Merge TIFF file Resolution and page size differs. Clue ?!

Hi All,
I'm able to merge multiple TIFF files into one. But the resultant multi page TIFF file has different resolution and page size than from the source files. The width and height will get exchanged, also those texts are appear stretched.
Noteably, it happens particularly with FAX pages of TIFF files, not with any others (like printed page TIFF files).
can you help me ? Please write here your points.
Thanks a lot,
Vasu

I see I attached the link to the wrong discussion. It should have been this one. Scroll down to the workaround posted by Tomas, from August 26th.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&start=0&tstart=0
Anyway, yes, that's sort of what I mean. On my iWeb 06 website, I've scaled all my pictures down to 800px x 600px with a resolution of 72dpi for online viewing. The original photos, say 3000px x 2000px at 300dpi, are simply saved on my harddrive and not used in iWeb. The thought behind that was for faster loading times for people visiting my website. I'm pretty sure when I saved these reduced copies in Photoshop, the default color profile was sRGB. However, when I look at my site on my office (Windows) PC, the pictures appear dark, especially Black & White ones. But the color profile is a separate issue covered in Tomas' workaround.
Now, maybe I'm operating on a false assumption, but I thought with this new download feature in iWeb and .Mac Web Gallery you would want to use your photos in full resolution so that when a visitor sees a picture they like, they can download the picture from your site AND could even print it if they so chose. Again, I'm assuming you would use your full resolution photos when you build your site and iWeb would do its own scaling for viewing on the web, but the full resolution photos would be somehow held in reserve for the moment when someone selects 'download'. I'm just concerned that using an unscaled, full resolution photos, would slow down the page building speed so much, that visitors would be too border to bother waiting for the pages to load. Thanks.

Similar Messages

What is the best Practice to improve MDIS performance in setting up file aggregation and chunk size

Hello Experts,
in our project we have planned to do some parameter change to improve the MDIS performance and want to know the best practice in setting up file aggregation and chunk size when we importing large numbers of small files(one file contains one record and each file size would be 2 to 3KB) through automatic import process,
below is the current setting in production:-
Chunk Size=2000
No. Of Chunks Processed In Parallel=40
file aggregation-5
Records Per Minute processed-37
and we made the below setting in Development system:-
Chunk Size=70000
No. Of Chunks Processed In Parallel=40
file aggregation-25
Records Per Minute processed-111
after making the above changes import process improved but we want to get expert opinion making these changes in production because there is huge number different between what is there in prod and what change we made in Dev.
thanks in advance,
Regards
Ajay

Hi Ajay,
The SAP default values are as below
Chunk Size=50000
No of Chunks processed in parallel = 5
File aggregation: Depends largely on the data , if you have one or 2 records being sent at a time then it is better to cluster them together and send it at one shot , instead of sending the one record at a time.
Records per minute Processed - Same as above
Regards,
Vag Vignesh Shenoy

Why is page size different from my original Illustrator file?

My art board in Illustrator CS6 was set to the correct dimensions (4.25" x 5.5") with an added bleed (set to .125"). However, when I save as a PDF and viewed the resulting document in Acrobat Pro, there is now almost a half-inch ADDED to the overall page size of the document! This has never happened to me before when saving documents as PDFs. Is there a setting somewhere that I can change to make this stop happening?

Check the bleed and page framing settings in the PDF export dialog.
Mylenium

Page size different between design and preview modes

When I accept the default sizes when creating a new site, the page size appears as it should in design, but then when I preview it, it appears much larger, almost a perfect square. So, what I think I'm creating in design is not what I see when I preview it. See the example below. So what I think I'm designing in Design mode is not the result I get when I preview it. Can anyone tell me why that is? Is this a setting I can modify? I've been accepting the default settings when creating a new site.
Thanks very much!
Jcaro

I have the same problem and the Turn off the "Sticky Footer" option in Site Properties. does not work my pages contain tabbed panels.

