Skip navigation
RSD_88
Currently Being Moderated

Illustrator not exporting at correct pixel size...

Oct 4, 2011 2:05 AM

Tags: #illustrator #cs5 #size #artboards

Hi, im having trouble setting up an illustrator doc that exports at the correct size so i can work with exported elements in photoshop, using CS5 for both.

 

What i am trying to do is set up a wireframe illustrator doc for creating iphone 4 artwork, the iphone4 screen size is 640px x 960px (326ppi).

 

So, i have set illustrator to measure units (general, stroke & type) in pixels, then created an artboard 640 x 960. If i draw a shape to fill the artboard then export it, the exported image is 2892px x 4348px

 

Similarly, if i create an image in photoshop thats 640px x 960px, then open that image with illustrator, the artboard thats created for it is 141.35px x 212.025px

 

Can anyone suggest what might be causing this? and how i can correct it so that my pixel measurements match in both programs?

 

thanks

Richard

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 2:33 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    In order to export that in the correct pixel size, you have to export it at 72 ppi

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 2:42 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    Richard,

     

    The issue is your somehow using the resolution 326 PPI. Stop doing that.

     

    A pixel is a relative size; the size in absolute units such as inches, millimeters, or points, depends on the resolution. You may have a 1 x 1 pixel image the size of a football field, and a 1000 x 1000 px image the size of a stamp.

     

    In other words, when you have an image with a size in pixel x pixel, that and that alone is your image size in the file, which may then become any size on any of the possible chosen media.

     

    You may use Save for Web & Devices for a task like this, using the Artboard or the Image Size window to set the size in px x px.

     

    Edit: Hi Monika.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 5:20 AM   in reply to Jacob Bugge

    Jacob Bugge wrote:

     

    A pixel is a relative size; the size in absolute units such as inches, millimeters, or points, depends on the resolution.

     

    Pixels are not a 'relative size'! If I create a 100 x 100 pixels image and send it to someone else, he will also see it as a 100 x 100 pixel image.

     

    It's only because Adobe chose to elevate the "pixel" to have the same status as the millimeter and the pica point that users continue to have this sort of problems. Is it possible to suggest to have a feature removed in a newer version?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 6:26 AM   in reply to [Jongware]

    [Jongware] wrote:

     

    Jacob Bugge wrote:

     

    A pixel is a relative size...

     

    Pixels are not a 'relative size'! If I create a 100 x 100 pixels image and send it to someone else, he will also see it as a 100 x 100 pixel image.....

    The size of  pixels IS relative, your example is not about the size but the number of pixels. If someone gets your image with 100 x 100 pixels and view it at a different zoom level, the pixels and thus the image will be displayed with different size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 6:31 AM   in reply to [Jongware]

    Theunis,

     

    You may also say that pixel is the absolute unit, and that foot, inch (and thereby point), and so on, are relative measures. My first carpenter's rule had two different sets of inches, one on either side.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 6:41 AM   in reply to Jacob Bugge

    Jacob Bugge wrote:

     

    Theunis,

     

    You may also say that pixel is the absolute unit, and that foot, inch (and thereby point), and so on, are relative measures.

    This will be very counterproductive, imagine the scale of a map is the absolute unit and the miles and kilometers relative to the scale. When you display absolute units like inches and centimeters with different zoom level everyone knows what they represent, but with pixels you don't until the space they occupy in absolute units is also included in the information.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 7:06 AM   in reply to Jacob Bugge

    My first carpenter's rule had two different sets of inches, one on either side.

    Mine still does :-) Much more convenient for carpentering. 12 is a much better number than 10 if you need to divide things by 2, 3, 4 or 6. But I still have a hard time pusuading my Icelandic colleagues that this is so. How I wish we were all born with 12 fingers :-)

     

    Back to topic:

    A pixel can be as big or small as you like – it's just a square of colour. You can only tell how big it is by saying how many of them fit into an inch. Or into a centimetre. Or into a pica. It's just that Auntie Illie assumes (wrongly) that there are 12 pixels in a pica or that the width of 1 pixel is the same as 1 point. You have to have a fixed unit of measure to start with, before you can say how big your pixels are.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 7:25 AM   in reply to Steve Fairbairn

    steve fairbairn wrote:

     

    ... It's just that Auntie Illie assumes (wrongly) that there are 12 pixels in a pica or that the width of 1 pixel is the same as 1 point. You have to have a fixed unit of measure to start with, before you can say how big your pixels are.

    Auntie Illie was correct in early 90s when all monitors on the market were with a fixed resolution of 72 pixels per inch. The problem is that auntie still lives in that time and can't see that it is 2011 now.

    Photoshop has a feature in its preferences where you can type the pixel per inch of your monitor and using this it can show you the size of a real life ruler when you choose View > Print Size. The supposed equivalent in Illustrator View > Actual Size shows you the size of a real life ruler on a monitor purchased in early 90s. If you don't have such monitor this feature is useless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 12:46 PM   in reply to Steve Fairbairn

    Steve,

     

    Mine still does

     

    I presume one is the Imperial inch; which is the other?

     

    12 is a much better number than 10 if you need to divide things by 2, 3, 4 or 6.

     

    Indeed. Some 150 years ago, the Swedes decided that it was too uncomplicated to use the shorter Swedish inch (smaller feet, apparently) along with the Imperial one, so they added a decimal inch (1/10 of a Swedish foot). Some 30 years later they added metric units to the mess.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2011 3:34 PM   in reply to Jacob Bugge

    I presume one is the Imperial inch; which is the other?

