Resampling question

Hello,
I am working with Soundtrack Pro 3.0.1 along with Final Cut Pro 7.0.3.
More samples 'sounds' (no pun intended) like it would better, but I've read that there can be distortion going from 44.1 to 48 or 96. Here's what I'm doing:
I have music from iTUNES at 256bps/44.1khz. Standard .m4a (to which i DO have rights to use.. so no copyright issues here) files from the iTUNES Store.
I'm converting them with Soundtrack Pro to .aiffs to be edited/used in my FCP 7 workflow (music to go along with family vacation video). The sequence I'm using in FCP is Apple Pro Res 422 with audio at 48.1, 16-bit grouped..the default profile for woking with ProRes of this quality.
When I import my songs (.aiffs) to FCP, naturally, I have to render the audio, because at 44.1khz, the settings don't match my sequence. So, I'm thinking of using SoundtrackPro to RESAMPLE to 48khz.
Is this a recommended workflow.. what do you folks recommend?
Respectfully yours,
Bob

absolutely. Working with 44.1 k audio in a 48k timeline can give you serious problems. I promise that you will never hear the difference. Compressor has a preset to do the conversion, but go back to the original source files so you are not converting them twice (although you'd probably never hear the difference).

Similar Messages

Resampling v JPG question

I've concluded that with JPG compression, it's always better to push compression to a lower quality rather than down sample an image. My tests have involved mostly high-frequency images (which I deal with more often). Particularly when output size or spec might be unknown, down sampling seems problematic at best. Obviously compression presents many of the same problems as resampling. Where is it best to take the hit?
Any opinions on the best method for getting on-disk file size down? Resample? Compress more? Objective analysis will be scoffed at but secretly absorbed.
Thanks,
J

>I know I can send at least 20MB attachments and someone sent me a 35MB attachment the other day.
>You need a new ISP
A new ISP is not needed. An understanding of the inefficient transfer of files via email is needed. Limiting to 2MB is a sign that the mail administrator is quite bright.
People need to stop sending large files by email. Email only handles text files - so any binary file you transfer must be encoded to text (MIME). This results in an inflated file size. What's the point in trying to compress to JPEG if you are going to blow the file up again via MIME?
Invest in FTP/HTTP services that allow you to post images, then announce the FTP/HTTP location to your recipients via email. By setting up a better workflow, you won't have to nitpick which JPG compression method works best.

Can I ask InDesign to resample as it exports to PDF?

When I export an InDesign CS document to PDF I'd like to know what InDesign does to the images that it exports. InDesign Help, in this case, was no help.
I'll give a preamble so you know what I'm on about. Originally when I first started this project 2 years ago, I thought I would layout the images within InDesign, and just before printing I would go through every one of the 800 or so images in the book (it's a big book), and crop and resample them to 300 dpi at exactly the final printed size. Big job.
After a few months of using InDesign I thought: no, I won't do that. When I export to PDF I'll assume InDesign will give me options to 'crop to frame size' and set the ppi to 300 dpi as well as converting images to grayscale if I so choose. It'll be automatic.
I'll make it clear with an example. Let's assume an original image was scanned to give an image that is 4000 pixels wide and 2000 high, and that the final image is 20" x 10". It is to be printed on a Xerox iGen which requires 300 dpi for no loss of quality. So how does InDesign get that particular image into the PDF?
Q1: Does it resample and export at 300 dpi? i.e. in the example above, will it export an image of 6000 x 3000 pixels to the PDF?
Q2. Or does it export the original image and does nothing to the image except cropping if I ask it to? If it needs resampling that will be done at print stage by the iGen.
Q3: I didn't see any options for converting to grayscale. Can you export a PDF as grayscale?
Why I am concerned about this is because if the original image is exported, that may cause me file-size problems. I scanned most of my images at 20MB-60MB, yet a lot of them when printed will be of the order of 20 square inches and only require about 6 MB for adequate printing. I may end up with a PDF file that is 5 to 10 times larger than necessary.
The real problem I have is: I trust PS and InDesign to resample my images, but I don't have that kind of faith in the iGen. If I can't ask InDesign to resample images when it exports, I may have a problem.
When I did my original series of test prints in July 2006 on the iGen, I cropped and resampled the images ready for printing before I imported them into InDesign. So I haven't tested the iGen's resampling capabilities. I be blunt I don't trust it. The iGen ( a machine costing in the millions) failed a simple test of converting colour documents to grayscale. Here are my notes written at the time:
b Converting to Grayscale using the iGen
Do not use the iGen RIP to convert colour images to grayscale because it converts all gray densities above 90% to 100%. ie dark shadows end up as 100% solid black shadows with the accompanying sheen. I measured this figure from the K-only gradient at the bottom of the page. It appeared solid black for the first 9mm of a 96 mm black-to-white gradient. All densities between 100% and 91% ended up as 100%. The effect is very obvious in Mums hair which became a solid mass.
My full notes on the iGen are here: http://jucreek.googlepages.com/temporary if anyone wants to have a look.
Anyway, that's why I have concerns about images. Maybe I should just knuckle down for a week and go through 800 images, cropping and resampling every one in Photoshop. Talk me out of it, please.
And that brings me to my final question:
Q4: Can I ask InDesign to do that job for me: to crop, to resample at a certain dpi, and to overwrite the original image so that it all matches up?