PDF Resolution and Page Dimensions, as for CreateSpace

I use a Mac (OX 10.4.11), Adobe Acrobat Professional 7, and PhotoShop Elements 4. I am trying to prepare a 140-page book and upload it as a PDF to CreateSpace.
I exported the book from Keynote to a series of TIF files, which were by defaultt to 72 ppi. Then I used Adobe PhotoShop Elements to convert them to 300ppi. If I export one page from PhotoShop to PDF, then the page size is preserved and the 300ppi resolution is preserved too. But the book has more than one page and I really do need a way to have a multi-page PDF that preserves the page size and the resolution.
Everything I have tried that manages multiple pages in a PDF has resulted in 72ppi. Sometimes the files are fuzzy, and sometimes they become 30x40 inches or something outlandishly big because the unauthorized decrease in resolution to 72ppi was not accompanied by downsizing. The giant pictures do preserve the pixel dimensions, but I was hoping to retain the resolution too.
A customer service representative from Adobe told me to use the Distiller. It works only on PostScript files, which is why I had not got it to work at all previously (directions do not so specify, and the Help function for the Distiller is very rudimentary). When I do use Distiller, I again get a series of too-big image with 72ppi for each of the several pages.
(Distiller also is dysfunctional in that when I ask to specify the output folder, it asks again and again even when I specify a valid folder and I finally have to make it quit.)
What I need is a simple algorithm to convert a series of TIF files to one PDF file that will be recognized by CreateSpace as 300dpi and will have the image-size that I originally specify. The Adobe representative told me that Distiller would work without significant details on settings and that information seems to be just plain wrong.
This is a very common problem; many CreateSpace clients are interested.

Ah, sorry; in that case possibly the Preserve Photoshop Editing Capabilities-button was hit (thus including the original psd-file) but a low-res-pdf-setting selected.
In which case the original data would appear to be CMYK and of a higher resolution that the pdf-images.

Photo resolution and jpeg size

Back in the early days of iWeb 1.0, there was a problem with uploading large (file)sized photo and the corresponding slow loading times for visitors to your site. If you used your original sized photos on a photo page, they would be displayed at 800px x 600px and could easily be over 500kb. The original photo, if memory serves me correctly, was still uploaded to the iDisk and acted as a drag of the whole website. Thus, the solution was to reduce all photos to 72dpi and size the photos for the photo page at 800px x 600px in Photoshop or a similar program. It also meant creating thumbnails for my blog page entries to be dropped into the placeholder photo box (reduce transparency to 0 - the thumbnail would appear properly on the blog summary page) and use a pre-sized photo for the blog page itself.
My question then is the optimal size for photos. Can one use original sized photos in iWeb 08 or does it make sense to continue to pre-process photos, reducing resolution and size? I guess this would not make sense for photos that you plan to make downloadable.
This discussion about color management I find extremely valuable, as I was always disappointed about how my site looked on Windows machines.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5249784&#5249784
Since I'm going to have to re-process the color balance of my photos when I rebuild my site in iWeb 08 (I believe its not possible to update my current iWeb 06 site for reasons I mentioned in another post), I wonder if I could use the original sized photos as is or whether I should reduce their size and resolution (most of the photos I've shot digitally are at 300dpi, I have also scanned all my old analog photos at 300dpi). Thanks!

I see I attached the link to the wrong discussion. It should have been this one. Scroll down to the workaround posted by Tomas, from August 26th.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&start=0&tstart=0
Anyway, yes, that's sort of what I mean. On my iWeb 06 website, I've scaled all my pictures down to 800px x 600px with a resolution of 72dpi for online viewing. The original photos, say 3000px x 2000px at 300dpi, are simply saved on my harddrive and not used in iWeb. The thought behind that was for faster loading times for people visiting my website. I'm pretty sure when I saved these reduced copies in Photoshop, the default color profile was sRGB. However, when I look at my site on my office (Windows) PC, the pictures appear dark, especially Black & White ones. But the color profile is a separate issue covered in Tomas' workaround.
Now, maybe I'm operating on a false assumption, but I thought with this new download feature in iWeb and .Mac Web Gallery you would want to use your photos in full resolution so that when a visitor sees a picture they like, they can download the picture from your site AND could even print it if they so chose. Again, I'm assuming you would use your full resolution photos when you build your site and iWeb would do its own scaling for viewing on the web, but the full resolution photos would be somehow held in reserve for the moment when someone selects 'download'. I'm just concerned that using an unscaled, full resolution photos, would slow down the page building speed so much, that visitors would be too border to bother waiting for the pages to load. Thanks.

