Pixels Per Inch

Hey,
I was wondering if anybody knew how to set the number of pixels per inch when printing a document or graph in java. Thanks.

Check the javax.print.attribute.standard.PrinterResolution

Similar Messages

  • I am writing a book to be published.  how to i get my pages documents to PDF or JPG or something else that is at least 224 pixels per inch?

    i am writing a book to be published.  how do i get my "pages document" to a high definition level...at least 224 pixels per inch?  i can get to 150 ppi via preview to JPG, but that seems to be the best i can do with my new snow leopard imac.

    Hello Barbara,
    > i have text written in Pages and these need to be at least 224 ppi.
    i also have photo collages that were created in Pages and also need to be at least 224 ppi.
    the book has about 60 pages of photo collages and about 30 pages of text.
    If you want to print using a digital press or an offset lithographic press at high resolution, then you typography is resolution independent but your photography is not. In other words, you must embed into your Pages document the images in the resolution that is right for rendering in the high resolution raster image processor.
    Raster image processors will as a rule of thumb produce good quality detail if you embed photographs with 300 dot per inch resolution. Because raster image processors differ in how they reproduce detail, and because this information is generally not public a rule of thumb principle is applied in preparing the page description for printing.
    By default, if you use colour transparency in your work, the system graphics service will detect this and save out PDF 1.4 automatically. However, not all raster image processors have PDF frontends that accept PDF 1.4. For this reason, there is a fallback which you must set up yourself.
    If the receiving raster image processor does not have a PDF frontend that accepts PDF 1.4, you have to manually enter the resolution at which the transparency will be rendered. The system graphics service will then render the resolution for you and save out what it technically termed a 'flattended PDF'.
    Alternatively, if you don't want to work with the Apple ColorSync Utility yourself, you can send your PDF 1.4 with resolution independent transparency to a prepress operator who will then use specialised software to render the resolution for the specifics of the service he or she is selling you.
    If you want to work with the prepress interface in system graphics services, then below is a link to summary on setting up the ColorSync Utility for ISO 15930-3:2002 PDF/X-3. This passes prepress preflight testing in Adobe Acrobat Professional 6.0.1 (the first version that tested for PDF/X-3).
    /hh
    Reference
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2738092?threadID=2738092&tstart=0

  • What export resolution (pixels per inch?)

    I was messing around with LRs Export and changed the pixels per inch.  We have our pictures either in a raw or high (large) format jpg that we are brining in.  After doing some work to the images, in order to keep a sharp pixture (not lose any pixels in the image), what amount of pixels should I export with? I think the default was set at 240 pixels per inch? not sure.  What should I set it to?
    Thanks...

    The ppi is irrelevant unless you are printing, in which case set the require ppi for your printer in the print module.
    The only exception would be if you are up sizing the files from their native resolution in LR using cms or inches in the export box. Avoid this and work in pixels and you don't need to concern yourself in anyway with pixels per inch. Just export at the size in pixels you require for the end usage you are putting the file to, or don't resize at all if you want the file to remain at its original dimensions.
    The ppi is only a line of metadata, it has no effect on image quality and is only used by a printer to make a conversion from ppi to dpi (dots per inch) when making a print.

  • How to convert Pixels into inch?

    Hi Friends,
    I am using Crystal XI R2.
    I have standard Report formatting specifications. This document states all the specifications in Pixels and not in inches.
    I am not sure on the pixel to inches conversion.
    Can anyone please help on this how to convert the pixels into inches...
    Thanks in advance.
    Regards,
    Ashish

    you need to know their scale as in Dot per inch to be able to do the conversion. 72 dpi will give you are larger number compared to 96 dpi
    here is a link
    http://mystic-nights.com/poser/tools/pixels-to-inches.html
    Edited by: Zilla Eh on Nov 28, 2008 1:49 AM

  • How can I check the number of lines per inch in my document (I need no more than 6 per inch!!)

    I need to produce a dopcument in New times Roman with a minimun of 12 ot font size, single spaced and , with no more than 6 lines of type per inch?
    How can I check that I do not have more then 6 lines per inch?
    thanks in adavance!!!