Guy,
Let me try to recap all your statments with my comments:
> Let's assume an original image was scanned to give an image that is 4000 pixels wide and 2000 high, and that the final image is 20" x 10". It is to be printed on a Xerox iGen which requires 300 dpi for no loss of quality.
From the very start you're in trouble.
The image size you describe, set at 300 dpi, will only be 13 1/3" by 6 2/3". If the image is scaled up to be 20" by 10", it will only be 200
>dpi.
So, we're starting with insufficient data according to your requirements.
Nothing that InDesign or Acrobat does can make that image the correct resolution.
> Q1: Does it resample and export at 300 dpi? i.e. in the example above, will it export an image of 6000 x 3000 pixels to the PDF?
No, InDesign and Acrobat's print device will only resample
b down.
Neither will resample up.
> Q2. Or does it export the original image and does nothing to the image except cropping if I ask it to?
The image created in the PDF will be cropped. It doesn't touch the original file.
> If it needs resampling that will be done at print stage by the iGen.
I believe the iGen will only resample
b down
the same as InDesign and Acrobat's creation of the PDF.
> Q3: I didn't see any options for converting to grayscale. Can you export a PDF as grayscale?
As mentioned, that won't happen in the PDF Export but will happen with the PDF Print driver. However, that will also convert colors in the ID file, not just images, to grayscale.
> Why I am concerned about this is because if the original image is exported, that may cause me file-size problems. I scanned most of my images at 20MB-60MB, yet a lot of them when printed will be of the order of 20 square inches and only require about 6 MB for adequate printing. I may end up with a PDF file that is 5 to 10 times larger than necessary.
Perhaps I did my math incorrectly, but in your original example, 4000 x 2000 pixels cannot be set at 20 inches by 10 inches at 300 dpi.
It requires 6000 by 3000 inches to be 300 dpi at 20 inches by 10 inches.
> The real problem I have is: I trust PS and InDesign to resample my images, but I don't have that kind of faith in the iGen.
I don't think you need to worry about the iGen if you set your images correctly. But as I said above, you haven't sampled them enough. So the iGen isn't going to do anything.
> If I can't ask InDesign to resample images when it exports, I may have a problem.
You set ID and Acrobat to
b downsample
not
b upsample.
> When I did my original series of test prints in July 2006 on the iGen, I cropped and resampled the images ready for printing before I imported them into InDesign.
Cropping and resampling in Photoshop is always preferred as you have the options for how the resampling occurs that neither ID nor Acrobat have.
> So I haven't tested the iGen's resampling capabilities. I be blunt I don't trust it. The iGen ( a machine costing in the millions) failed a simple test of converting colour documents to grayscale.
No, I wouldn't have expected the iGen to convert to grayscale at all! Converting to grayscale can be done in the Acrobat print driver, but I would prefer to do it in Photoshop if I demanded very refined conversions.
> My full notes on the iGen are here: http://jucreek.googlepages.com/temporary if anyone wants to have a look.
See my comments above.
> Anyway, that's why I have concerns about images. Maybe I should just knuckle down for a week and go through 800 images, cropping and resampling every one in Photoshop. Talk me out of it, please.
You can resample using Photoshop's batch processing, but depending on the type of cropping that might need to be done manually in Photoshop. But if the cropping is always of a certain size and position that could be done in batch processing.
> Q4: Can I ask InDesign to do that job for me: to crop, to resample at a certain dpi, and to overwrite the original image so that it all matches up?
No, InDesign doesn't overwrite your original image, but it will change the image in the final PDF.

