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.

Similar Messages

Why does my maximised app window appear a different size to the screen resolution?

First: I'm a beginner with windows programming, fumbling my way through visual studio and C# (my background is C with console applications)... sorry if this is a naive question!
Short story: When I create a window of the same size as the screen resolution. My app window is ~20% larger than my device's screen. Why is this happening?
Long story: I'm attempting to develop an application with a fixed size window and absolute positioning of UI elements. The application will only ever run at a fixed resolution, on a single device, borderless/non-resizeable and full-screen. The resolution
of the display on which it will run is 1280x800 (according to the device specs and resolution reported by the windows control panel) . However, when I create a window of this size, it is too large to fit onscreen. In fact, I have to create a window 1024x640
(0.8x screen resolution) for it to perfectly fit the screen. Anyone know why this is happening?
Thanks!

It sounds like you are running in a high-DPI mode but your app is not DPI aware and is getting virtualized. Windows will tell the app it's running at 96 DPI and then embiggen the rendered window so it ends up at the user's requested zoom level.
See
Writing DPI-Aware Desktop and Win32 Applications

Switcher ?Can you change the size of the screen resolution on the Macbook?

I'm really interested in buying a Macbook. This will be my first Mac. I love the way they look and feel. I'm concerned with the size of everything on the Macbook. The overall size of the fonts in applications such as word, or safari was too small for me.
Can you change the size of the screen resolution in OSX like you can on Windows? In Windows doing this makes everything visually bigger.
Please say you can. I'm really wanting the Macbook as it would be great for for a student like me.
Thanks in advance.
Hopefully a Macbook 13" 2.0 Superdrive soon.
Hopefully a Macbook 13" 2.0 Superdrive White soon.

With an LCD, if you change the resolution, things will be bigger, but blurrier.
You can however keep the resolution of the LCD at its native resolution, giving the maximum picture quality, and then use tools, such as Tinkertool…
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/11967
… to modify the font display size of items such as the menu bar, Finder labels etc etc.

How can I make my flash Webpage displayed same size on any screen resolution?

Hi,
How can I make my flash Webpage displayed same size on any screen resolution of my computer? Whether it is 1024 X 768 or 1280 X 960 screen resolution, the size of Webpage (Flash Webpage) should always be same so that user don't need to use horizantal scroll bar to view all the content.
And secondly, how can I scroll my webpage vertical on moving with my mouse like in the following link: The below link also shows that it's webpage size is always same on any screen resolution.
http://www.matkostankovic.com/#/portraits/oliver-mlakar/http://www.matkostankovic.com/#/about/
Thanks.

Hi,
Please do help me.
Waiting for response from anybody who can help me.to solve this problem.
Thanks.

Should I match STD preview size to native screen resolution or the resolution I am actually using?

My iMac 27" monitor is 2560 pixels wide but I run it on a screen resolution of 2048 x 1152. Would it be a waste for me to set the Lightroom Standard Preview Size to size to the setting of 2880? I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
When I set my monitor to the native resolution the text on menus etc is pretty hard to see with my tired old eyes. Is there a disadvantage to using 2048 x 1152 on my 27" monitor when using Lightroom?

DanATD wrote:
I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
If I were you, I'd use Jeffrey Friedl's Online Lightroom Configurator to bump the font-size of the text, and leave the monitor resolution at 2560 (and standard previews at 2880). Unless of course you can't see image detail all that well either with the increased resolution. There may be some text that jf's configurator can't reach - dunno, but it may be worth a shot..
If bumping font size (and monitor rez) doesn't pan out, then the answer is yes: 2048 is sufficient resolution for standard previews, at a monitor rez of 2048.

