Pixelating in Illustrator

I was writing some text in Illustrator with a stroke on it, no matter what I do whenever I add the stroke it makes a litte white outline visible in between the fill and the stroke. I am screen printing this text.
1) Will the white pixely outline show up when its printed.
2) How can I fix this?

Fdude,
I believe this is one for the Illustrator forum,
http://forums.adobe.com/community/illustrator?view=discussions#/?per_page=100
but as a preliminary answer, you may try to zoom in and see whether it remains the same or disappears thereby probably implying its being a screen artifact, or grows; or you may Save As/Print to PDF, or print on paper, and see whether it is there, to.

Similar Messages

Why is my text pixelated in Illustrator when I want to save it for web?

I added a grunge effect to this font. It scales up and down and fine, but when I preview it in the "save for web" option, it gets pixelated. I tried making it an object, but I got the same result. Shouldn't Illustrator be able to scale these without a problem?
This first is a screen shot of the text. Illustrator is open and zoomed in at around 600%
This second example is when I tried to save for web and zoom in around 600% again.

arcbo,
As I (mis)understand it, what you see is simply the pixels of the raster image.
If you Save for Web at the exact size that it is being used for, the pixels will match the use and it will look nice.
Any raster image looks pixelated when scaled up beyond its actual size.

Save Small file PDF without Pixelation in Illustrator cs4

I need to send a small file size PDF proof to a client via email. But When i resample is to descrease the file size it becomes pixelated. Is there anyway to decrease the file size without sacrificing the picture quality through Adobe Cs4?

In order to produce a smaller PDF file in Illustrator (or any other app) you have to lower the images quality, assuming you are using images (as you mention pixelation). The option to compress text and line art artwork already comes activated by default, so that leaves you with the settings for color and greyscale images. You have two different settings, resolution (PPI ) and Jpeg compression level (Image Quality). If the file is meant to be viewed on the screen only up to 100% size, you can lower the resolution to 100 ppi, if it is going to be printed in an office printer, you need at least 150 ppi on the images. On the Jpeg compression level (Image Quality) I never go bellow "Medium" because the Jpeg compression artifacts get too visible (depending on the images, sometimes even Medium gets a little noisy). If with these settings the file still is to big (assuming you have turned off the "Preserve Illustrator Editing capabilities" option already) you have two choices: If it is a multipage file, split the file into several PDF files with a few pages each and send those in separate mails. Or, if it is a single page file, subscribe to a free online storage account (e.g. Sugarsync.com) and upload the file there and send a link of the file to the client so that he can download it from his computer (I always do).
Hope this helps...

Altering the shape of pixels in illustrator

Hello!
I was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some advice on how to alter the shape of the pixels in an image to a custom pixel shape in illustrator.
Thanks in advance.

Wittyhearts,
You asked:
Is there anyway I might be able to do this without having to recolour each of the hearts?
Yes, if you don't mind that the fill is pixel based.
Follow Jacob's steps to create a grid of hearts on top of your image.
Make sure that each heart is the size of the enlarged "pixel". (If you do this enlargement in Photoshop, use the Nearest Neighbour to get hard edges for each "pixel").
Make sure that the Hearts grid is aligned with the large image Pixel grid.
Fill the Hearts with Black. Select them all and Group them.
Select both the Hearts and the picture below it and click Make Mask in the Transparency Panel. Check the Invert Mask option.
This should be the result (I added black background).
I just thought that it may be even better to convert the image fiirst to a vector mosaic: Object menu > Create Object Mosaic...
Then create the Heart grid and make it a Mask.
When you go to Object > Flatten Transparency and set the Raster/Vector slider to 100, you will get coloured heart shaped vectors

Pixels and document size differences in Illustrator compared to Photoshop

Why is the pixel ratio of a project in illustrator different than that of the same pixel ratio of a project in Photoshop? Example: A project can in Illustrator can have an artboard of 950px X 950px and be 12in and in Photoshop that same pixel ratio will be 4 3/4in.