    If this is about Pages for iOs, you can certainly set TNR adn 12 pts, but no, there is no lines per inch settings.
    If this is about Pages for OS X, you are in the wrong forum.

  • I need the Line Per Inch # for an HP3052A printer/scanner.

    Hey guys,
    I am working on some photo, enlargements and other tasks.  I am working through some manuals for the software I am using and I need the lines per Inch value for this printer.  Unfortunatley for me, I cannot find it on their site, specifications or through PM tech support.  I figured one of you experts, may have the actual value or a working value.
    I hope I am explaining what I am looking for. 
    Thanks for any help you might be able to give me.

    I am including a link so you can download the drivers for your printer.  The next step would be to select type of operating system you are using.  For illustration purpose i choose windows 7 64 bit.  Then select driver i recommend using the full feature download.
    Let me know if this helps.

  • 8ft x 4ft poster...but how many dots per inch for images?

    I've read a online somewhere a while back that the bigger the end product, the less the amount of dots per inch needed. is this true? if so, when do I start changing from 300dpi for A3 sizes to smaller DPI's on larger size prints?
    is there a way to calculate this? I'm always thinking it might for spending less ink on the larger size prints, etc
    and what should I use for a 8x4ft poster when:
    1. people are gonna see it up close
    2. when the closest they get would be about 4-5 feet away
    with this particular poster, people are gonna be up close.
    thanks for any info

    Was DYP wrote:
    hummm....I would'nt want to work on an 8ft x 4ft banner at s/s size on a 21" inch screen, each to his/her own I guess.
    I don't see where that would make any difference in working with the file, but it sure makes it convenient for printing. I work on lots of full size banners all the time. The only time a make them less than full size is when I am working on something bigger that 18' which is IDs maximum size.
    But doing them half size at 300 dpi is fine to. You just need to be careful that your graphics are not to low a resolution or you will be in for some surprises from IDs output, especially if you trying res-up when printing.
    I was really trying to suggest its easier to move around on screen if the artwork is not size for size.
    I guess everyone has their own particular way of working. I don't even produce A2 output at s/s size. I'll do that at either A4 or A3.
    I agree with the low res graphics. I don't seem to have any issues with just supplying 300dpi for any sized output to be honest. I've produced largish exhibition stands and A4 hand-outs from the same file. Seems to work ok for me.

  • Displaying both pixel and inch dimesnsion in the Info Panel

    Anybody else constantly switching the Info Panel from displaying inches to pixels and vice versa?
    How to avoid having to do this? I either want to see one or the other, somtimes being able to see both simultaneously would be nice. While dragging out Rectangular Marquees, doing Transforms, etc.

    I actually installed the trial of Flash Builder but did not get far before it expired, so I can only share Silkrooster’s suspicion that it may be possible.
    Maybe you should ask over at
    http://forums.adobe.com/community/flash_builder

  • What is the correct resolution per inch?

    If I want a 5 by 7 canvas to actually look like a 5 by 7, what does the resolution need to be set at?   I'm doing a brochure and want to send it off to a printer, but the image just looks way to small at 72.

    bnther wrote:
    I just tried the same 2" by 3.5" canvas in both the 72 ppi and 200 ppi and they are sized completely different.  Can you explain to me why this is and what I need to do in order to ensure that when I sent it off to the printer, it will look like I want it to?
    They look different on the screen because the screen has only one resolution, nominally 72 ppi, so the same physical size will look different at different image resolutions.
    They look different but they would both print as 2" × 3.5".

  • Can a Mac mini 1,1 run a 27-inch monitor?