+++ Adobe Camera Raw - Frequently Asked Questions +++

Q: Is my camera supported by Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)?
A: Here is the list of cameras officially supported by the current version of Adobe Camera Raw and Digital Negative (DNG) converter. The page also provides links to the current version of ACR and DNG converter for both Mac and Windows.
Q: what version of Camera Raw should I install?
A: Photoshop CS6: see first question.
Photoshop CS5: Camera Raw 6.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 4: Camera Raw 5.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 3: Camera Raw 4.6 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 2: Camera Raw 3.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS: Camera Raw 2.4 Win | Mac
For Photoshop Elements, Windows:
Photoshop Elements 10: (See first question)
Photoshop Elements 9: Camera Raw 6.5
Photoshop Elements 8: Camera Raw 6.2
Photoshop Elements 7 and 6: Camera Raw 5.6
Photoshop Elements 5: Camera Raw 4.6
Photoshop Elements 4: Camera Raw 3.7
Photoshop Elements 3: Camera Raw 3.6
For Photoshop Elements, Macintosh:
Photoshop Elements 10: (See first question)
Photoshop Elements 9: Camera Raw 6.5
Photoshop Elements 8: Camera Raw 6.2
Photoshop Elements 6: Camera Raw 5.6
Photoshop Elements 4.0.1: Camera Raw 4.6 ( 4.1 under Mac OS 10.3)
Photoshop Elements 3: Camera Raw 3.6
Q: What version of Camera Raw started to support my camera?
A: This page: http://www.adobe.com/go/kb407111 lists when support for the raw files of your camera was added in Camera Raw. If the version listed is higher than the one supported by your version of Camera Raw, you first need to convert the files to DNG using the latest version of the DNG converter in order to open them in Camera Raw.
Q: I do not have the latest version of Photoshop, how can I open the Raw files from my new camera?
A: Only the current version of Photoshop will receive ACR updates that add support for the latest cameras. However, you can download the latest version of the DNG converter, and use it to transform your raw files to the universal DNG format. Camera Raw 2.4 in Photoshop CS and all newer versions of Camera Raw compatible with your version of Photoshop will be able to open the DNG files. Photoshop 7 and ACR 1.0 do not support DNG, therefore you will need to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop.
Q: When will the new update of Adobe Camera Raw be released?
A: Adobe cannot comment on unannounced products, however, it is expected that ACR and DNG converter will be simultaneously updated 3 or 4 times per year (i.e. every 3 or 4 months).
Q: What does "Unofficial Support" for a camera mean?
A: Unofficial support means that Adobe's Quality Engineering department has not tested the support to the degree that they want, and thus cannot guarantee the results. So we don't include the camera in our official lists, and don't provide any technical support. Unofficial support means "use at your own risk".
Q: How do I know that Adobe Camera Raw is installed correctly?
A: For Photoshop CS customers, the most efficient way to ensure that you have the latest Camera Raw update installed correctly is to choose the Updates option from the help menu. For Photoshop Elements customers the best way to verify that the Camera Raw plug-in is installed correctly is to make sure it appears (only once) in the "About Plug-in" menu (see: Photoshop menu on a Mac or Help menu on a PC). The correct version is displayed when you pick its name and see its about box. If "Camera Raw" is not in this list, you have not installed it correctly.
Q: Why is the profile listed in the Calibration tab showing a version of Adobe Camera Raw that's older than I am using ?
A: What you are seeing is normal, and is due to the fact that the built-in profile for your particular camera model hasn't changed between that version of Adobe Camera Raw and the version you're using now. If you see the profile listed as "beta" then your camera has only unofficial support.
Q: Why is there more than one profile listed in the Calibration tab of Adobe Camera Raw?
A: The built-in profile for your particular camera model has changed since it was first supported. The profile shown by default identifies the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw in which the profile was updated. Other profiles in the drop-down list identify those included with earlier versions of Adobe Camera Raw, and are available in case you want to maintain compatibility with earlier versions.
Q: My camera is listed, but Photoshop cannot read its raw files.
A: Download and install the most recent update to Adobe Camera Raw.
Q: Where can I download the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw?
A: Adobe Camera Raw for: Macintosh and Windows
Q: I am trying to replace my existing ACR plug-in with a more recent version, but cannot find ACR in my Photoshop/Plug-in/File Formats folder. Where is it located now?
A: As explained in the "Readme", which can be found on the ACR download page, the correct location is:
Photoshop CS2
Mac: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-ins/CS2/File Formats/
Win: \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-ins\CS2\File Formats\
Photoshop CS3
Mac: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-ins/CS3/File Formats/
Win: \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-ins\CS3\File Formats\
Note that "Common Files" is localized in non-english versions of Windows.
Q: Why do I only see a small generic icon in Adobe Bridge instead of a thumbnail when I browse the folder containing my RAW files?
A: Bridge occasionally has difficulty with RAW files, but this is usually because the user has installed ACR into the wrong location or browsed the folder prior to installing the ACR plug-in that provides support for their particular camera model. The fix for this issue is usually to make absolutely sure that ACR is installed correctly, then purge the Bridge cache. If you're in the habit of using the Distributed cache (Bridge 1.x) it would be prudent to manually delete the cache files from the folder containing your RAW files.
Q: Whenever I open an image in Adobe Camera Raw a small explanation mark within a yellow triangle appears in the upper right hand corner of the image.
A: This symbol indicates that a high quality preview is being generated by Adobe Camera Raw. It should disappear after a couple of seconds.
Q: How do I turn off Auto Adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw 3.x?
A: Open Adobe Camera Raw. On the Mac press Cmd+U or on the PC Ctrl+U. This keystroke combination toggles Auto Adjustments On and Off. Alternatively, disable the Auto Adjustments setting from the fly-out menu adjacent to the Setting drop-down menu. If you want the default to be Off for Auto Adjustments simply choose "Save New Camera Raw Default" from the fly-out menu adjacent to the "Settings" drop-down menu then choose Done.
Q: What about Adobe Camera Raw 3.7 and newer versions?
A: Camera Raw 3.7 no longer supports per slider auto adjustments. One Auto control at the top of the panel now sets the Exposure, Shadows, Brightness, and Contrast sliders to their auto values. The Default control at the top of the panel sets these same four sliders to their default values. The keyboard shortcut for the Auto control is CMD/CTRL-U.
The keyboard shortcut for the Default control is CMD/CTRL-R.
Double clicking on a slider to set that single slider to its default value.
Shift double clicking on a slider to set that single slider to its auto value.
Q: Why do I get the the following message: "Unable to create an .xmp sidecar file. The image settings will instead be stored in the Adobe Camera Raw database."
A: This message means that Adobe Camera Raw is unable to write to the XMP sidecar file. Either the media is read-only (e.g. a CD), or you don't have write access to the folder containing the image, or the existing XMP sidecar file is locked.
Q: I cannot see all the tools and buttons of Adobe Camera Raw.
A: Set your monitor resolution to the minimum required for Photoshop CS and higher, i.e. 1024x768.
Q: Where can I obtain a listing of Adobe Camera Raw keyboard shortcuts and modifiers?
A: On the Photoshop online help file.
Q: When I open my Nikon NEF files, all I see is the simple version of the raw dialog.
A: You are running Nikon's plug-in, not Adobe's. Delete from Photoshop's plug-in folder and all subfolders all copies of the "Nikon NEF plugin". Nikon automatically installs this plug-in in up to two places inside Photoshop's plug-in folder, and both must be deleted. Otherwise it overrides the Adobe plug-in. An alternative to the deletion is adding ~ in front of the Nikon plug-ins names.
Q: I installed the update. I can now open my raw files, but I still cannot see thumbnails in the file browser.
A: Purge the file browser cache for the problem folder. Tools > Cache > Purge cache for this folder.
Q: Is it better to resize my images in Camera Raw, or in Photoshop?
A: The resampling code is fairly similar to (but not exactly the same as) the "Bicubic Sharper" resampling in Photoshop CS and CS2. It does not make very much difference which stage you do the resampling in. The exception is non-square pixel cameras (Nikon D1x and Fuji S2 Pro), for which it is best to upsample one size step in Camera Raw if you need a larger image.
Q: What are raw images, and how do they differ from JPEG ones?
A: Read this whitepaper (1MB PDF) written by Bruce Fraser for a concise answer.

