No more Pixel dimension

Hi everybody,
I am in need of some advice. My current project is developing a prototype GUI for a copier. I've done more of these projects before and it was always safe to say that only one panel screen size needed to be supported (i.e. e.g. only 800x600 or 1024x768). For that reason layout managers were never used since they had absolutely no advantages for us.
Now the need for different screen resolutions seems to get bigger and the question is how much effort we want to put in supporting different screen resolutions. Since it is still not a desktop application it is also not possible to resize the screen size runtime, so still layout managers have not very much value (yet?). But when the layouts are set to 'null' and we need to switch from 800x600 to 1024x768 it is quite some work to 'fix' all the setBounds methods.
So basically what I need is a way to define component sizes by metric systems (mm, cm or something) and not by pixels . The open-source project of jgoodies 'forms' fulfill these needs, but of course is written for desktop java applications where the user is allowed to resize the frame.
Is there anybody who can help me out with some ideas? Did anyone by accident had the same problems to solve? Is somebody already familiar with the 'pixel' size issues? Is there any knowledge on this forum about other size dimensions then pixel sizes?
Many thanks in advance, I will go on searching the web but your help is more then welcome.
Kind regards, Bas

Hmm.. not too much response :). can anybody help me out a little?

Similar Messages

How do you find the pixel dimensions of a photo to embed in Illustrator CC?

We recently upgraded our software from CS3 to CC. I'm having trouble determining the pixel dimensions of the photo I want to embed in Illustrator. In our old work flow, we simply clicked on the object in Illustrator, and then opened a new document in Photoshop, and it would retain the dimensions at our document size in Illustrator. It was then a simple matter to paste the photo into the box, position and crop and save as a PSD file and then place in Illustrator. That does not work any more in Creative Cloud. The object downsizes to 72 DPI while retaining the resolution setting. We need to keep our Illustrator files to the minimum, so embedding larger than needed files is not possible.
I've researched a bit and I see others with similar problems, but I haven't seen a workaround or a way to determine the pixel size. Document info in Illustrator gives the 72 dpi pixel settings, even though the document is set to reproduce at 200 dpi.
This is something that used to be so simple I didn't think much of upgrading. Now my workflow is horrendously long. I have to rasterize the entire graphic and then crop what is the inset photo. If there is a simpler way, please tell me. All the literature is backwards, about placing an already sized PS image into Illustrator. I need the other way 'round.
Thanks in advance for any help.

I think I have a workaround: Make sure the clipboard settings are on 72 by cutting and pasting a 72 dpi file in PS, as it seems Illustrator images are seen that way, no matter what the output resolution is. Click on Photoshop and start a new document. It will retain the proportions of the Illustrator image in 72 dpi. Then open image size and make sure the resample box is checked. Change the resolution to the desired, in my case 200.. Then place and crop your photo, and save the PSD file. Open Illustrator and place the PSD file. This works for me.

Is there any way to batch change resolution, but not pixel dimensions?

I was changing the resolution of my digital photos from 180 to 300 ppi individually as I edited them, but sometimes I would forget. Since I need the higher resolution for printing, I decided to automate that step by using PSE's "Process Multiple Files" feature. I noted that the Resolution selection was grayed out until I checkmarked "Resize Images." Since I didn't want to change the number of pixels, I left those fields blank.
When I started the automated processing I noticed it was terribly slow, so I cancelled it and looked at the resulting files. They had more than doubled in file size because PSE was nearly doubling the Pixel Dimensions! I don't want to try a work-around by "resizing" to the current pixel dimensions, because the processing still takes about 45 seconds per file, and if I've cropped the photos, the pixel dimensions vary. Is there an automated way to change only the resolution in PSE . . . quickly?
Also, I really wanted to double the resolution from 180 ppi to 360 ppi, but PSE limits my choices to either 600 or 300 or less. I've read about Scripts, but I don't think PSE supports them. I have version 6.
Thanks for some help.

