 16:9 ratio if I wanted to do that. I looked in its TOOLS
menu and saw this info.
My TV is definitely a 4:3 TV. (I measured it with my tape measure and
divided W/L to get 1.33) The TV can show a 16:9 movie and just adds the
black bars on the top and bottom. Question: What will my old 4:3 movies
look like on a 16:9 TV whenever we buy one of those?
It seems to me that I want to set PE12 to the NTSC DV Standard you
mentioned.
I do NOT know how to “size your photos so that each has a 4:3 aspect”,
unless you mean doing that in Photoshop Elements, which I know how to do
(*see below)
I had NOT considered that I would need to watch the preset for the
‘Publish+Share’ step; so that’s good to know (I copied and pasted your info
for later use).
BTW, years ago when I had difficulties with my XP computer working on PE4
(had only 2 GB RAM), an Adobe tech told me to resize my photos * to have a
720 pixel width (the height would be automatically adjusted) to lower the
file size to something my computer could handle without crashing. (That
was back in the good ol’ days when Adobe support would actually talk with
their customers and try to help them in the first month)
My new computer has 16GB RAM. Do you think I still need to reduce file
size? One does lose some sharpness in the resizing process…..however,
these videos I’m making are travelogues and are for a fun way to view pics
and videos of a trip…nothing Earth shattering….and just a hobby to keep me
off the streets.
I truly appreciate the time you take to help me (and others). I was even
tempted to try to install my old PE4 on my new computer just to be able to
enjoy my hobby again.
My reply to the above....
1. If you camera is giving you 4:3 photos and your Premiere Elements 12/12.1 is running on Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 64 bit, then leave
the photos as is unless you have a lot of photos and each has pixel dimensions sizes way over 1920 x 1080 pixels that are giving your computer resource issues. If you have to down size them because of computer resources, then copy the photos to a computer desktop folder and also create an empty folder on the computer desktop.
a. Photoshop Elements Editor, File Menu/Process Multiple Files.
Process Files form Folder
Source - browse to and select the computer desktop folder with photos to be resized
Destination - browse to and select the empty computer desktop folder
Image Size
             Check Mark Next To Resize Images
            (no check mark next to Constrain Proportions)
            Type in Width = 1000 (set units for pixels)
            Type in Height = 750 (set unites for pixels)
File Size
           Check Mark Next to Convert Files To
           Set for JPEG High Quality
The above should work fine for a NTSC DV Standard project with a burn to DVD disc with preset NTSC_Dolby DVD (4:3 video).
2. With regard to the TV Set and 16:9 video....when you have the DVD-player attached to the TV, do you have the opportunity to bring up a display of menus with
controls for Picture and Aspect Ratio? From what you have written so far, it looks like the answer is no. I am not sure how your TV DVD
player will handle 16:9.
Best do a mini test run
1. Project preset set manually to NTSC DV Widescreen (please refer to post 1 link)
A few photos sized for 1600 x 1200
In the Premiere Elements project, use the Safety Margins inner rectangle for text placement
Publish+Share/Disc/DVD disc with preset = NTSC_Widescreen_Dolby DVD.
See what that looks like on your TV DVD player.
If you discovered that your current TV DVD player can be set for a 16:9 display, then I have a preferred workflow for
NTSC DV Widescreen which typically gives best possible results. Hints of things to come.
Please review and consider. Thanks for the follow ups.
ATR

Image Size Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for