The rulers in Illustrator are always with fixed ratio of 1 inch = 72 pixels (72 ppi), you can check this by right clicking on the ruler and choosing inches or pixels and you will see that 950 px will be 13.9 inches and not 12 inches as you stated.
The ratio of the rulers in Photoshop depends on the ppi resolution of the image set by the user in the Image Size dialog box. If choose Image > Image size, and set the Resolution to 72 pixels/inch (ppi) then the ratio of the rulers in Photoshop will match Illustrator. If you set it to something else they will not, in your case with an image with sides of 4.75 inches in Photoshop the Resolution will be 200 ppi in order to contain 950 pixels per side.
When you save an image from Photoshop that contains metadata it has information about the size of the document in inches and pixels. Illustrator will place such images with the size of the inches not the pixels as indicated on the Illustrator rulers, internally however the image will contain all the pixels as indicated next to the PPI on the Control bar under the main menu when image is selected. These internal (actual) image pixels will be used when printing and when zooming on screen to render the image. Also if you copy from Photoshop and paste in Illustrator, it also will paste with the size of the inches and not the pixels (at least this is how it works with CS5 on Windows)
If the placed image is without metadata Illustrator will always place it assuming 72 px = 1 inch (72 ppi). You can check that if in Photoshop save an image using Save for Web and Devices and choose None for Metadata.

How can I set DPI for a document in illustrator?

I'm designing a user interface for iPad (Resolution: 1024x768, DPI:132). Setting the resolution is a piece of cake but when I change the ruler unit to Centimeters, it shows the screen about 36x27cm which is not right (iPad screen is 24.3x19cm).
Illustrator calculates these lengths based on the DPI. But when creating a new document the only available DPI's are: 72, 150, 300 (File > New > Raster Effect). I searched for the answer on this forum and googled it and looked into the help but couldn't find a satisfying answer. I know that Illustrator is a vector design program but there must be a way to set the DPI to an arbitrary value.
How can I have a 1024x768px artboard in Illustrator that is 24.3x19cm? (DPI=132)