You can check compatibility yourself:
1. Go to this page to see the different releases: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311515?tstart=0
2. Navigate into the download link for the appropriate version of Camera Raw.
3. Follow the link to the ReadMe (e.g., http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/Camera_Raw_4.6_ReadMe.pdf).
4. Look to see whether your camera is supported.
5. If your camera is NOT supported, you can use the free Adobe DNG converter to create .dng files that your Camera Raw will be able to open.
Photoshop CS6 is anticipated to be out in a few months, and Camera Raw is supposed to have a whole new approach, so a lot of us are excited about anticipating that.
-Noel

Image size and resolution question.

Is an image at W 48.667 x H 32.444 inches at 72 res the same as an image that I could convert in photoshop to 300 res and then the with "Resample Image" clicked off would be W 11.68 x H 7.78 at 300 res for printing purposes? I'm asking this questions because after exporting 200 images from Lightroom 1.4, putting them into an wedding album I realized the images were not at 300 res but the first size listed above. I'm trying not to have to rebatch and have to put them back into the album. I sent the question to NAPP and got this back"
"If you do the math you'll see that the answer is "no."
48x72=3456 pixels; 32x72=2304 pixels
11.68x300=3504 pixels; 7.78x300=2334 pixels."
I did the math and it comes up to 5760 vs 5830. Pretty darn close. So would an image printed out with both settings print the about the same quality or am I missing something?
Thanks
Bob

Bob's question is a common one. And one of the first that most of us struggled to understand. Let's see if I can shed some light to help clarify the matter.
o The image starts out with a given number of pixels from the camera, scanner, or whatever was its source. The resolution only matters when it comes time to print the image.
72 dpi was once a common resolution for displaying on a computer monitor. Today 90 dpi is more common monitor resolution.
o Let's assume that the image is 3504 x 2336 pixels (which I got from his size @ 72 dpi).
o In "image size", if you do _not_ have 'resample image' checked, all you are doing is _rescaling the image. The image resolution is whatever you enter ...
For example, if you enter 360 dpi -- the native printing resolution of many Epson printers -- you get a print size of 9.733 x 6.489 inches
o Let's say you want to print this image at 360 dpi in portrait on 13 x 19 inch paper with a one inch border on the sides. That would make the short dimension of the image 11 inches and the long would work out to 16.5.
To do that you need to _resample_ the image to change the size. More pixels will be made. The resolution stays at 360 dpi. So check the 'resample image' box.
After resampling to get the print size and resolution you want, the pixel dimension goes to 5960 x 3960 (from 3504 x 2336). Those new pixels came at a price, but that is a matter for another thread and a lot of personal bias.
Hope that helped.
P.S. The answer to your question, Bob, is yes. With resample off in PhotoShop, your original images should have gone to 11.68 x 7.787 inches @300 dpi.
In looking at the rest of your original post, it seems that the export didn't work the way that you wanted. Do I read right that the images turned out to be 11.68 x 7.787 @ 72 dpi? Can't help with that as I don't do Lightroom.