Image size reduction without losing resolution

I am creating marketing materials and product labels for my company using Elements 9. I am not a Photoshop expert but I have a reasonable knowledge of the program. I need to resize certain assets such as logos and paste them onto various documents. The problem I am having is that no matter what method I use to resize, they always lose resolution and appear pixelated and/or blurry in the final printed version.
Normally I receive the assets in a hi-res image. It could be a jpeg or bitmap or any other number of format. I will open it in Elements, select it and remove the background via the Magic Wand>Layer Via Cut, and delete the background layer.
From there, I have tried everything from the simple select, grab the corner and manually drag inwards method, to using Image>Resize>Image Size and filling in the fields. When I performed the latter, I typed in 300dpi, made sure Constrain Proportions was turned on, checked Resample, and selected Bicubic Sharper, and entered the size in inches. Then I copy/paste into the document, and it looks fine. I save, which normally opens up Reader and I print from there. The printed image looks great except for any logos I resized, which look awful. I also tried printing from within Elements, but it won't do it without giving me a message first saying that the document will print at less than 200dpi, which is obviously not desirable.
One I paste the image onto the document, the Image Size>Resize becomes unusable because I can't seem to select just the logo - even with the bounding box clearly visable around the logo, resizing causes the entire document to be affected.
I have tried many combinations of selecting/deselecting every option I can find, including Alias/Anti-Alias (which for some reason sometimes doesn't seem selectable at all). I've scoured forums and tutorials for help on this, and have tried every method I could find. In the end, nothing has worked. There has got to be a way to do this. Our 30 day trial is almost over and we went ahead and purchased the program without knowing whether we could resolve this issue - if we can't, it will be pretty much useless to us. Please help me so I can tell my boss he didn't just waste company money on this program!
In short, my question is, what is the correct (or best) method for reducing image size? Please be detailed - and thank you!

Thanks for the reply Jon, but unfortunately I ended up with the same result as MTSTUNER said (using the Crop Tool).
MTSTUNER, that definitely helped. The problem must have been in pasting, which as you said brings a "non-smart" image over. I was even able to resize a bit on the new document without losing any clarity whatsoever. Very helpful - THANK YOU!

Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution) that can not be changed. Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file). If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off). In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up. There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space. The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution. All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
Hope this helps.

Make Text and Other Items Larger or Smaller - Default? (related to screen resolution)

In Windows 7, when you go to set the screen resolution, there is a link to "Make Text and Other Items Larger or Smaller." The default I've always seen is is "Smaller - 100%" in our deployments. For some reason, after my new deployment that
I'm working on, it is set to "Medium - 125% as the default."
This changed when I imported the display drivers needed for the HP8440 laptop the deployment is going on. Before, Windows was just using a generic driver that maxed at 640x480 and the user had to manually install the drivers. Now that I've imported the drivers
into the deployment, the default resolution is 1920x1200 as it should be, but this one last default is making it look like there is a smaller resolution.
Is there any way, in the deployment, to set this option to "Smaller - 100%" as the default?
This is what I am seeing after Windows loads for the first time:

I get "Invalid syntax" when I try to run that. I've gone through the help on the REG command, and everything seems to be in order. I also opened CMD as administrator. I've tried some different variations on the command (quotes around the path, etc)
but nothing seems to work. Any ideas?
You're getting an invalid syntax since it contains a space betweeen 'Windows' and 'NT' when using command lines, spaces will break the commands to be executed since it thinks that spaces are delimiters for syntax value's.
REG ADD "HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\FontDPI" /v LogPixels /t REG_DWORD /d 0x60 /f
Edit; The thread starter had success with using the following path instead "HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop"
It should work like it's written above using quotes around the entire path. Without the quotes you'll receive a syntax error. However unless the command is executed in an elevated command prompt you'll get an access is denied error. And finally the /f switch
is required to override the entry without prompt, since if the command if executed in an elevated command prompt it will detect the current value and ask whether you want to overwrite it or not.
P.S. I verified if it executes properly.
Kind regards,
Stephan Schwarz.
If one of these posts answered your question or issue, please click on "Mark as answer".
My Blog | Twitter:
@Schwarz_Stephan | MCTS, MCITP, MCC.

Screen resolution question: wysiwyg?