Alex,
only when I'm printing or saving the image for the web, Illustrator will ask me the actual width.
Almost. Illustrator won't "ask you for the width." As with any program, when you export a vector graphic to a raster image, you have the opportunity to specify its resolution, in number of pixels. Illustrator tries to "simplify" (and thereby often confuses) this process by providing different interfaces for the same thing. The so-called "Save For Web" interface is just another way to export a raster image (and other web-centric things, like slicing). The settings available (or at least the ones most prominate) differ between the straightforward Export dialog and the Save For Web dialog.
My question is: how illustrator calculates these measures?
Again: When Illustrator's rulers are set to "Pixels," they are really set to points. A point measures 1/72 inch. So Illustrator assumes a "pixel" is scaled to measure 1/72 inch, even though it may not be in a particular raster image object you have on the page.
But when you export as a raster image (in other words, rasterize the artwork), you don't care what those pixels are scaled to due to the actual, physical, hardware dimensions of the device's monitor pixels (so-many centimeters by so-many centimeters). Regardless of whether the device's hardware pixels are gigantic or microscopic, you just care how many of them there are. So long as you export your finished artwork rasterized to that number of pixels, it will effectively be scaled (in terms of actual measure) by whatever device it is displayed on, becasue the device is going to "turn on" a monitor pixel for each pixel in your image.
In other words, when designing purely for electronic displays (as opposed to printing), forget all about PPI, or DPI, which are nothing but scale factors, and forget about the actual measure (centimeters x centimeters, inches by inches) of the monitor.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 15-inch-diagonal Toshiba laptop, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels.
If I display your 1024 x 768 image in a web browser on my 10-inch-diagonal Acer netbook, your image is going to occupy 1024 x 768 of my monitor's pixels, and it will display at a smaller actual size than it does on my Toshiba, because the Acer's monitor pixels are smaller than the Toshiba's monitor pixels.
But even though the image's actual measure is smaller on the Acer, and even though your image occupies the exact same number of monitor pixels on both the Acer and the Toshiba, I will have to do some scrolling on the Acer because its monitor has fewer hardware pixels.
So if I'm designing images to fit neatly on my Acer without the need for scrolling, I care about its screen size in terms of number of hardware pixels, not in terms of actual measure (centimeters or inches).
I want to be able to set the lines and curves in terms of pixels.
Because Illustrator considers a pixel to be a particular measure (1/72 inch), work with your rulers set to either the bogus PIxels or to Points (which, in Illustrator, is the same thing). Forget about the dimensions of a device screen. It doesn't matter.
If you want to also spec type in terms of "pixels" you can also (pointlessly) set your General Prefs to use the bogus Pixles as the "Unit Of Measure". But this is pointless because in Illustrator, a so-called "Pixel" is, in fact a point already, and Points is the default UOM for type. Either way, you have to realize that any measure for type (using "Pixels" or Points) is a measure of the font's em-square, not the measure of the actual glyphs. So setting your type to "9 Pixels" doesn't mean the type characters are going to occupy 9 pixels in height.
But you can proceed to specify line weights, box sizes, etc., etc, in terms of ruler units (bogus pixels or legitimate points).
Alternatively, if you want, you can set your rulers to Centimeters. And then as you draw your boxes and set your stroke weights, you can specify them in terms of Points or "Pixels" by just typing "pts" or "px" after the measures you key into the various dimension fields.
But after all this is said and done, the point you're missing is still this: All that means nothing if you don't export the resulting images to the number of pixels that you want them to occupy on the device you are designing for. In other words, you can work with your Illustrator rulers set to "Pixels" all day long; but if you then export the artwork to a raster format using a Pixels-Per-Inch setting other than 72, It won't be the right size, because Illustrator still thinks a Pixel measures one point.
So regardless of how you have your rulers set while working, it is just simpler (and more legitimately meaningful) to export your raster images in terms of number of pixels (N pixels x n pixels), not by PPI. That brings us full-circle right back to where your question started: There is no document-wide PPI for an Illustrator file.
But what you have to understand is this: If your design includes already-rasterized objects, the number of actual pixels included in each of those raster objects is entirely independent of whatever Illustrator's rulers say they "measure" in "Pixels". That is very important. Because if you use as part of your design a raster image that is scaled to anything other than 72 ppi, and/or that image does not align to a point-size increment of Illustrator's grid, then when you export your final product, that image is going to be re-rasterized to whatever PPI you export, based on its on-page position and the quality of that image is going to be compromized. That's why it's important to understand that "Pixels" is bogus as a unit of measure in a program like Illustrator.
In pursuit of web- and device-centric creative markets, Adobe continues to add confusion-generating "conveniences" to Illustrator. For example, to workaround Illustrator's problematic antialiasing, version CS5 added a feature called Align To Pixel Grd which causes vertical and horizontal strokes to align to whole-"pixel" increments, to avoid antialiasing of those edges.
There are also probably templates in your AI installation (depending on version) already set up for mobile devices, and there's the whole "Device Central" online thing, if you're inclined to use that kind of thing. So look up and read about those features.
JET

Why pixels are not corresponding to the size I want?

Hello,
Recently I've detected a problem in my Adobe Illustrator CS6.
I open the software, define the art board area in pixels (I checked it at Preferences > Units), but when I export my images they become bigger than they are.
Example:
This is an image 10x10 pixels, exported at Photoshop (everything is ok here):
This is an image 10x10 pixels, exported at Illustrator.... much bigger!
Here it is the options chosen at preferences:
And what appears in work area:
Does anyone knows what is going on? What can I do to solve this?
Please tell me something. This way is hard to work...
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Inês Guilherme