Question about printing and resolution

Hello
I am trying out a trial version of PE13 and am attempting to come to terms with printing and resolution.
I have also read this informative tutorial here:
How Image Resolution Affects Print Quality - Photoshop Tutorial
This is the image I would like to print:
In the tutorial referred to above, the author states that when printing, 300 resolution is best and not the 79.3 px/inch that I have. When I change that 79.3 to 300, the image of Marilyn becomes tiny, so my question is how can I have an image that would neatly fit onto A4 photo paper maybe with a 1" white border around it (meaning the image size would be 8" x 6") while retaining a 300 resolution?
Am I going about this the right way, aren't I?
Many thanks.
Steve

Steve,
The most important thing about resolution is the dimension in pixels.
Your original is 433 x 653 pixels. Just good enough to display on a normal laptop.
With A4 format at 300 ppi, you'd need:
21 / 2.54 * 300 = 2480 pixels wide
29.7 / 2.54 * 300 = 3507 pixel high.
Any image editor won't be able to add the missing resolution, but the solution is to let the editor guess the missing pixels by interpolation methods.
You won't get more details than those present in the original file, but you'll get a smoother, non 'pixelated' image.
In the Elements editor, you have to check the 'resample' checkbox to be able to keep the outpur size while increasing the ppi to 300.

2 questions regarding output to offset printing

I am using CS4 to work on pictures I have taken and will be used for postcards. The sizes can be 105*148 or 120*170 mm. some cards will have more then one picture in which case there may be samller inserts, maybe as small as 25*25mm
In relation to this work I have basically 2 questions:
1) I will be using Indesign to size the pictures down to final size and also for the small inserts. My question is regarding sharpening. Do I need to size the photos in Photoshop and possibly adjust the sharpening there, or do I not need to worry about this?
2) Should I convert my photos to CMYK in Photoshop, or can I leave this to Indesign? I will be sending the pictures to the printers as PDF.
Much appreciate any help and comments on this,
Tolli Birgisson

Tolli_Birgisson wrote:
I am using CS4 to work on pictures I have taken and will be used for postcards. The sizes can be 105*148 or 120*170 mm. some cards will have more then one picture in which case there may be samller inserts, maybe as small as 25*25mm
In relation to this work I have basically 2 questions:
1) I will be using Indesign to size the pictures down to final size and also for the small inserts. My question is regarding sharpening. Do I need to size the photos in Photoshop and possibly adjust the sharpening there, or do I not need to worry about this?
2) Should I convert my photos to CMYK in Photoshop, or can I leave this to Indesign? I will be sending the pictures to the printers as PDF.
Much appreciate any help and comments on this,
Tolli Birgisson
You can use InDesign to resize the images. When you select an image you can go to Window>Info and it shows you two things
Actual PPI
Effective PPI
Actual PPI shows what resolution the image is itself.
Effective PPI shows you what resolution the image is at it's current scaled size. The larger you make the picture the lower the ppi (or the bigger you make the picture the further the pixels separate and therefore the less PPI (pixels per inch). The same is applied when making the image smaller. The further you reduce the picture, the closer the pixels get to each other, therefore you have more pixels per inch, which is a higher PPI.
The advantage of doing this in InDesign is that you have no second party software to rely on. You just resize.
The disadvantage is that InDesign doesn't apply any sharpening or other filters to the image, it uses Bicubic Smoother (I think?) to resample the image.
When you export to PDF you can choose what way you want to resample images and to what resolution you want images above say 450 ppi to be resampled to 300 ppi.
It would be better to use photoshop to make them the images the correct size at the correct resolution and place the image at 100%. You can then apply sharpening etc. to the image in photoshop. You can turn off resampling the images in Export to PDF in InDesign and turn off compression.
If you are going to resample the images in Photoshop then you should be aware of file types. If they're all jpgs then you don't want to resave your images as JPG, you'd be better of resampling and resizing and then saving the image as a tiff, as it's a lossless format.
You can use CS4 to relink to another folder
Now for question 2
You can convert your images to CMYK in photoshop, why not? Well make sure your Color Settings are set up similar to that of InDesign. If your images are going to be for print only then you can Assign Profile of whatever profile you want. You should check with your printers what profile they use. It could be:
Coated or Uncoated Fogra
US Sheetfed
Euroscale (coated or uncoated)
US Web Press
etc.
You need to check that with prepress.
Of course you can convert your images to a profile when exporting to PDF straight from InDesign. In which case don't convert to CMYK in photoshop - sort of. It's a rather complex answer.
But if you choose the profile Colour Conversion of Convert to "Destionation Preserve Numbers"
Select your Destination (profile, which will be Coated or Uncoated Fogra or US SHEETFED or US WEB Press or whatever was recommend by your prepress in what they use).
As I said it's a rather complex answer so perhaps this will clear up anything else for you, if not just ask http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1324238