Thanks for your input, and you may be right, but I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure this out. I know it's the same photo on my monitor, but I keep reading that print resolution (ppi) is different from pixel resolution (i.e. 2000x3000.) This is my situation-- I'm sending the photos to a publisher for printing in a book. The publisher did not specify a size in inches--in fact I think the photos will be different sizes when printed on the page. They told me to send the photos in at 1600x1200 pixels. I've heard that 300 ppi is the standard resolution for publishing, so to get decent quality printing of my photos I thought I should increase the resolution from 180 to 300. But thinking about the different sizes, it seems that the resolution (ppi) will change depending on the size the photo is actually printed. At 300 ppi, a 1600x1200 photo will be printed at size 5.333" X 4". If a photo is printed full bleed on the cover of the book that is 8" x 10.667", then it will be 150 ppi. So, I guess you are right that I don't need to worry about the ppi resolution for the book photos.
Now, let me figure about what I need to print my own 4x6 photos. My digital camera was set to 16x9 jpg, so my workflow is to make PNG copies to work with and after editing, save them in the 16x9 format before cropping at 1600x1200 pixels, then sharpening before doing Save As jpg in Book folder. I was thinking I needed to change the resolution to 300 ppi when saving in the 16x9 format so if I want to later make 4x6 prints, I'll have good quality prints. But you have made me think a little harder--what I do is choose the 4x6 crop tool which takes care of whatever ppi resolution is needed for that size print. Oh good, you have saved me extra work. Thanks!
(BTW, I choose the 16x9 format because I was planning to use the photos in a widescreen slideshow, but my husband wanted something he could hold in his hand--hence, the book . . . and a lot of cropping!)

Changing ppi changes pixel dimensions but not document size?

I have an image that is W=4.375 H=6.124 at 355 ppi the pixel dimensions area under Img > Image Size indicates it is W=1553 px H=2174
When I change the resolution to 72 px it is only changing the pixel dimensions and not the document size. I'm confuesed.
1. What is the difference between pixel dimensions and document size?
2. Is the document the same physical size regardless if I make it 200 ppi, 150 ppi or 72?
Thanks.

Let me see if I understand all of this:
- If I change the resolution the print dimension will stay the same, though what is it actually doing to the image if I increase the resolution, though it still is the same print dimension? I am guessing you can not just add pixels to a given size image and expect it to print better.
- If I change the dimensions, the resolution will change because there will be either more pixels for a smaller area or fewer pixels for a larger area, depending on how I size it.
Thanks.

Sort by file size and/or pixel dimensions

I am constantly frustrated by the lack of ability to sort by file size or pixel dimension. I have many versions of the same images, and often want to find the biggest one, or one of a certain size, and it's very time consuming to have to scan all the numbers in the metadata instead of being able to sort. Please add this.
Thanks!

DevMeta will allow you to filter/collect by width and height dimensions.
PixelCountMetadata will allow you to filter/collect by total number of pixels (width x height).
Now that I'm thinking about it, I should probably have just added the pixelcount metadata to DevMeta, but I didnt..., yet...
PS - I dont use PixelCountMetadata, since I only have originals in Lightroom. All resized copies are kept outside of Lightroom. Consider TreeSync if you regularly keep variously sized copies at the ready for various purposes... And, lastly, ExportManager will help you keep all your trees up2date, if you have more than one.
I then use ACDSee to find photos in the exported copies or run slideshows, or serve on the house net, or email...
R

Show pixel dimensions when cropping

The current crop tool allows one to specify the aspect ratio of a crop. It would be useful (to me, at least) to have a display of the actual pixel dimensions of the resulting crop. I can guess by eye, but sometimes I want to be sure that I do not go below some size.

GrizzlyAK wrote:
Yeah, there are LOTS of ways the Crop Tool could be improved, but here it is almost 2011 and LR3+ and nothing has changed since users started complaining back in 2007.
You'll notice that this was from very few users (1, in this thread). Most people just don't find a need for this.
Cropping while zoomed in is a much more popular request.

What are the pixel dimensions for creating an Apple ibook book cover?

I'm trying to create a book cover for Apple ibooks, what are the pixel dimensions requirements?