Maybe, just guessing here, the resolution set for the photoshop doc was 72 and the one for illustrator 300?
No, no, no. There is no "resolution" setting for a native Illlustrator file like that for a raster image.
When uisng a program like Illustrator, FORGET PROGRAMS LIKE PHOTOSHOP. They are entirely different things and you're just confusing yourself.
Inês,
In a program like Illustrator, the page rulers refer to real-world units of measure when the document is printed. A pixel is NOT a real-world unit of measure. Ask yourself 'How big is a pixel?' or 'How many pixels is it from Earth to its moon?' Those are nonsensical questions. A pixel can be any size, because a pixel is nothing but a color value. Thinking of pixels as distance is like thinking of colors as distance. How many colors is it from where you live to New York City?
When you work in a program like Photoshop, you are basically working within a SINGLE RASTER IMAGE. That single raster image has a fixed number of pixels. That's why Photoshop's rulers can make sense when they are set to pixels; they are not using pixels as a measure of distance; they are using pixels as a COUNT of pixels.
But when you work in a program like Illustrator, you are NOT working in a single raster image. You are working within a model of a region of physical measure (a page) which can contain vector-based paths (which have no pixels), vector-based text (which has no pixels) and any number of MULTIPLE raster images.
Each of those MULTIPLE raster images on the page has its own independent number of pixels, and its own independent scale, AND its own independent position (which doesn't even have to correspond to any whole increment of the rulers; the sides of those raster images on the page may be positioned BETWEEN the "pixels" indicated on the rulers).
So in a program like Illustrator, you can have an image which contains 225 pixels across (or any other number, and another image which contains 25 pixels across (or any other number). Both of those images may be scaled on the page to the same UNIT OF MEASURE dimension. For example, both of those images may be scaled to one inch in width. The rulers, if set to "Pixels" would indicate that they both "measure" 72 "Pixels" across. But they would still contain different numbers of pixels, regardless of how many "Pixels" Illustrator's rulers indicate they "measure".
Now given those very basic differences between what you're actually doing in a program like Photoshop and what you're doing in a program like Illustrator, what can the page rulers in Illustrator possibly mean when they are set to "Pixels"? Illustrator's rulers ALWAYS refer to a real unit of MEASURE, not to a mere COUNT of "Pixels." So when Illustrator's rulers are labeled "Pixels" they still have to ACTUALLY correspond to some unit of real-world measure.
And they do: When you set Illustrator's rulers to "Pixels" you are really setting them to "Points". A point is 1/72 of an inch.
So when you have your rulers in Illustrator set to "Pixels" and you draw your 10 x 10 "pixel" square, you are really drawing a 10 x 10 POINT square. And assuming you drew it as a path, it has no pixels whatsoever. It doesn't become rasterized until you either invoke the Rasterize command, or until you export it to a raster format. When you export it as a raster image, the only way the resulting image will actually contain 10 x 10 pixels is if you export it at a resolution of 72 pixels per inch.
In other words, because Illustrator's rulers ALWAYS assume a scale of 72 pixels per inch when it uses "Pixels" as a bogus unit of measure, then you have to specify 72 PPI at the time of export if you want the number of pixels in the resulting raster image to correspond to the bogus "number of pixels" indicated by Illustrator's rulers.
JET

Illustrator CS4: Images Open 3x Smaller than Original

Every time I open an image in Illustrator, it is 3-times smaller than the original image started out.
For example:
An image starting out with the dimensions:
Width: 5.35 inches / 1070 px / 385.2 pt
Height: 5.24 inches / 1048 px / 377.3 pt
Once it is opened up in Illustrator the dimensions are contorted to:
Width: 1.93 inches / 386 px / 139 pt
Height: 1.89 inches / 378 px / 136.1 pt
And this is just from opening the image. I have not done anything as of yet. All I have to look at is a distorted pixelated mess.
I am a bit new to Illustrator, and after hearing my friends talk about how great it is to use, none of them can figure out why Illustrator is doing this to my image files.
Why is Illustrator doing this, and how do I get it to open image files with the proper dimensions?

Dimensions of an image depends on its resolution. When viewing the image in an image editor it just displays 1 image pixel on 1 monitor pixel. Illustrator doesn't do this, but takes into account, what you have defined as resolution. That is: how many pixels should be on 1 inch.