    I think my old 23" Apple Cinema Display has finally bitten the dust, so I'm looking for a new monitor. This 27" BenQ sounds good, but will my early 2006 Mac mini run it?
    http://shop.benq.us/ProductDetail.aspx?id=378
    Part of my system specs are in my signature, but here also is info from System Profiler:
    1.66 Intel Core Duo
    Graphics Chipset Model:          GMA 950
      Type:          GPU
      Bus:          Built-In
      VRAM (Total):          64 MB of Shared System Memory
      Vendor:          Intel (0x8086)
    So my questions are:
    Will my Mac mini run this monitor?
    If it does, will performance take a hit?
    Should I drop down to the 24 inch BenQ model?
    I would be very grateful for any advice. Thanks!

    Monitor support has to do with pixels and not size.  Both
    the 24" and 27" BenQ have the same pixels (1920x1080).
    One just packs the pixels denser (i.e. more pixels per inch).
    Although it will support such displays, certain activities at that resolution
    may be pushing the GMA 950.  That said, if it worked well with the
    23" Apple display, the new ones should be fine.

  • Pixels to mm conversion help needed!

    Hi.. it's a long shot, but I am constructing a dummy web page... and need to figure out how to take 1000 pixels and convert to a mm or cm box to do a design in.
    Does anyone know how to do that... as web designers say they need a 1000 pixel wide page!
    I cant seem to find a conversion tool that gives just measurements...
    any help appreciated....
    as in iweb i just set it but cant find it in cm either!

    It depends on the dpi. Usually 72dpi = 72 pixels per inch.
    1000/72 = 13,88888 inch
    1 inch = 25,4 mm
    13,88888 * 25,4 = 352,7777 mm
    You do the arithmatic with a calculator.
    To do the same with pictures, you can do it in any image editor. Even Preview.app :
    !http://www.wyodor.net/_Discussions/PreviewResize.png!

  • Shift key on the macbook pro 15 inch retina is unresponsive

    I bought the macbook pro 15 inch retina just over a week ago and i'm definitely regretting it because the shift key is really unresponsive; what does this mean? I also want to know how to extend the track time on garage band. Anyone know how to? It's really bugging me because I need to type effencianly for a £2000 pound laptop it should be perfect to be honest.
    I have the 2.5 ghz, 16 gb of ram and 512 gb flash storage.
    The battery only runs out just browsing the web and it heats up very fast by only watching youtube...

    MEMORY
    Built-in Memory    8 or 16 GB PC3-12800 (1600 MHz) DDR3L on-board memory
    Maximum Memory    16 GB
    Memory Slots    None
    Interleaving Support    Yes
    DISPLAY
    Built-in Display    15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology at 220 pixels per inch
    Resolutions    2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels
    GRAPHICS
    Graphics Card    NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and Intel HD Graphics 4000
    Graphics Memory    1 GB GDDR5 (GeForce GT) 512 MB DDR3 (HD Graphics) shared with main memory
    Display Connection    1 - HDMI port or Thunderbolt digital video output (Supports an HDMI-compatible device while using one Thunderbolt display or support for two Thunderbolt displays)
    Display Modes    Dual display extended, video mirroring, and AirPlay Mirroring
    External Resolution    Up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on up to two external displays
    Camera    720p FaceTime HD camera
    Use this to access all the resolutions
    http://www.madrau.com/indexSRX4.html

  • Text Appearing as 1-Pixel-Sized Boxes in CS2

    Greetings,
    I'm having a problem with text inside Photoshop CS2. I've never had this problem before so I'm not sure what's causing it or how to fix it-- obviously.
    I first noticed this problem when I was doing some work in Photoshop earlier today. I was working on a 1024 x 1024 image and noticed that when I tried to add text that I couldn't see it at all. It wasn't hidden behind any layers as the text layer was at the top, the opacity was set to 100%, the layer wasn't hidden, so it should have been visible... but it wasn't. I tried increasing the font size up to the max but again I couldn't see it.
    Wondering what the heck was going on I created a new image file at 190 x 190 pixels and tried to add in text. This time something appeared and I realized why I couldn't see the text on the previous piece... because the text, for some reason, is appearing as tiny 1 pixel by 1 pixel sized boxes (and the font size is set to 72). If I lower the font size to anything below 72, than the boxes simply disappear. It doesn't matter if it's custom font or the standard font, it all does the same thing.
    I was doing some work yesterday in Photoshop so I'm not sure if I accidentally hit some option that's causing this and I didn't realize it; though the text was working yesterday...
    I've been trying to trace back through the option panels to see if there's anything that might cause this to happen but I haven't found anything yet.
    Does anyone happen to know what's going on here and how I can fix this?
    Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time.