Hi all,
my screen is set to 1680x1050, i.e. I get 80ppi, which means that all A4 pages are shown too big.
Can I correct that in any way? I need to see layout pages exactly in the size that they will look like in print, wysiwyg. It's cumbersome and annoying to muddle around with the page display in each and every app to downsize it by visual judgement to what might be the correct output size.
Thanks a lot!
Peter

Actually "wysiwyg" these days refers more to relative dimensions, not exact dimensions. After all, how big something looks on the screen depends partly on far away you are from the screen, and the trend is to put more pixels on the screen per inch. Currently, there is no way to adjust the exact resolution precisely enough so that what is printed out is exactly the same size as the displayed image, unless one of the standard non-native resolutions just happens to produce this effect with the program you are using to print.
But what you want may be in store at some point, once the display pixels take the next quantum leap in smallness, where the pixels become so small that the native resolution is useless and irrelevant. It's called +Resolution-Independent User Interface+, and it is publicly known that Apple already has the foundation for it in Mac OS X. How and when they will use it, we're not supposed to discuss or speculate about in the forum.

How to get reasonable font size with higher screen resolution

I'm using my new Mac Mini as living room PC with 42" plasma screen and tv itself seems to support quite well the 'better' resolutions like 1024x768. Unfortunately then text is too small to read from sofa (which is about 3 meters away from tv). I have switched back to 800x600 resolution where font sizes are almost ok but many programs complaint about the resolution (e.g. Google Earth) and need to change the resolution back and worth to get some OK button pressed which is glumsy.
I have also found pretty good Tinkertool to finetune font sizes but it does not affect all font sizes like I want. So question is there any better solution how I could find theme that suites better for living room purpose (have not find any theme possibilities for MacOSX). In Linux I could finetune X fontserver, in WIndows I could fine tune the theme used to have bigger fonts, how do I do it in this cool mac?

I hear you! I would also like to see an answer for this. I am running Leopard on a Mac Mini on my 50 inch display in the living room. I have set the resolution to 1080p so that the video and photos are as sharp as possible. (man the videos look great)...
But, I have a very hard time reading the menu bar, as well as safari and mail from this machine. I realize that there are ways to increase the font sizes, but:
1) when I restart safari, I have to change the settings each time
2) when I restart mail, I have have to change the setting each time
3) I cannot figure out a way to make the menu bar larger
I really don't want to bring the mac mini down to a resolution like 800X600 - I think it would look horrible on the large screen.
What is a big screen lover to do?
Any help would be most appreciated...
Cheers!

Super wide slide size to optimize screen resolution to Barco Encore

Trying to wrap my mind around choosing the right slide size for a 5.6666:1 aspect slide to display on two 4:3 and one middle 3:1 screens continuously. The last show, we were limited to a resolution to the Encore board of 1600x1200 so with a slide so wide, our vertical resolution was quite small (282 px) and text was becoming fuzzy. Normally, we can do 1920x1080 or 2048x1080 but the Encore was having trouble acquiring the signal higher than 1600x1200.
This superwide is new to me, normally I do 3:1 on one mac and 4:3 on another and things are great. It would be great to have the option of building one large slide to have the option of flying things across all screens for big openers or being able to put different things on the outboard screens without running a third mac. I made a test slide with pngs, photo jpeg, ai logo file and text in several fonts and sizes. Only the text seems to be having quality issues (stairstepping on curves and white fuzz around edges), even at large sizes (48px).
Anyone have any ideas to get the best quality for text? I tried Helvetica, Palatino and Trebuchet.
I realize that this is a pretty specialized question but maybe someone else does superwides.

Hi there
Many authors settle on 800x600. Keep in mind, however, that you also have the option of presenting the TOC as an overlay.
Helpful and Handy Links
Captivate Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
Adobe Certified Captivate Training
SorcerStone Blog
Captivate eBooks

EPub feature request: image size relative to margins

In the epub export dialog, we're given the option of exporting images
"relative to page". Meaning (as far as I can tell) that if, in the
layout, the image is 20% away from the left edge and 20% away from the
right edge of the page, then in the ePub it will also be 20% away from
the left edge of the viewing area, and 20% from the right edge.
I think it's important to have an additional option: "relative to margin".
The fact is that in book design, margins play a much more important role
than in ePubs, where viewing area is at a premium. In much good book
design you will find that an image extends only to the margins of the
text area and not beyond (unless of course it's a full-bleed image,
etc.) In ePubs, though, the effective text area is normally the edge of
the device screen (minus a few pixels, perhaps). Thus the edge of the
ePub viewing area is essentially analogous to the text-area margins of
the printed page -- much more so than to the edge of the printed page.
So I, as a book designer, would want an option that says that whenever
an image extends all the way to the text-area margins, it should fill
the ePub screen.
I'm now working on a converting a printed layout to ePub. The images
extend in most cases only to the text-area margins, and the margins
themselves are fairly generous in the printed edition, and this means
that when the images are exported to ePub, they are taking up far too
little screen area, since the only option is to calculate their size as
a percentage of the entire page area ("relative to page").
The workaround is to go through the book enlarging the images so that
they extend to the page edges rather than to the text area margins and
then exporting. But this book has many images.
This superfluous extra effort could be avoided if the ePub export dialog
simply gave the option to export images "relative to margins."
Hope that makes sense!
Thanks for reading,
Ariel