Thanks again.
Apple seems to have made it more confusing than it should be.
As an aside, the Apple documentation contradicts itself.
Cover art (also known as a marketing image or jacket) should be at least 1400 pixels along the smaller axis and must be a JPEG or PNG file in RGB Color mode.
This clearly says the shorter side must be at least 1400 pixels. The next sentence says this:
For an average trade paperback, this could be 400 x 1400 minimum size, as the books are generally taller than they are wide.
That doesn't make sense, seeing that the shorter side is supposed to be at least 1400 pixels, meaning it should say "1400 x 4900" for the same aspect ratio.
...I did notice this too.
So, if as you say, that the Cover Art and Cover image terms are the same and the 2 million limit does not apply, then it is unclear to me why Apple sent this message to me about cover file being rejected
"Action Required: Your book could not be delivered to the iBookstore.
The following images are larger than two million pixels and must be resized:
Full ePub: Cover_xyz.jpg "
I'll probably need to have the cover file in epub and Cover Image for Asset in iTunes Producer be named differently (but be copies of the same file) so I can understand which one is the "problem" file.
And finally, why does Apple refer to Cover Art twice here and then end in last sentence with Cover Image if they are the same ( and if they are the same why not state "this cover image").
"Cover art (also known as a marketing image or jacket) should be at least 1400 pixels along the smaller axis and must be a JPEG or PNG file in RGB Color mode. For an average trade paperback, this could be 400 x 1400 minimum size, as the books are generally taller than they are wide. For best results, deliver the largest pixel dimensions possible. When possible, match cover art to the cover contained in the book file. The 2 million pixel maximum does not apply to the cover image".

Pixel Dimensions in MB

The pixel dimension field in the Image Size window, seems to use a generic number of MB which has no connection to the size of the image when I save it as a full resolution Photoshop document.
Where does that number come from?
I am developing a tutorial to help students understand the information in this window. Everything makes good sense except this pixel dimension number which is supposed to indicate the file size.
Thanks for your help.
Mary Lou

The confusion comes from two causes:
1,000 "computer things" is equal to 1,024 "normal things".
Each pixel has 3 chunks of data -- one chunk for each colour channel (Red, Green, and Blue).
So, the formula to get the "Pixel Dimensions" number is this (Only using the top section. Ignore the "Document Size" area.) :
(Width/1024) x (Height/1024) x 3
For your example:
(1000/1024) x (1000/1024) x 3 =
0.9765625 x 0.9765625 x 3 =
0.95367431641 x 3 =
2.86102294922
Added:
The obvious question is "What if there are more colour channels?" You guessed it: multiply by the number of channels. Here's the same image opened in PSCS2, first as an RGB image, then after switching the Mode to CMYK;
Ken
Message was edited by: photodrawken to add examples

Matching InDesign and Photoshop Pixel Dimensions

I'm attempting to use InDesign to determine pixel sizes of a baseline grid and typography that will eventually be used on a webpage. Since Photoshop doesn't have a baseline grid or a baseline grid snapping feature, I thought I might be able to make something work in InDesign.
Unfortunately I'm running into a problem, where pixel dimensions in InDesign don't seem to match up with pixel sizes in Photoshop. For example, with documents at 100% view in both Photoshop and InDesign, a 100px square appears larger on screen in InDesign than in Photoshop. It's as if InDesign is rendering the view at a different resolution than Photoshop.
Above you can see a square made at 42 pixels in InDesign viewed at 100% zoom (though InDesign insists on displaying the size as points) with the same square screen-captured and opened in Photoshop. The square is actually measured at 54 pixels.
How can I get InDesign to display the same pixel sizes as Photoshop?

