Kenburns and image size

Well I have been playing with Imovie for the past couple of days trying to trouble shoot. I'm not sure of what I have..
What I know is that I have to resize my images down to 640x640 roughly. If I dont and I apply the KB effect it shimmers (maybe what I have??) like crazy. Example take a black and white shot of a couple sitting in the grass. The grass appears to be shimering and is not in focus. Same with any lines. Like Jeans. I notice this more with black and white images.
If I take the KB effect off.. then the pictures are fine...
Weird.
I'm not sure where to go from here to fix this, so I would appreciate some help.
Thanks

I solved it by changing the actual UIImage to fit the row height. Credit to: http://blog.logichigh.com/2008/06/05/uiimage-fix/

Similar Messages

Hi there! So I am using Lightroom 3 on a pc and I have ran into an issue when exporting images. The DPI and image size (in inches) that I am selecting during the export process. For example I just exported a collection and set the dpi to 180 and the size

Hi there! So I am using Lightroom 3 on a pc and I have ran into an issue when exporting images. The DPI and image size (in inches) that I am selecting during the export process. For example I just exported a collection and set the dpi to 180 and the size to 7 inches on the long edge. My exported result is 457 dpi and sized at 3200x2134 pixels.. Any ideas on why this is happening and what I can do to correct it?

The DPI setting in a digital image has no meaning at all. You need to learn how to calculate what you need in your exported image. The only measurement in a digital image that has any meaning is the number of pixels in each direction. It doesn't matter what you set that DPI to (actually it's PPI or pixels per inch). The image will have the same number of pixels regardless of the setting. If you need an image that is 5 x 7" (for example) at 200 PPI then you would want an image that measured:
5 x 200 = 1000 pixels
7 x 200 = 1400 pixels
So you would need an image that is 1000 x 1400 pixels to have a 5 x 7" image at 200 PPI. The reason your exported image had such a high PPI setting is because you specified the number of inches you wanted the image to be. And there were enough pixels in the image that it calculated out to be that high PPI setting.
I apologize, I don't explain this very well. But you need to learn to do the math to determine how large you really want your exported images to be.

Drag and Drop and Image Size

I need to be able to drag and drop images but I need them to be a certain size when I drag them out of an Aperture project. For various reasons, I don't want to use the export function. Only drag and drop will be efficient for the workflow that I"m planning. Problem is, the pixel dimension is not wide enough when I test it by pulling an image on to the desktop.
My ultimate goal is drag them, sized and ready to go, and drop them onto a web browser upload page. I don't want to fumble with the extra steps of exporting them to another folder on the desktop and then upload the images from that folder to the browser.
So does anybody know how or if it's possible to control the drag and drop SIZE /DIMENSION of an image?

The drag and drop size is determined by your preview settings. What actually gets "dragged & dropped" is the preview, not the master file. You can control the quality and size of the preview in the Aperture preferences.

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.

Changing resolution and image size doesn't change result on screen?

I'm using Photoshop CS3. I am trying to change the resolution of several images that will be printed in a newspaper. So the current images are 72 ppi and really huge -- for example 36 x 27 inches (document size), and when I change them to 300 ppi, the image sizes shrink to about 8 x 6 inches, as I expect. But the image I see on the screen doesn't change. So, for example, when I open up the image originally, it's at 33% and the entire image is visible. After I change the resolution, and the image size has changed accordingly, the image still appears the same and it remains at 33%. Shouldn't the image shrink on the screen since its size has shrunk? Or if it remains the same on the screen, shouldn't the percentage shift? I mean if the document size is now 8 x 6, it should be able to be displayed at 100% and not fill my whole screen... I'm so confused. Thanks...

gradded,
The "Document Size" area of the Image Size dialog is just to indicate the size (in inches) that your document will be printed. The ppi adjustment has nothing to do with what is displayed on your monitor. Your monitor doesn't care anything about ppi. The monitor contains a certain number of pixels and after you change that ppi setting, the monitor will still have that same number of pixels.
As long as you leave the "Resample Image" box unchecked, your image size (Pixel Dimensions) will not change. You will see no change on your monitor. If you check the "Resample Image" box, then your image size (in pixels) will change.
Hope this helps.

Can you lock aspect ratio, define border and image size with automated BatchCropStraighten?