Can I add the file name and page numbers to multiple pdfs automatically?

Hello. Thanks first for taking the time to read this! We are a small non profit hospice. Looking to take a large amount of files and put the patients last name (which is the file name) and a page number on the footer of every page of every document. For example. File Name Smith. Smith 1 Smith 2 Smith 3 etc. However I like to be able to do this to multiple files at once and not have to open each one up.

Go to Advanced - Document Processing - Batch Processing...
Click New Sequence and give it a name.
Now select the sequence you've created, click Edit Sequence, click Select Commands.
Select Execute JavaScript from the left-hand side, and click Add.
Now select it on the right-hand side and click Edit.
Paste the code from my previous post into the window, and click OK twice.
Now, back in the Edit Sequence window, select the folder you want to run the batch on, and the output folder. Be aware that if you choose the same folder, the original files will be overwritten, so you might want to use a different one.
Under Source File Options, deselect everything.
Click OK.
You're now ready to run the batch sequence!

Operations on file: Deleting and get size

Hi,
I'm triying to delete a file. I use the following code:
File found = new File (directoryOutputFileWriter+f);
boolean deleted = found.delete();But when I execute it the boolean deleted it's always false and the file is not deleted.
Then I try to get the size of another file in this way:
File produced = new File(directoryOutputFileWriter+file[0]);
long size = produced.length();but I receive a null value (the file exists and its dimension is over 0 of course).
Why?
How can I solve?
Thanks, bye bye.

Hello,
in my experience the absolute #1 source of astonishment with file operations is loose manual checking (mistyping or misreading).
I suggest you use those traces:
File found = new File (directoryOutputFileWriter+f);
System.out.println("File path is"+found.getAbsolutePath());
System.out.println("Does this file exists? "+found.exists());
System.out.println("Is this file really a file? "+found.isFile()); // You may not be able to delete a directory on all platforms
System.out.println("Is this file deleted now? "+found.delete());#2 is developers not reading the javadoc (that states that delete may not succeed), but I acknowledge you have read it, as you're investigating why it hasn't, and not complaining that it has.
#3 is people overlooking OS-specific file management. E.g. Unix-Linux-Window file permissions management all may let you read a file but not delete it (with the unices having a richer set of combinations than windows). The rules for directory deletion are different between Unices and Windows. Etc...
Edited by: jduprez on Jul 5, 2010 9:44 AM
@Mel: I sometimes wish I was that much connected to my wife's mind ;o)
@Joachim: nice catch! Loose manual checking indeed (both on my part and on OP's)...

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.

File/Import and Page Layout not working anymore

I have a question about old software: FrameMaker 6.0 on a Mac. (While Adobe encouraged me to purchase this in 2001 for the chemistry textbook I am writing, I had invested to much to abandon it when Adobe abandoned the Mac version a few years later.)
I have imported dozens of images files into the 750 page book and FrameMaker has accepted both tif and jpg formats. The way I did it was to create an anchored frame in the textbook, click on it, and then File>Import and select the image file and then choose whether I wanted it to be referenced or actually in the text. All of this worked fine... until a couple of days ago.
Problems
1. I no longer get Import as an option under File and
2. FrameMaker no longer recognizes tif and jpg files under "All Readable Documents" when I do File>Open. I have to click on Show All Files to see them.
As a result I am unable to import any tif or jpg files into the FrameMaker textbook.
What's curious is that I have 6.0 installed on both a G4 and a PowerBook and this problem has occurred on both at the same time.
3. And I just discovered that when I do Format/Page Layout the half a dozen or so custom formats that I had are no longer listed.
So what has caused this loss of memory for Framemaker that it can no longer do what it has done for me for years. (I am somewhat sympathetic to it's memory loss myself as a 78 year old user.)
The G4 has been unplugged recently but in the past it has been unplugged for a week or so and there were no problems.
Fred Tabbutt