    > Well, I went into Image > Image Size and it does look like the resolution is set to 1 (I don't remember ever changing it, but who knows). But if I try to set the resolution to 72, the width and height jump up to 73,728 pixels... which, when I tried to have it increase to that size, made Photoshop and my computer wig out and took me an hour just to get the program to close.
    For sure you had "Resample Image" checked. You should have had that unchecked. You don't want to re-sample (increase or decrease the number of pixels), you just want to change the resolution-to-dimension relationship. You want to increase the resolution without re-sampling, which will cause your dimensions (in inches or centimeters) to decrease (probably by quite a bit if your resolution was set at 1 pixel (per inch?).
    All this works better if you sort of think things through beforehand. If you know you are producing an 8.5"x11" sheet and you know that you will be printing it out at about 300 pixels per inch, then you create your canvas with those dimensions and resolution or, if you are using an image instead of a blank canvas you crop and Image Size the image to that dimension and resolution. Then, when you add your text, the font size in points will be roughly what you would expect from a word processing application. 10-12 pt text will come out similar to a normal "typewritten" text document, for example.

  • External displays with similar pixel density to 17" MBP display?

    I've got a 17" MacBook Pro, native resolution 1920x1200, which is quite high in terms of pixel density. I have a 24" external Samsung display, also 1920x1200, which means the pixel density is lower. It works fine, but (as you might expect), screen items increase in size rather noticeably when I drag from the laptop display to the external display. (The 24" LCD Apple Cinema Display is also 1920x1200, so the same thing would happen). I've been looking all over the place, and I can't seem to find an external display in the 20-24" range that has a resolution higher than 1920x1200. Ideally I'd like to find a display with the same amazing pixel density, so everything is the same size on both my laptop display and on the external display. I don't know what that would be--probably something like 2048x1152 on a 20" or 22", and 2560x1600 for a 24". Even Apple's 30" Cinema Display at 2560x1600 (or what I imagine will be the new 27" LCD coming out later this summer, probably at 2560x1600) would suffer from this problem, because while the resolution is great, the screen size is so large that the pixel density is lower and once again screen items would increase in size when moved from the laptop monitor to the external monitor. I don't really care about screen size or cost. I'd buy a 20" display, or a 30" display, at pretty much any price, if the pixel density were identical to my MacBook Pro. Anybody know where I can find something like this?

    The pixel densities of the 15" hi-res MBP at 1680 x 1050 and the 17" at 1920 x 1200 are really quite extreme — the 17" slightly more so than the 15". To read the "fine print" on those screens without a resolution-independent user interface (which the Mac OS doesn't yet offer), most users have to sit closer to those displays than they'd want to be to a 27" or 30" display, simply because for a viewer sitting that close to it, the bigger display would extend outward beyond the central field of sharply focused vision. One would constantly be leaning forward and back: in to read the menus or palettes and then out to see the whole screen. That would be pretty tiring. Thus I think it's quite unlikely that we'll ever see 30", 27" or maybe even 24" displays from Apple or anyone else at the same pixel density as the highest-resolution MBPs: 133.2 pixels per inch for the 17" and 128.6 for the 15", compared with 108.8 for the 27" iMac and 97.7 for the 30" Cinema Display). The current standard-resolution 15" MBP at 110.3 actually has a lower pixel density than the 13", at 113.5.
    Interestingly, the current 24" Apple LED-backlit display at 113.2 has almost exactly the same pixel density as the 13" MacBook Pro screen. For someone who wanted things to stay the same size when moving from screen to screen, that would be an ideal pairing. But the 13" MBP sure wouldn't be any match for the 17" in terms of screen real estate when each was being used as a stand-alone portable.

  • 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

Maybe you are looking for