Hello everybody,
I need to crop and straighten a load of scanned rectangular stamps that will start as a single scanned image, and I want to lock the aspect ratio to 1:1, define the top border size (such that the the borders on the sides will be bigger than those top and bottom) and specify the output image size.
Does anybody know if this is possible using the automates BatchCropStraighten function?
Thanks,
Paul

paulsinyard wrote:
Does anybody know if this is possible using the automates BatchCropStraighten function?
I know of no BatchCropStraighten feature in Photoshop. Photoshop has a Plugin CropPhotosAuto that you access through menu File>Automate>Crop and Straighten Photos.
On my windows system its "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC 2014\Required\Plug-Ins\Automate\CropPhotosAuto.8li". This plug-in is designed to help you scan several image with a single scan. All the plug-in does is to look at the current active document looking for what appears to be a scanned image and to create an additional document that contain a straighten version of the image the size of the image. No files are created nothing is saved only one document is processed even if you had several scans open in Photoshop. When the Plug-in ends the current active document is the last document the plugin created.
You may be able to program a Photoshop script that would fit the create documents to some size then add canvas that would make all the documents have the same Aspect ratio and size. The borders added would be equally sizes on opposite sides top and bottom the same left and right the same. However the image aspect ration inside the borders may vary.
I created a fake scan with five simulated images. Not straight and not all rectangles and duped the document so two would be open the used File>Automate>Crop and Straighten Photos when the process finished I spread out the document so you could see all that are open in this screen capture.

Premiere Pro CS4: Output Issue - codec and image size

I am having an issue when outputing a video file from Prem Pro to Media Encoder. The dimensions of the input video are the usual 720x576. The output I need is 390x390 to match my project. By choosing the Sorenson 3 video codec I am able to adjust the size from 720x576 to 390x390. However, it also applies black bars to the top and bottom of the image. I don't want this. If I choose the DV PAL video codec the black bars are removed in the output but I do not have control over the image size.
In Prem Pro 1.5 the media encoder allowed for this and I was able to create a cropped video image (390x390) without black bars. By selecting the zoom option the image was fitted into the window size. There is no zoom option in CS4 in Media Encoder. This is very frustrating!
Any help would be appreciated...
Thanks, Neil

This is odd indeed, and I cannot recall having read of such. The tips were just the general things that one normally checks out, when there are audio issues, so nothing specific to this behavior.
Now, as a test, you might want to try ASIO4ALL, linked in the article above. Usually, it will get audio, where the Realtek, or Creative driver will not. Again, this is as a test, just to see if by-passing the Realtek driver will help. Do not forget to set the Audio Hardware ASIO to ASIO4ALL in Input and Output. Then test. If it has zero affect, then just uninstall it, and change the setting back.
Good luck, and wish I had more to help,
Hunt
PS - other than mechanical/electrical things like the audio chip heating up and a connection failing, I just cannot think of something that would cause this behavior. Maybe download and run SpeedFan, a great little free utility, and monitor the temps for all components with sensors.

Very confused about ppi, resolution, and image size...

I have read so much on these things and even posted along these lines here and there, but remain totally confused.
Say the size of my pictures is around 2000 x 3000. Once I download them to PSE, the resolution is 72ppi. Is this default and could I/should I change this?
I generally do four things with my pictures.
First I edit them.
Next I email to family members.
Then I order prints (99% are 5x7 or smaller)
Finally I store them (on computer with CD backup).
Now, space is a bigger concern than quality since I print small prints generally. So what would be my best options for saving my files, but getting very nice prints?
Right now, once I edit, I save my files in .jpg, baseline "optimized" at 72ppi. Only following the computer defaults though, not because I think this is best. Would I be better off saving in TIFF or is this not necessary?
Any links with further info would be appreciated also.
Thank you,
Amy