True enough on both counts! Relative resolution and scaling is definitely helpful for print design (I learned early on what scale to view in order to preview onscreen at what would be actual physical size--the reverse of double-clicking the zoom tool now, I guess.)
But I see no reason why we can't have it both ways. Isn't that the whole point of "web" or "Digital Publishing" intent in document setup? Why not have Indesign switch to 1-1px scale when you create a document set to web intent? Wouldn't be any different, functionally, than what the script does, it would just revert to physical scale when I open a print document. Seems like it should be obvious that the preview scale when creating a web site should be 1 pixel is 1 pixel--my browser isn't going to display my website at 123.7% scale. Or that if you chose the "iPad" digital pub template, the display scale should be twice that of a (theoretical) Retina display iPad. It's functionally just a different number, right? That is, if I were writing a script, I could theoreticall specify any resolution I wanted to get the desired display scale.
Ok, so now I'm turning this into feature request, I know, and the question has been thoroughly answered. But it needn't be that complicated--all we really need is a place to CHOOSE what mode to opperate in, right? If Adobe really prefers not to open the output-intent-view-scale can o' worms, then why not leave an Acrobat-style resolution preference where I can type in a number? The obvious advantage of that over the script solution is that it's easy to set or reset.
Aside: while we're on the topic of having it both ways in regards to using Indesign for more than print work... Why not include the option to set the document color profile (most likely to sRGB) when I choose "web" intent in a new document dialog? Oh! And give me actual RGB black and white color swatches in "web" documents.
I'm just excited about the idea of Adobe taking a few more steps in the direction they've started with the whole document intent feature set in Indesign. A more inviting web design environment wouldn't in any way keep me from continuing to use Indesign for print work (all day every day). What is there to lose? Not like they're developing Fireworks anymore, and Indesign already makes more sense for web than Illustrator. ... I'm sure it's a HUGE internal debate at Adobe. Probably some Fireworks replacement app in the works that I don't know about.

Pixel Dimensions and File Size

Can anybody please explain the relation between pixel dimensions and file size?
Being naive, (or straight-forward if you prefer) I had assumed that pixel dimensions wide times pix dimension high = file size. Wrong!
For instance a .JPG file 374 X 500 has a file size of 41,275 bytes. But 374 times 500 = 18,700 so the two are different issues.

Thanks Rich. It kind of sounds like you know something about this.
I see 1 pixel, and 24 bit color would make 24 bits at 8 bits to a byte, so there's the 3 bytes.
I selected a certain photo and used the APPLE i command to see if could find if it had 8 bit color or, whatever. That infomation was not on the info function, but it did say something about RGB color profile.
Is 8 bit color a near certain bet in most applications, or was that just for the sake of illustration?
I Googled 8 bit color and go to a Wikipedia Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth
which explained a lot, but its more technical depth than what I'm prepared to deal with. The net net, as far as I can tell is that image size (before compression) is dimension times color depth in its native mode, but I suppose what the native mode is and what the displayed mode is could be separate issues?
I was under the impression that the compression in JPG formt files comes out, or is decompressed, when the photo is printed or displayed? No?

Zooming on Stills: does dpi matter, or just pixel dimensions?

Hi, I am going to be zooming in on Stills, and, as I understand it, before importing into FCE, I want to change my pixel dimensions in Photoshop to be at least doubel the usual size.I assume that is to avoid getting a fuzzy pixelated look when zoomed in. Would it also be important at the very beginning to scan the photos into Photoshop at 600 dpi vs 300 dpi, or is dpi simply unrelated to pixel dimensions?
Thanks, Bob01742

Thanks for writing back. On page 198 in your book (which I love) you say 'scan at high resolution, likie 300 or 600 dpi." Does more dpi relate to how high the pixel resolution can be? I'm just not sure of the correlation. You reccommend a PICT file which is 1,494X1,098. Can this be created just as well from a 300 dpi scan as a 600 dpi scan?
A second question? Have you ever worked with the program called Photo to Movie? Can work done int that program be easily imported into a FCE project?
Thanks so much, Bob

Pixel dimensions

How can I see pixel dimensions while I'm cropping an image. I work primarily with images for the Web and frequently I'll reduce an image to a fixed width, say 600 px, then crop it and want to see height. Primarily so I can a series of images of the same dimensions. I can't seem to be able to find the pixel dimensions as I'm cropping so I can get the 600 px wide picture to, say, 400 px height or 300 px height.