Image resoltion question

I have a basic question about image resolution. I have taken
some pics for a brochure with a digital camera. The pictures are
2800 x 2100 pix. (6.1 MP), 72 DPI.
My printer recommends sending TIFF format at 300 DPI. I can
create a postcard at 300 DPI and add the image, without resampling
the image.
Will that print ok, or do I need to find a digital camera
that will shoot at 300 DPI. I am obviously a novice and I could not
find an answer to my question in the archives.
Thanks.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:56:42 +0400, bwr
<[email protected]>
wrote:
> I have a basic question about image resolution. I have
taken some pics
> for a
> brochure with a digital camera. The pictures are 2800 x
2100 pix. (6.1
> MP), 72
> DPI.
As a small addition to what Richard said, I think I'll
explain in more
detail while camera ppi (or dpi) is a fake.
From practical point of view, neither camera nor your eye
have resolution
in "inches". Both your eye and your camera have *angular*
resolution, not
*linear*. It may be recalculated to linear only when you are
referring to
particular viewing distance - that is, from a long distance
you only
recongize objects of meter size, and from a hand distance -
of millimeter
size; and they may take the same amount of pixels in your
camera photos.
As a result, there is no such a thing like "best resolution
for print" -
you may print large billboard at much smaller resolution than
fine art
catalog, and both will look the same under appropriate
circumstances - one
from several meters distance, the other being viewed through
a looking
glass. Also, there is no such a thing as "camera resolution"
(unless we
put the real ruler in the scene <g>). There may be
*formal* resolution
setting the camera puts in the image file, or even more
likely some formal
resolution assumption your software makes when it reads the
file without
any resolution setting in it (you know, software don't like
"divide by
zero" things, so it often makes some non-zero assumptions
when it can't
get real figures).
So forget about resolution of camera files. All you need is
enough pixels
to cover the number of inches that you wish, under the print
resolution
you want. As Joe said, you are likely to have more than you
need.
Ilya Razmanov
http://photoshop.msk.ru -
Photoshop plug-in filters

Export resolution and camera resolution question

I am thinking of buying a new camera- specifically one that will film video in widescreen as well as widescreen photo's. I have been looking at some that have a maximum video resolution of 848x480, which will come out fine.
With iMovie, so far I have been using my wife's Casio camera which records video at 640x480 (4:3 ratio), and I have been cropping the video in iMovie and exporting as 640x360 widescreen. The next resolution up from 640x360 in iMovies export settings is 960x540.
My question is, if my new camera has a video res of 848x480, when I export that in iMovie, will it have to be down-scaled to 640x360, or will there be an option to export at the same resolution (I don't think it will let me upscale it to 960x540)?
Thanks.
Message was edited by: wastedyuthe

As long as you don't have "constrain" checked, it won't resample.

Resize AND resample... in what order?

Hello all. I've had to resample images up a bit on occasion for use at larger sizes (i.e. placement in Illustartor or INDesign at a larger size) and have done that with good results. However, I have a different situation now.
I have an image that is 300 dpi. I am working on a huge display in InDesign, and I've had to place this image at 392%, which gives me an effective dpi of 76.
The display company I'm working with wants the image placed at 100%, but needs only 100 effective dpi due to the nature of their technology.
So I think what I need to do is both:
- reSIZE the image to 392% AND
- reSAMPLE the image to be 100 dpi.
I believe this will have to be a two-step process using the Image Size palette. My question is, in what order do I take these two steps and what settings do I use in the Image SIze palette to get the best results?
Using Photoshop CS5 12.0.4 on Mac OS 10.6.8. Thank you!

What they want is a 100 ppi image (you open it in Photoshop, go to Image Size and it says:the Resolution (in Document Size) is 100 pixels/inch. They want that image placed in InDesign at 100%-- not 125%, not 359%. They're trying to keep their processing time to a minimum by requiring that the resizing be done before image placement, rather than within the InDesign layout program, thereby minimizing the complexity of the art file and the amount of additional processing InDesign and their output program(s) need to handle.
They don't CARE about the pixel dimensions.
From the point of view of the display printing company... it's not their responsibility to scold customers for sending poor images. They receive images at all levels of quality, I'm sure.
And I don't have time, responsibility or inclination to protect them by creating sample images and pointing out that their guidelines don't cover the gamut of crappy images that their customers may send. And no, I am not the one who chose this display printing company. I am helping out someone in a different department of our own company. She choses who prints their displays.
The request I received was to take the images I've been given (and the "standards" under which those images were taken are also completely out of my control, so please don't go there) and make them look as good as possible while sending images within the specifications the display print company HAS set. I DO care about pixel size; however, I didn't know the best way to get to what they need with minimal degradation to existing picture quality.
Sigh. Never mind. I'll figure it out the best way to get a 300 ppi image placed at 392% in InDesign downsized to 100 ppi and placed in InDesign at 100%. It's late on a Friday, I'm covering for several people, and I thought someone might already have encountered such a scenario.
(BTW, I don't know why you made the assumption about "junior worker". I have expertise in some things, not as much in others. As is the case for everyone else in the world. And in these days of downsizing a lot of us are forced to wear hats that are not so familiar--and carefully choose the circumstances when rabble rousing might be worth the repercussions. This ain't one of those circumstances...)

Pixel VS DPI - Need to have a quick question cleared up!

Hello Adobe Forums!
I would consider myself an experienced designer, but I have a question that might seem rather mundane. To be completely honest, I just think I have overthought/overanalyzed it to a point where I confused myself!
In Photoshop, I have a 300 DPI psd image, that image size is 2"x1" and is 600x300px.
Now, my question is: is there a way to reduce the DPI in an effort to increase the pixels?
My goal is to have a larger amount of pixels at 72dpi for a web image. The theory makes sense in my head, but when put into practice, my image loses its quality. I need it to be sharp.
Aside from all of this, if I do have to end up resampling, are there other programs that resample more effectively than Photoshop?
Thanks in advance!