Amy,
1. I just took a picture today, and when I look in Image>resize>image size the dimensions are as follows:
W=2288px H=1712px W=31.778" H=23.778" @72px/in. resolution
When I change resolution to 325 px/in., W=7.04" H=5.268"
As the resolution is increased, the dimensions decrease. This is what is called an inverse relation.
Why did I change to 325px/in? Because for printing it is desirable to have a resolution of 240-300 px/in, or so. Also, note that this resolution gives me almost a perfect 5x7 size format, and one can crop off the excess readily. If one desires 4x6 size, one can crop to that dimension.
2. I enhance the pictures next, leaving sharpening for the last step
3. I save primarily in PSD and/or JPEG. Both PSD and TIFF allow one to retain layers, are lossless, and thus one avoids degradation with sequential editing. JPEG is is a compression format which conserves disk space (in comparison to PSD and TIFF), and is most likely required for your e-mail and your photo finisher. I save some of the JPEG files. I usually elect baseline optimized, and the JPEG allows me to elect quality 8, which is good for my purpose and results in a manageable file size.
4. Right after I download my picture files from the camera, I burn them to a CD (i.e. before I do anything else), and right after I finish the final edits I burn them to CD as well. This is my "film", if you will. If the computer fails or if I should accidentally delete a file from disk, I still have it available.
I am sure that others will post, but that is my current work flow.
Ken

Skinning and Image size for android devices

I am building a mobile application for both Android and iOS devices. I am using images in 3 different resolutions sets.
The images have been made in such a way that the complete all screens were first designed for 640x960 resolution with 320 dpi. Then I created 3 different sets of images where the images were reduced to 75% and 50% of the 640x960 image size. The images I have now work fine for iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 and 4S devices. But the 75% one's don't work correctly. This is because the size of say background of view at 75% would be 720 pixels while the size of the Android device's screen is 854px or 800px.
How can I address this issue?

Any help on this?

Getting file header size and image size

Hi all,
Now that the AVI file type won't work for me, I have to do some of that functionality myself.
I can use the function to Get File Size, and the size is returned in bytes, so far so good.
I figured I could calculate the image size by taking the resolution, multiply X and Y, that gives me the number of pixels.
Then multiply pixels by bit depth, to get the number of bits, divide by 8 for the number of bytes.
Since bit depth is 8, the number of bytes will be exact (and the same as the number of pixels).
When I did the math, and divided by the file size, it didn't come to a round number, and was a larger number than the number of images I could display.
I figured there is probably additional information stored with each image, but I don't know how to adjust for that.
There may be byte clustering happening, making each image larger than the actual byte count would indicate.
And, there is probably file header info, but not sure where to get that.
I looked through the IMAQ functions, and didn't see one about getting the image size (I did see the one that returns resolution, but I have that data already).
Any suggestions on how I can calculate how many images are in my binary file?
And, how to get the byte sizes I need to be able to set the file pointer correctly to get an image out of the middle of the file?
Thank you for any suggestions,
Jeff

If I understand correctly You have binary file with multiple images inside and You want to extract that images?
Depending on image type You can search by tags where image begins and ends: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-decoder.html and extract.

Canvas and image sizes

When placing a frame onto a photo the canvas increases in size. The canvas area outside of the frame/ photo area is checkered and I have read on the forum that this means it is transparent, right? Is yes, then how do I get Photoshop to stop printing it out as a gray border?
In the meantime I have been using the canvas resizing feature to reduce the canvas size. I use pixel mode so I can change it in fine increments. Is there a way of quickly making the canvas size the same as the image size? I see where the canvas size information is the same as the image but there is a checkered border around the image.
Thanks for your help.
Pete

Marquee tool, then Image>Crop would be better.
>how do I get Photoshop to stop printing it out as a gray border?
Save as TIFF, PSD, PNG-24, or PDF, since those formats allow transparency. JPEG does not.

Urgent ! Speed and image size problem.

Dear Java Guru,
I have the speed caused by:
param.setCompression(TIFFEncodeParam.COMPRESSION_JPEG_TTN2);
If use:
param.setCompression(TIFFEncodeParam.COMPRESSION_DEFLATE);
It will be 6 times faster, but the image size is bigger.
But we need to keep the image size very small, say the COMPRESSION_JPEG_TTN2
allows the size to be 2714kb for 20 pages (Grayscale at 100dpi resolution). Is there a compression method that allows the image size to be 1500kb for 20 pages, yet at the time of encode, it is as fast as _DEFLATE method ?
Please help !!! our case is urgent
Thanks in advance.
Thinkwork.

Please help !!! our case is urgentIt always is, isn't it?

I get resolution warnings when I know the resolution and image size exceed

I am using images that exceed the required resolution (300 dpi) for the size used (8 1/2" x 11"). Mostly these are on full page images. anyone run into these problems?