adiabatic wrote:
I have a question about old software: FrameMaker 6.0 on a Mac. (While Adobe encouraged me to purchase this in 2001 for the chemistry textbook I am writing, I had invested to much to abandon it when Adobe abandoned the Mac version a few years later.)
I have imported dozens of images files into the 750 page book and FrameMaker has accepted both tif and jpg formats. The way I did it was to create an anchored frame in the textbook, click on it, and then File>Import and select the image file and then choose whether I wanted it to be referenced or actually in the text. All of this worked fine... until a couple of days ago.
Problems
1. I no longer get Import as an option under File and
2. FrameMaker no longer recognizes tif and jpg files under "All Readable Documents" when I do File>Open. I have to click on Show All Files to see them.
As a result I am unable to import any tif or jpg files into the FrameMaker textbook.
What's curious is that I have 6.0 installed on both a G4 and a PowerBook and this problem has occurred on both at the same time.
3. And I just discovered that when I do Format/Page Layout the half a dozen or so custom formats that I had are no longer listed.
So what has caused this loss of memory for Framemaker that it can no longer do what it has done for me for years. (I am somewhat sympathetic to it's memory loss myself as a 78 year old user.)
The G4 has been unplugged recently but in the past it has been unplugged for a week or so and there were no problems.
Fred Tabbutt
I don't know if read-only files are recognized by FrameMaker to the point where it will dim commands that need to write to the files.
It's always a good idea on Mac to repair permissions with Disk Utility - make sure you have good backups, just in case.
Have you tried saving a file that can't import as MIF, then opening the MIF version to restore the file, and perhaps lose any corruption in it? This is called the "MIF Wash."
I think the latest Mac OS that FrameMaker can work with is system 9, or the Classic simulator that runs on the OS X release called Tiger. I'm sure you'd know if you changed operating systems in this period. Classic won't run on Intel Macs.
I have no other clues about what might cause this, except the general thought that something has changed on your systems or in the files you're working with. Does the problem persist in a brand-new file you create on your local drive? If you're working with FM files on a network, have you tried the process with files on your local computer drive? Have you quit FrameMaker and restarted your Macs? Any change? If you have a cloned bootable backup of your stuff from before the problem arose, you might want to try cloning your problematic drive to a new bootable backup, then restoring the known good clone, to see if it works.
HTH
Regards,
Peter
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

Can I print the File name and page number

When printing a file, I would like to print the File Name and the page number also...something like a header, in every page printed. Is this possible in Acrobat? Please advise.
Thanks

Sure. Did you look under Tools - Pages - Header & Footer ?

Changing Resolution and Document size

Hello - I have a jpeg from a digital camera that I Saved As photo.psd with an original Document Size of 44" x 66" @ 72 ppi resolution.
I am using CS3 and I want to prepare the photo for printing while maintaining the highest quality possible. The first thing I did was uncheck Resample Image. Then I changed the resolution to 300. This gave me a Document Size of 10.56 x 15.84.
I want to enlarge the Document Size to 16" x 24" (the same proportions). So, it seems to me that the next step is to now check Resample Image and put in my new Document Size of 16" x 24". I would then apply some Unsharp Mask as desired.
So, should Ifollow the steps above or do you recommend a different workflow?
I've read that Photoshop will upres very well up to 200% and all I need is 166%, so it should work ok. Also, do you recommend standard Bicubic or Bicubic Smoother?
TIA

What you're suggesting will work, though you don't really need to do it in multiple steps. One step, with resampling checked, once you set all the fields as you want, will do the trick.
And for all the hype and mystery surrounding the two alternate choices for resampling, in all my work for minor resampling I always find I prefer Photoshop's original Bicubic method. For extreme upsampling I prefer, personally, a plug-in called Genuine Fractals.
Also, modern print drivers are getting very good at size matching... If the image quality in your file is to your liking, you COULD just set the print size in inches (without resampling) and be done with it. This would yield an image at a resolution lower than 300 pixels/inch, but would save you some work, and it may very well be that you will not be able to see any difference by letting the driver do the resampling as needed.
-Noel

About printer resolution and paper size

I need information about how to use the class PrinterResolution and his relation width paper size.
When i provide a cross a feed resolution to this class bigger values results in low resolutions: why? i dont now the DPI resolution meaning.
Please somme code example about this theme...Thanks a lot...

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

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

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.

Merge TIFF file Resolution and page size differs. Clue ?!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for