Exactly. Web images have no PPI, only the pixel dimensions. Your image is 600px x 300px; ignore the 300 PPI, ignore the 2" x 1". Focus only on the 600px x 300px. When you use this image in a web layout, it will take up exactly 600px x 300px. Whether or not that size works for what you're trying to do is up to you, it is what it is. But the image is not 72 PPI or 300 PPI or any other PPI, since you're not printing it.
In fact, even images destined for print don't have a specific PPI until you set the size at which they will be printed. Photoshop provides the PPI of the image based on a particular output size for convenience, but the only true measure of the resolution of a digital image are the pixel dimensions, period.
Here's a short article I wrote for our customers w/ digital cameras, to explain digital resolution and print resolution:
WHAT IS RESOLUTION?
The resolution of a digital image is the number of pixels it contains, plain and simple. If you open an image into Photoshop and go to Image > Image Size, the top section of the dialog box shows you the total number of pixels in your image. This is the actual resolution of the image, independent of the size you plan to use it.
For example, a photo taken with a Canon Digital Rebel XSi might have a resolution of 4272 x 2848. This means there are 4272 pixels across, and 2848 pixels down, that make up the image.
Most digital cameras are rated as a certain number of "megapixels." A megapixel is one million pixels, and camera manufactures calculate the megapixels by multiplying the maximum width by the maximum height that their camera can capture. In the example above, the Digital Rebel XSi is a 12 megapixel camera (4272 times 2848 = 12,166,656 pixels).
HOW BIG IS A PIXEL?
A pixel has no size of its own, it is simply the smallest single "unit" in a digital image. In fact, the word pixel derives from the term "picture element." If you zoom in close enough in Photoshop you can see all the individual pixels that make up an image. (In Photoshop CS4 there is also a pixel grid that you can enable to make it easier to see.)
SO WHAT ABOUT PPI?
You've probably heard a lot about pixels per inch (PPI) or dots per inch (DPI), but what does that actually mean?
Pixels per inch is a relative measurement of resolution, that takes into account the size you're going to print the image. Now there's a mouthful! Don't let that confuse you, though, it's actually really simple to calculate: take the total number of pixels and divide by the size you plan to use it.
So for example, if you take that 4272 x 2848 image I mentioned earlier and print it 10 inches wide, the resolution would be 427.2 PPI (4272 divided by 10).
For optimum print quality, we look for 300 PPI at print size, and a similar calculation will tell you how big you can print your images. Using that same image, take 4272 and divide by 300. The result is 14.24, so you can print that image as large as 14.24" without the image looking low-res or pixellated, or without doing any resampling in Photoshop.
Oh, and the proper unit of measurement for the resolution of a digital image at a particular print size is PPI. The proper unit of measurement of the resolution of an output device is DPI. The two are not synonymous nor interchangeable -- images never contain dots, only pixels, and printers never print with pixels, only dots.
OK, SO YOU'RE SAYING RESOLUTION AND PPI ARE NOT THE SAME THING?
Right. They're related, but not the same. The easy way to think about this is that PPI is the "print resolution" of the image.
Let's look at another example: say you have an image that is 1500 pixels x 1500 pixels, and you print it at 5" wide. 1500 divided by 5 is 300 PPI. If you print the same image at 10" wide, 1500 divided by 10 is 150 PPI. The print resolution has changed because you're using the image at a much larger size, but the actual resolution of the image (1500 x 1500) has not changed.
CAN'T I JUST INCREASE THE RESOLUTION IN PHOTOSHOP?
You can, but it's not the same as if the image had the correct resolution to start with.
If you ask Photoshop to increase the resolution of an image, it needs to calculate how to add all those new pixels you're asking for. It uses some pretty complex algorithms to do this, but it's still "inventing" pixels that were never there. There is a limit to how much you can artificially increase the resolution of an image without it being visible (either as blurriness or jaggedness). And don't forget: a low-resolution original doesn't contain as much detail as a high-res image. Photoshop can only interpolate from the data that exists in the file, so it won't magically add in all that missing detail.
A good rule of thumb is if your image would be less than 225 PPI or so at the size you want to use it, you would be better off retaking the photo than upsampling in Photoshop. Anything less than that and it will almost certainly appear low-res when printed, and you would see artifacts if you upsample it.

Questions About Production

I have a client that has asked me to cleanup book files for output to a printer. The container file is an InDesign file with 48 pages that have lots of linked low res graphics. He wants me to convert all the hi res RGB JPG images to CMYK, 300 ppi (no resampling), and tifs. My questions are as follows:
Would it make sense to setup an action that does all of this at once? (I already set this up and it seems to be working well. But just wanted other's input.)
When converting files from RGB to CMYK, should I go up to Image/Mode/CMYK? Or go to "Convert to profile" or "Assign Profile"?
Should I always embed the CMYK profile? I usually would embed SWOP v2.
If I want an Action to be recorded, for example, if I want to automatically embed the color profile into the image when saving it as a tif, does the first image that I record with need to NOT have an embedded profile? Then once I click the embed profile it will record it? Same with LZW compression, does the first image need to lack LZW compression in order for it to get recorded when I click on it for the first time for that image?
Thanks for the help!