Art Shotwell wrote:
How can I see pixel dimensions while I'm cropping an image. I work primarily with images for the Web and frequently I'll reduce an image to a fixed width, say 600 px, then crop it and want to see height. Primarily so I can a series of images of the same dimensions. I can't seem to be able to find the pixel dimensions as I'm cropping so I can get the 600 px wide picture to, say, 400 px height or 300 px height.
I don't think you can see the image size while you are still cropping the image. However, when the image is cropped and saved at something else some other file name to avoid overwriting the original file you can then go to:
Image >> Resize >> Image Size
Image >> Resize >> Canvas Size
This tells you what the image size is and how much more you want to resize it to meet your requirements.
Hope this helps.

Cannot crop to an exact pixel dimensions

I am having a hard time cropping to an exact pixel dimensions upon export. For my work, I need to crop to exactly 2166X1600, with a tolerance of no more than one pixel off of those dimensions, i.e. 2166X1599.
I set crop tool to 2166X1600 and crop all of my images. On the export I constrain to largest dimension of 2166 in both horizontal and vertical directions. Results vary widely from right on 2166X1600 to several pixels off on the short side. Sometimes more than 1600, and sometimes less. Any thoughts as to why these constraints do not work exactly? Some sets of images I have to redo as many as 25% of a gallery of 200-300 images. Any thoughts? Thanks!

See, I don't need to crop the original image to 2166X1600. I need a finished image at 2166X1600. Meaning, in theory I should be able to crop an image to 1:1.35375 ratio, which is 2166X1600, and export to constrain to 2166 on the longest side. When it's constrained to 2166, the short side should always be 1600.
Here's where the problem is... When you set the crop window to 2166X1600, you expect that when you size your crop on your image that the only options for the boundary are multiples of 2166X1600. In reality, the crop visual boundaries are approximate. Here's an example...
I have an image that I have cropped to a finished size of 3185X2350. Which is based upon a 2166X1600 crop. When I export it, I need the 3185 to become 2166. So the long side is constrained to 2166, and it is reduced by a factor of 1.47. 3185/2166=1.47 If I reduce the short side, 2350, by that same factor of 1.47 you end up with a short side of 1598. Which is why I have a problem.
My invalid assumption was that when you set specific pixel dimensions in the crop tool, that only those values would be shown in the crop tool's bounding box. Photoshop can do it...

What Is The Best Image Pixel Dimensions For iPad 2 Photographs?

I just purchased an iPad 2 64Gb. I want to add photographs to my iPad. I want the photographs to completely fill the screen but still be small enough to use the minimum amount of memory space. A smaller image size will also make them more responsive when navigating between images.
Does anyone know the image pixel dimensions that I should use to have the photographs completely fill the iPad screen? I am assuming a resolution of 72 pixels per inch is sufficient because the screen is essentially a video screen.
Thanks!
Bill

1024-by-768 is the size of the screen.
Basic troubleshooting steps
17" 2.2GHz i7 Quad-Core MacBook Pro  8G RAM  750G HD + OCZ Vertex 3 SSD Boot HD 
Got problems with your Apple iDevice-like iPhone, iPad or iPod touch? Try Troubleshooting 101

Pixel dimensions of screen?

Im making a slideshow of photos and want to use iMovie. Anyone know the exact pixel dimensions of the screen so i can make the images fit?
Thanks in advance.

It all depends on what you mean by "make the images fit".
iMovie 4 accepts any photo with a 4:3 aspect ratio, e.g. 1600 x 1200, and resizes it to fill the iMovie frame.
But that's not true with iMovie HD. iMovie HD pillarboxes a 4:3 image imported to a DV-type project -- adds black bars to the right and left sides. If you are okay with that, then virtually any photo with a 4:3 ratio will be fine.
If you don't want pillarboxing, however, you have to 1) crop the image to some other aspect ratio before importing to iMovie HD; or 2) increase the Ken Burns zoom so Ken Burns crops the image.
(Pillarboxing may not be a problem if you plan to view the slideshow on a 4:3 TV. The black bars may be hidden by the TV Safe Area. But if you plan to view it in QuickTime or on a widescreen TV, you may want to avoid the black bars.)
Lots more here:
Karl Petersen, "iMovie- Pictures become blurry after import" #14, 07:46pm Apr 19, 2005 CDT
Note that the recommended photo sizes depends on the type of iMovie HD project you create.
Karl

No more Pixel dimension

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for