Error -36 is I/O error, w/o specifying if the error is in the source or the target.
So, first of all, verify your disk(s) with Disk Utility, just to make sure there's no problem there.
If there isn't, then there's a problem with the download. Consult "EVE online" (whatever that might be) tech support and user forums.

Retina displays and image size

I am attempting to prepare images for a website launch. The site will incude a photography portfolio. My original assumption was to knock all the images down to 72 pixels, which is autmatically done in iPhoto. Being new to Apperature I do not see how to do this yet.
First question is, how do I control how many pixels per inch are exported, when I want to use an image on a website? (what are the steps please)
Next, now that the retina display is available on more than one iDevise what is the best resolution (if that is the correct term) to export images for the site so that the portfolio images are shown in highest quality?
Last question for now, and bit of a side thought: when it is said there are x-many more pixels, or higher resolution, what is the corect way of handling photographs assuming the first images on the site were 72 pixels per inch, 700X900? If I wanted to double this for the iFamily of products would I create images 144 pixels per inch, 700X900 or 72 pixels per inch, 1400X1800?

Donald wrote:
This confuses me if dpi is meaningless. What is it that developers do to make their icons and graphics better in apps when there is a new release? Are they increasing dpi or image dimensions? If it is image dimensions why is it that they appear the same on the display?
For example: my website logo looks fuzzy on the new retina display. The logo size is 110X360 pixels and it is set at 72 pixels per inch (verified using Preview). I have the original logo which measures 2212X648 at 300 pixels per inch and is set at 300 pixels per inch. There must be a way to clean up its appearance yet have it appear the same size.
The same applies to the images, although it does not seemto be as apparent. If I start at 300 pixels per inch on a 3000X2000 image, what settings would be optimal for the exported image on the site? Assuming dimensions of somewhere in the vicinity of 920X1380 to 960X1440 (if that makes sense).
Donald-
Start thinking in terms of the pixel dimensions of your output and mostly forget about the pixel density (ppi) of your output unless you are printing to hard copy.
E.g. your logo is 110x360 pixels; changing pixel density does not change the pixel dimensions. Your 110x360 pixels looks good at a certain size on a low rez display, but on a high rez display the 110x360 pixels must either be viewed smaller or uprezzed in the browser, in web design software or in the OS to view at the same size. As you know uprezzing reduces image quality. Quality digital images visually usually tolerate uprezzing better than small logos do.
To make your logo look good on the higher rez display you need to provide more pixels to start with. How software does the uprez/downrez thing is of course a challenge, and there are multiple different approaches; enough material for a couple of upper-division uni courses. A highe level app like Adobe flex, for instance, provides three resolution band choices (IIRC 160/240/320 ppi).
How any given designer proceeds is dependent on what tools he/she chooses to use.
HTH
-Allen

ColorSync profiles and image size

For some reasons, why I apply a colorsync profile to an image and save the image, the file size goes down by about 50%. Does anyone know why this happens or how this can be avoided?
Could it have something to do with the fact that when you save an image in Preview is it's pre-set to save JPG images at 'almost best' quality, but not 'best' quality?
Does this 50% decrease in file size mean the image has been compressed and lost information?
Also, while I'm on the topic, which is the best coloursync profile to apply to my images if I may use them for creating iPhoto books? The sRGB profile makes the images look a bit dark on my screen, as does Camera RGB. However, the sRGB IEC1996-2.1 looks about the right one, but I don't really know much about color management.

Hi Tom,
Everytime you save an image as a jpg it does become more compressed and is usually a smaller file size. That does not necessarily mean that you are losing image quality.
When you save images, you are most of the time optimizing the image. Which means, trying to make the file size as small as possible without any loss in image quality. Optimization is the result of the images you see on the internet, they need to be of high quality but a reasonable file size.
For printing purposes you probably would want to save the file as 'highest' possible quality. I have printed 5mb jpg files to as large as 20 x 30 with no loss of quality. Preview allows you to save at the highest quality by using the 'Save As' option...
Color Profile - As far as what others may see compared to what you see on your screen. I would probably bet almost everyone will see a slightly different image depending on computer type, screen, monitor brightness etc.
Rick
iMac G5 iSight 20" - 30G iPOD in Slimming Black - Mac OS X (10.4.7) - HP Pav 15" WS and Toshiba Sat 17" WS LP's - Canon 20D & A620

Kenburns and image size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for