Ruler and Info panel give different pixel dimensions

The pixel dimensions in Illustrator CS5's Info panel are wrong. Can anyone suggest why?
I have a web layout in Illustrator that I'm transposing into Adobe Muse, using Save for Web and Devices.
I want to use the X and Y coordinates and the dimensions of the objects in Illustrator to place them correctly in Muse, so that all the elements scale to the right size.
The Illustrator artboard is 960 pixels wide and the layout fits the artboard. Similarly, the site width in Muse is 960px wide.
The measuring units are in pixels in Illustrator, but something very strange is going on.
in the Info panel, a grouped object - a logo - is described as 16383 pixels wide and 211px high.
It's simply not possible, not least because the logo is taller than it is wide. But when I measure it with the ruler tool, it tells me that the logo is 136px high and 122px wide.
The problem only applies to this grouped object and it's not because it's grouped with some other thing that is 16383 pixels wide - the bounding box fits precisely round the logo when it is selected.
Can anyone suggest a solution?

Badger,
What happens if you Copy and Paste that Group into a new Document (you may the rest follow if it helps)?

Illustrator CS4 alpha export?

I have to make a DV PAL sized image with transparent background with 3 different logo on it. They have to be in precise position (that's why I made it in illustrator, not PS), with different transparency. I made it in illustrator with "DV PAL" document setup.I tried to export it as .tga 32bit, and had some problems:
it cuts the edge of the document to the first visiable element - in tga export I can't check "use artboards". Even I if I make a document-sized rectangle on top and make a clipping mask.
the worst thing: alpha channel exist, but it's empty black.
How can I do it? (the only supported format from the video server is 32bit tga, so I have to make the file in this format)

Photoshop is a much more appropriate program for this. Photoshop lets you work in precise pixels, which Illustrator does not. Pixels are not even available as a unit in Illustrator. Yes, I know you can select them, but those are not true pixels; they are points (1/72 inch). Pixels have no physical size. Use Photoshop.
Create a new file in Photoshop the size (in pixels) you need the image to be. You can paste the artwork from Illustrator or use File > Place. If you make it a Smart Object you can keep the Illustrator file as embedded artowrk. The image on screen is rendered live, so rotations, scaling, and editing will never degrade the quality of the image.

Understanding pixel preview

hello people.
im trying to understand the whole pixel preview thing in illustrator, as I do make websites and I usually use photoshop because i find the slicing faster and easier.
also things on the web are usually pixels so i feel photoshop is more accurate, and what I see is what ill get.
so... here are my questions.
being that illustrator is vector -when i zoom in on a vector in illustrator its crisp and clean.
im guessing thats because each time I zoom in, illustrator is redrawing my vector at a higher scale. as opposed to a raster image which when i zoom in, is NOT getting redrawn and looks pixelated because it IS made of pixels.
is this right?
when i export something in illustrator to png or jpeg i have to make sure its the right exact size because it will be pixelated otherwise.
then there is anti-aliasing. if its not exactly aligned to the pixel grid it looks smudged.
so is pixel preview there to help see what it would look like when it is rastered?

Eric Greenfield wrote:
...being that illustrator is vector -when i zoom in on a vector in illustrator its crisp and clean.
im guessing thats because each time I zoom in, illustrator is redrawing my vector at a higher scale...
Each time you zoom in in a vector art Illustrator is redrawing it (rasterizing it for on screen display) at the size of your monitor's pixels, meaning one pixel of the rasterized vector will fit in one of your monitor's pixels. In Photoshop this is possible only at 100% zoom. When you choose Pixel Preview, Illustrator behaves the same as Photoshop when rasterizing the vector objects for onscreen display.

Combining logo elements in Illustrator

Hello,
Is there some way to combine different logo elements so it becomes one element and you can't ungroup it anymore? I mean other way than Pathfinder - Unite (this means flattening color).
Thanks for your help and suggestions!