Not a bad idea, though really what would be even better is if other 3rd parties would embrace the PSB format so we could just use PSB for everything and leave PSD behind. There's almost no difference in size. Here's the same file saved in both formats:
C:\TEMP>dir egb.ps*
Volume in drive C is C - NoelC4 SSD
Volume Serial Number is 00ED-C11E
Directory of C:\TEMP
06/30/2012 01:04 PM 1,411,420 EGB.psb
06/30/2012 12:14 AM 1,397,248 EGB.psd
In my case, I don't send PSDs to anyone, they just represent archives of my master work, and I will always have a modern version of Photoshop to read them with. So if I could I would just use PSB for all master files. Problem is, two 3rd party tools I like to use don't currently handle it:
IrfanView
FastPictureViewer Codec Pack
Probably some day in the future they'll work. I encourage you to write to the people whose tools you'd like to see be able to read PSB to implement support.
See also this thread: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4393244
-Noel

Smaller desktop size but preserving screen resolution (add borders)

Does anyone know if it's possible to add borders to my screen (the device) (using xrandr maybe)?
I have some old TV which has HDMI connector. It can show 720p resolution. Problem is that, for some very odd reason, it cuts about 20px from _every_ side, thus leaving the top bar on my desktop hidden, which is more than annoying.
I believe the problem is on the software on that TV. I actually work on a place where I could have access some service manuals of this TV. So far I haven't found any way to correct this problem. Unfortunately I cannot upgrade the software of that TV because we have services only for household machineries which don't include TVs. Thus we don't have proper equipment for upgrading the software.
Soooo this bring me here: asking you if it's possible to set desktop size little a smaller to fit it on my TV. I'd like not to have it configured on XOrg's confs because I normally use my second monitor in place of that TV and with my intel GPU (on laptop) I cannot have more than two monitors connected at the same time.
In case if it's relevant I use awesome (wm).
Thanks in advance!

Oh, I HATE that! It's called overscan.
A mythtv thread here may help you fix it.
The only thing I use my TV for is to watch videos using mplayer. Even though the borders of my desktop are cut off because of overscan, mplayer seems to "just work" and play the videos correctly.

Windows screen resolution question

I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this issue...
I used a MacBook Pro recently to test the Windows compatibility of a CD-ROM product I'm developing. In most respects it was fine as a substitute for a test PC, but the screen didn't change resolution when it should have done - for very boring reasons the product is supposed to switch whatever it's running on to 800x600, and it the method we're using (an Xtra for Director) has worked fine on all Mac and Windows systems except this.
So I'm thinking that the graphics side of Windows running on an Intel Mac is at a system level very different to a 'real' PC, which is a shame as I was thinking of getting a new MacBook partly to give myself an easier Windows testbed option than constantly borrowing or hijacking other people's machines.
Does this sound like an exceptional event, or will I find that anything related to graphics/switching resolutions will probably not work the same way on a lovely shiny Intel G5 MacBook as a boring old Windows laptop?
G5 iMac

1280 x 800

FXML: Sizes relative to screen size

Hi,
I am currently trying to set up a PerspektiveTransform which is somehow relative to the Stages size. Is there any way of accessing the stages, size or will i have to inject this via the FXMLLoader?
greetings,
andreas

From any node you can get the scene (getScene() on Node), and from there get the Stage (getStage() on Scene). As long as everything is wired up by the time the code in question executes, you should be able to get the Stage in this way.

Image size related to screen resolution - Questions

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for