Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Increasing physical dimensions of high resolution image?

Mar 14, 2012 4:30 PM

I have an image that I want to use in a video, though it is not physically large enough to fill the 1920 x 1080 dimensions of the video, though it has a 300ppi resolution and video only needs 72ppi. How do I take advantage of the fact that it is high resolution image, and increase the physical dimensions of the image? Is there a way to do this?

 

Thanks.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 14, 2012 4:42 PM   in reply to media kat

    Use the image size command.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,478 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 14, 2012 5:31 PM   in reply to media kat

    Don't think about the ppi, think about the pixel count in the horizontal and vertical dimensions.  Ppi is inconsequential for display purposes.

     

    What is the pixel count of your image?

     

    I find it helpful to configure Photoshop to present Rulers units in pixels, which is not the default.  This is configured in Preferences - Units & Rulers.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 1:54 PM   in reply to media kat

    That depends on what physical size it needs to be printed at.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,478 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 2:05 PM   in reply to media kat

    If you're told you have to print it at 4 inches by 6 inches at 300 ppi, do the following:

     

    • Choose Image - Image Size.
    • Check the Resample box.
    • Enter 300 in the Resolution box.
    • Put 4 and 6 inches in the Height and Width boxes (or vice versa if it's a portrait mode image).

     

    You will end up with a 1200 x 1800 pixel image that will print at 4 by 6 inches, achieving your goal of printing at 300 ppi.

     

    The print will likely not be as crisp and detailed as if you had printed it at 4 by 6 inches without downsampling to 300 ppi.

     

    You will do well to try to start to understand how images are expressed in pixels, and why the above is true, so that in the future you'll know when to question the requirements.  This thread might also interest you: 

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/975142?tstart=30

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 5:49 PM   in reply to media kat

    All previous replies were correct but I'll put it in another way hoping to make it easier to understand.

    media kat wrote:

     

    Here is a scenario:

     

    I have an image that is w:3504 h:2336 72ppi

     

    If I'm told that the image needs to be printed at 300ppi

     

    1. Do I want Resample Image checked or not checked?

    2. Which option from the drop-down menu at the bottom should I choose?

     

    Thanks.

    If you are told the image has to be printed at 300ppi to whatever size it will become when you set it to 300 ppi then:

    1. Do not check the Resample image

    2. the drop down menu will not be available

     

    Following the above when you type for Resolution 300 ppi, in the Image Size window, you will see the printed size of the image displayed in the Width and Height fields with the selected units.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 12:14 AM   in reply to media kat

    I think this becomes much simpler if you just stop for a second and consider what "ppi" actually stands for:

     

    Pixels per inch.

     

    That tells you two things: One, it's a relative number, not an absolute one. And two, the base unit is the pixel.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 7:09 AM   in reply to media kat

    I remember in the old days, before we had so many sources for structured training in the graphic arts, one could experiment with these settings and determine what looked like crap. It is too bad that we no longer have that ability to experiment and learn.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 9:53 AM   in reply to Marian Driscoll

    Hi Marian.

     

    Thanks for the excellent link. And I believe it is spot on.

     

    ***Warning: This is an off topic rant. And it's over 500 words.***

     

    I did not get my first computer until 2001. Although I am a scientist at heart (university trained in chemistry and physics), and quite comfortable with technology, there was something deep within me that was resistant to buying a computer. Almost an inner foreboding. Even though I had already been using corporate computer nets (not the internet) since 1979, the PC seemed ominous to me.

     

    And the internet seemed even more ominous. To the point that I didn't hook up to the web until 2006. I had a sense that the web was a double edged sword, and had the potential to diminish its users. Even though I had never been on line and had very little idea of what it was really all about. What I found was what I feared. A wasteland punctuated by oases of useful information. A wasteland in the literal sense. For every second saved on the task at hand, a minute is wasted by the distractions that bombard us on the way to saving that second.

     

    I'm not saying that the web is bad. Just that it's fraught with danger. And the worst danger is the notion that a concrete answer to every question is just a Google away. And with that, the odieous notion that every question can be answered comprehensively in one quarter of an internet page, leaving the rest for advertising.

     

    I do quite a bit of writing, and my first experience at writing for the internet was a disaster. Among other things, I am a fly fishing guide. A new internet fly fishing magazine had requested I submit a series of articles. Personal anecdotes about my experiences. The first article I submitted was about 2400 words. They loved it, but they said it said it was too long. So, I did a rewrite. It came in at 1800 words. And the rewrite took more time and effort than writing the original 2400 words. And the article was diminished. And still too long. They wanted it shorter.

     

    At this point, I dug in my heels. I admitted I understood such constraints on paper publishing, but how could they insist on such constraints on web publishing? How much does is cost to add a web page to an article? It's just another page they could slather with advertising. To which they replied, no one will read an article longer than 1200 words. I was flabbergasted. I like long articles and books. I'm bummed when I come to the end. In the end, these folks had an editor hack it down to 1200 words and publish it over my signature without my knowledge or permission. When I saw the article, I was appalled. I didn't recognize it. And demanded they take it down.

     

    Maybe the publisher was right about his readers having short attention spans. I hope not, but I'm afraid it's true. And this mindset is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that few want to address.

     

    I'm not by any stretch suggesting we should turn back the clock of progress. Only that we need to be aware of the negative potential of any new technology. And resist that negative potential with all our hearts. Or our minds will suffer.

     

    FWIW.

     

    Peace,

    Lee

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:25 PM   in reply to arc fixer

    I'm guessing you don't tweet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,478 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:32 PM   in reply to Lundberg02

    What made you think Lee is a bird? 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 2:36 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    When people say "peace", it brings out my killer instinct.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 2:41 PM   in reply to Lundberg02

    Remember Buko and his one-liners? Once he accidentally typed three lines and was instantly renamed Bukowski...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 3:35 PM   in reply to Lundberg02

    Hi Lundberg.

     

    No, I don't tweet.  But I can chirp and sqwawk with the best of em.

     

    Sorry about the rant. I feel much better now.

     

    War,

    Lee

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 11:25 PM   in reply to arc fixer

    That's more like it, sensei.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 11:17 PM   in reply to arc fixer

    TLDR;)

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points