...the reason is completely different...
What is the reason? What are you trying to accomplish?
As you've stated it so far, your question is ambiguous and without a better description doesn't really make sense in the context of Illustrator. Describe the actual workflow (chain of events) you are trying to accomplish.
So when someone opens the file there is just one element not many elements grouped all together.
Your terminology is ambiguous. "Element" is not a term of the program. What do you mean by "one element"? A term like "Group" has specific meaning in Illustrator.
What kind of file do you want to deliver? What software do you assume the recipient will be using to "open" it? If you deliver an Illustrator file to someone using the same version of Illustrator, they can do anything to it that you can do when you open it with Illustrator.
A motorcycle is one object. It's an object made up of many individual objects. If I deliver my motorcycle to you, you can manipulate it as a single object. If you have the tools and know-how, you can disassemble it into its constituent objects.
A Group in an object-based drawing program is one object. It's an object made up of individual objects (raster, vector, and/or text). If I deliver to you an Illustrator Group, which I'm calling "a logo," you can manipulate it as a single object. If you have the tools (Illustrator), you can disassemble it into its constituent objects.
Do you think there is such a way to combine all these elements into one element logo?
Again: If you are talking about combining paths into one object which cannot be "disassembled" in Illustrator, then you can rasterize it (replace it with a raster image, thereby removing the paths). A raster image is one object. It's an object which Illustrator cannot "disassemble" because a raster image is not a collection of individual objects which Illustrator can individually "understand"; it's just a list of color values (pixels) which Illustrator cannot edit. But that obviates the advantages and purposes of the original artwork having been created as vector-based artwork in the first place. And even Illustrator can still wreck it (re-rasterize it; disproportionally scale it, etc.) if the recipient doesn't know what he's doing.
If you're talking about delivering it to someone to use in some other program, there may be other delivery options which allow it to be used as a whole, but not disassembled by that program.
See how much guessing you are requiring from anyone interested in helping you? Stop being secretive. Explain exactly and in detail what you've got and what you intend to do with it.
JET

Alignment / Snapping Problems in CS5 Illustrator

I'm experiencing what I considerable a major issue in CS5 where I have points and lines that are, apparently, snapping to some unknown grid or point.
It's most noticeable when I'm working on an illustration, and then I scale it down.. all of a sudden things get wonky.
I'm a longtime illustrator user and am pretty familiar with the ins and outs of these functions... just wondering if something has changed in CS5 or if anyone else has experienced this... and obviously looking for a solution. Thanks!
BJ Heinley
[email protected]