• Yes, that would make sense. In combinations with Image Processor or Batch or as a Droplet that should make the task a lot easier. (Personally I would use Scripting but that would hardly pay off for infrequent jobs.)
• One cannot Assign a CMYK-profile to an RGB-image, Converting is preferable to Mode – CMYK unless You are certain that Your Color Settings fit the requirements exactly. Anyway Assigning Profiles is best avoided unless one has a certain grasp of what that means (changing display without changing pixel values as opposed to converting, where the values are changed to maintain the appearance under different conditions).
• Embedding seems definitively advisable, otherwise people farther down the production-line will have a hard time ascertaining which print-condition the images were separated for.
• I don’t think so. Moreover with Image Processor the saving step would not need to be part of the Action.
As regards relinking the images in bulk You might search/or post in the Indesign (Scripting) Forum.

Resampling "large" images in overlays

Although this question really belongs in the New authoring tools available (Sept 1) thread as it is related to download problems I thought it should be a new topic as the answer (when it comes) might be of interest to all.
I have a sequence of nearly full screen images in an Object State with the same images scaled to thumbnail size, each one converted to a button. I know that images within Object States do not get downsampled when the Folio is built but do the images that have been converted to buttons?
If yes then I need do nothing.
If no then I will have to resample the thumbnails so that they are smaller file sizes.
Graham

Thanks for your comments guys but I would also like an official Adobe response as well as I have discovered a serendipity feature that I guess is related to this issue.
On the vertical orientation I have a sequence of thumbnail images converted to buttons that show/hide captions (in an Object State overlay) as they are pressed.
Rather than mirroring the layout on the horizontal orientation on this occasion I have those same (landscape) images almost full screen within another Object State Overlay and when a thumbnail is tapped for image 5 for example and then you switch orientation that same image is selected.
I imagine that if I save the thumbnails resampled smaller as they will have different file names that this feature wouldn’t work.

Questions about tuning the USRP packet -based link examples

Hi everyone,
   Today I do some tests and tunning on the USRP packet-based link examples, and I find these questions:
   First I set the following parameters to the Packet Transmitter.vi: Tx frequency=2441M, samples per symblol=8, sample rate=800k, then the symbol rate should be 100k
   Then I set the Rx frequency to 2441=M and do three tests to the USRP packet receiver.vi:
   1. set the samples per symbol to 8, the sample rate to 800k, all the packets can be received correctly very fast.
   2. set the samples per symbol to 40, the sample rate to 4M, all the packtes can be received correctly, but slower than the former test.
   3. set the samples per symbol to 50, the sample rate to 5M, all the packets can be received correctly, but much slower than the former two tests.
   4. set the samples per symbol to 40, the sample rate to 5M, but change the sample rate to  4M when input the argument to the resample&demod_shell.vi, then I find that no packets can be received correctly.(According to my understanding, resampling the data with 4M sample rate should make the input data time-aligned)
   Can anyone help me interprete above test? Thanks in advance!

Hi 0711,
You are correct. If you sample at 5MS/s and have a samples/sym of 40, resampling with a sample rate of 4MS/s will allow you to receive the signal. Digging into the sub_resample_and_demodulate.vi, I found the issue. The modulation toolkit resample VI that is being used pulls the sample rate of the incoming signal from the incoming waveform (or the dt of the incoming waveform). In the resample and demodulate subvi, the dt of the incoming signal was hard wired to be 1/x of the desired sampling rate. For all other uses cases, having these 2 parameters hard wired together does not cause a problem, but for the 4th case you described it does. I edited the subvi like shown in the image below and was able to get it working:
Hope that helps and let me know if you have any further questions. I'll do my best to get you an answer.
Sarah Y
SDR Product Manager
National Instruments | Ettus Research

Resampling a Photo?

I am starting to finally wrap my brain around these resampling and resizing concepts, but I still have a little confusion.
My main question is about upsampling. Is it ever good to upsample? And if so, how much is it okay to upsample without degrading your image. And I am more talking in regards to printing a photo, not for onscreen so much.
Also, is downsampling okay when your resizing for print? I know that downsampling is basically getting rid of pixels intelligently so it's not as bad as upsampling. Because it seems that at times when you're trying to get your photo proportions (aspect ratio) the way you want, and you crop and such, you may have to upsample or downsample to get the size you want without changing the ppi.

Upsampling would be necessary when you want to print an image in which the print would need have a pixel dimension larger than the current pixel dimension of the image.
For example, 300 dpi (or ppi) is normally considered to be correct for a print up to 11 x 14 (or thereabouts). So, a 14" print (long side) would require a pixel dimension of 14 times 300 or 4200 total pixels. This is in the range of a 12 Megapixel camera. If you have a smaller MP camera than that, or have cropped the image, you should upsample to 4200 pixels (long side) when you print at 11 X14.
Upsampling is always going to degrade the image somewhat. But in light to moderate amounts it's better to do it, than print at lower resolutions.
The rule is, when upsampling, you should do it it steps of perhaps 10% at a time. In Photoshop (or PSE) you would use, "Bicubic Smoother" to upsample, and "Bicubic Sharper", to down sample.
The industry standard software for hard core, heavy duty upsampling is, "Genuine Fractals", from "OnOne Software" Here's their product page; http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7 This software would be for poster size exploits, and large show prints.
Keep in mind that down sampling can be handy for creating computer wallpaper, 4 x 6 prints, web postings, and Email attachments.

Resampling question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for