SIDENOTE: First of all, I can't believe just how miserable and nasty and hateful people get in Adobe forums. I have been in this industry for more than 20 years and consistently the people posting to these forums are just intolerant, and rude.
To wit, the comments you have made, JB, are really uncalled for. Especially when you consider the fact that you have taken the context out of the discussion and reinforced it with haughty arrogance in a childish and laughable, "I'll let you have the last word, because I am better than you" attitude. Are you proud of yourself? You missed the point completely and your intolerance says more about your ignorance than it does your 16 years of experience.
The point of the matter is that nomis has a valid point regarding the focus of Illustrator: it is a vector based illustration program first. Where his argument went astray was his assertion that it's primary USE is for print illustration. While that may be his primary use and while it may be his opinion that it is best for said use, that is not the issue and your beligerence simply took the conversation in the wrong direction.
So, not in anyone's defense, I would like to clarify that the issue is not what Illustrator should be used for, but rather what the focus of the program should be and whether the default settings should remain consistent with Illustrator's previous core functionality.
Ironically, in the first paragraph of Smashing Magazine's article about Illustrator (which you used as a supporting reference in your argument) you will find:
[people] use Illustrator to create vector-based graphics which — contrary to raster-based editors such as Adobe Photoshop
Pixel-based graphics are raster-based. Vector graphics, according to one of your own sources, are by definition not pixel or raster based.
According to Wikipedia's article on Vector Graphics:
Vector graphics formats are complementary to raster graphics, which is the representation of images as an array of pixels, as is typically used for the representation of photographic images
The entire concept of vector-based graphics was to create an image that was NOT dependent on pixel resolution. This gives you the advantage of scaling a vector-based image to almost any size while maintaining it's appearance. It could be said that by definition, vector-based artwork is non-pixel depth dependent. This makes it completely counter-intuitive to have a pixel-snapping feature be the default setting for a program whose primary focus has historically been and should remain the production of non-resolution or non-pixel based illustration.
The notion that it is bad to add raster effects and pixel-grid alignment to an otherwise purely vector-based illustration program is not even being questioned here. It's whether the default settings for a vector-based illustration program should be based on resolution-dependent, media-dependent, pixel-based graphics or should the default settings maintain allegiance to the very prinicipal of vector-based illustration?
Also, I would like to point out that your first link, though showing an outstanding use of vector-based illustration to create photo-realistic images without the use of raster effects, does more to damage your argument than support it as well. The reflections and textures created by the featured artist (who has been using illustrator since it's creation) show how to use solid outlines, not raster effects and not pixel-aligned grids to create photorealism.
Even your example at Tutorial9.net lacks any support for the notion that grid-based, resolution dependent graphics should be the defaults for illustrator. In fact not a single example of the 39 presented were created using illustrator alone. Every single example of 3D Typography used a raster-based illustration program or rasterizing renderer. None of that has anything to do with whether or not your graphics are aligned to a pixel grid or not*. And considering the dates of most of those images, they were undoubtedly done without the added functionality of pixel-grid alignment.
So, BJ, I have to say that I am shocked and amazed at your response. Not only are you completely off-base by attacking another user during a time of frustration and taking one small aspect of their argument to represent the entirety of the topic at hand, not only do you claim that the other user lacks support for his argument and that your experience makes you more qualified to have an opinion, but also your nasty demeanor, your arrogance, your lack of understanding and compassion are completely overshadowed by the fact that every reference you provided to support your argument was in fact a glowing example of why Illustrator is, has been, and should remain focused on vector-based Illustration--no matter for what you should choose to use it.
Sorry to be so easily baited by such simple trolling, but I am frustrated with Illustrator CS5's loss of focus as well. If I wanted pixel-based alignment, I'd have used Fireworks or Photoshop. In fact, I still do my work in Illustrator and import it into another program (usually photoshop) to produce non-scalable resolution dependent graphics--where the pixel-grid alignment just gets in the way. In fact, the only time I have found any benefit to pixel-grid alignment has been when using importing into Flash...but since HTML5's canvas handles the majority of what I used Flash for, I don't use it any more.
btw, my align functions still do not work, even with all the pixel-alignment garbage disabled-rough.
Jase
*okay, this is a little hyperbolic, but the intent justifies the exaggeration.

Pasting from Illustrator to Photoshop is a frustrating experience

If you paste something from Illustrator to Photoshop, its size won't be at 100%. Why the heck? And why is the "Keep aspect ratio" in Photoshop turned off by default? I have to click that every single time when pasting from Illustrator.
And why would Photoshop not start ignoring crap outside a mask. I mask stuff in Illustrator for a reason. I want the bounding box to be the mask, not the extent of its contents.
How hard could it be to finally fix this? How many more versions with more useless new features to be shoved down our throats?

Hello. Check this settings:
Photoshop
Preferences > Units and Rulers > Screen Resolutions: 72 pixels/Inch, Point/Pica Size: PostScript;
Image > Image size > Resolution: 72 pixels/Inch;
Illustrator
File > Document Setup > Preset > Custom > Line Art and Text Resolution: 72ppi, Gradient and Mesh Resolution: 72ppi;
Effect > Document Raster Effect Settings > Resolution: 72ppi;

Pasting from illustrator

Hi there,
I have a problem with pasting a vector from Illustrator to
Fireworks. It is a section of type, set in Akzidenz Grotesk, and
all the top edges of the letters are blurred at the top (like anti
alias), therefore they are not as sharp as they should be. Does
anyone have a workaround for this?
Many thanks,
Tabrez

Hello. Check this settings:
Photoshop
Preferences > Units and Rulers > Screen Resolutions: 72 pixels/Inch, Point/Pica Size: PostScript;
Image > Image size > Resolution: 72 pixels/Inch;
Illustrator
File > Document Setup > Preset > Custom > Line Art and Text Resolution: 72ppi, Gradient and Mesh Resolution: 72ppi;
Effect > Document Raster Effect Settings > Resolution: 72ppi;

Pixelating in Illustrator

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for