    I'm really not sure, but it says Mellosa Sweden stamped into one end. It's an old steel folding rule that used to belong to my wife's grandfather who was a carpenter (or húsasmiður = house-smith as they are called here). It's got imperial inches on one side and inches and centimetres on each edge of the other. It was some time until I discovered that the inches were not quite normal on the centimetre side. They are just a tiny bit longer than the imperial ones, so if what you say is right they can't be Swedish – maybe they're Danish, which would make sense for Iceland. I have stuck a piece of red insulating tape onto the side with the offbeat inches so that I don't use them by mistake.

    But it's a handy gadget all the same and folds at 6 inch intervals, so it fits better into the pocket than the ones you get in the shops today.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 5:31 AM   in reply to Steve Fairbairn

    They are just a tiny bit longer than the imperial ones, so if what you say is right they can't be Swedish – maybe they're Danish, which would make sense for Iceland.

     

    When the Icelanders arrived in about 800, they brought the inches from the old homeland(s). And being far enough away from Kalmar, they had no need to specify which kind, as had the Danes and Norwegians; DANSK and NORSK are (still) stamped in the middle of the first and second inch.

     

    You should be able to see that 13 of them correspond to 34 cm, 13 of those on the other side correspond to 33 cm, and 34 correspond to 35 on the other side.

     

    By the way, the gradual conversion to metric units has (almost) entirely spoiled the wooden folding rule design: when placed flat on the surface, the original unit, namely (Danish/Norwegian/Icelandic) inches were shown in the right way, starting at the end  in contact (showing the highest numbers when folded), and the additional unit(s), namely the Imperial inches/centimetres started at the same end (showing the lowest numbers when folded), thereby being off contact and harder to use.

     

    When the (Danish/Norwegian/Icelandic) inches were replaced by centimetres on the original contact face, someone decided that it would be convenient to have the two (identical) scales start at opposite ends, which it was, only this someone had become so used to centimetres starting off contact with the surface, so both became shown in the wrong way and harder to use.

     

    That is, apart from the one and only (Swedish) CONTACT-METER, which folds at 20 cm (Swedish style 2m/10 parts as opposed to Danish/Norwegian style 2m/12 parts).

     

    The Danish/Norwegian(/Icelandic) inch and centimetre rule is still available (2m/12 parts), still with the inch scale shown correctly.

     

    I prefer the Swedish style, 2m/10 parts, as it is thinner and easier to grab from a ruler pocket.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 8:52 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    Should be sufficient to have the correct number of pixels. But of course you can use Photoshop or any other image editing software to reset the resolution. This won't change anything in the image

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 9:52 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    If you want to place pixel images at screen resolution, also use 72 ppi. Forget about those threehundredsomething in Illustrator.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 10:28 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    326 ppi only tells you how many pixels are there in an Inch. So if your iPhone's screen is about 3 Inches long and can display 960 pixels, then there must be 326 pixels in an Inch. Just forget about this 326 please and use 72 ppi in Illustrator.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 2:28 PM   in reply to RSD_88

    Richard,

     

    Facing the danger of repeating myself:

     

    When you have an image with a size in pixel x pixel, that and that alone is your image size in the file, which may then become any size on any of the possible chosen media.

     

    You may have a 1 x 1 pixel image the size of a football field, and a 1000 x 1000 pixel image the size of a stamp.

     

    You may use Save for Web & Devices for a task like this, using the Artboard or the Image Size window to set the size in px x px.

     

    Or set the Artboard to the image size and File>Export at 72 PPI as Monika says.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2012 8:18 PM   in reply to RSD_88

    Pretty easy fix. Seams as though everyone above hasn't got a clue....especially the idiots rampling on about the Swedes...Danes...etc..

     

    Here is your answer.  Set your canvas to 960 px tall by 600 px wide (960x600). Ok, now go to "Effect" in the menu bar. Then choose "Document Raster Effect Settings".  Under "Resolution" choose "Other" and set your resolution to 326ppi.  You are done.

     

    A simple explanation for pixels and resolution can be summed up into one phrase "pixel density". A pixel is not a standard unit of measure. A device like the iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326 ppi (pixels per inch). That is not the standard display resolution of most computers and devices which until recent years was 72 ppi. A device with 326 ppi and one with 72 ppi both with display dimensions of 900px by 600px will have one major difference. That difference is clarity due to more pixels in a square inch. Which is obviously seen when you compare an iPhone 3G to a iPhone 4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 5, 2012 1:58 AM   in reply to joshuapekera

    Hi justjoshuasp and welcome to the forum,

     

    First, did you register to the Adobe forums just to respond to this 7 months old thread?

     

    Second, ...

    justjoshuasp wrote:

     

    Pretty easy fix. Seams as though everyone above hasn't got a clue....especially the idiots rampling on about the Swedes...Danes...etc..

    ...

    what did you drink before your wrote that ?

     

    Third, what do you expect to happen when changing the "Document Raster Effect Settings". The OP didn't mention  anything about using raster effects and unless such effects are used these settings will make no difference. 

     

    Forth, while your statement about higher ppi adding more clarity is correct, have in mind that this is valid mostly when comparing the same size with different pixel density, otherwise your general conclusions and logic is wrong. The major difference between different pixel densities is not clarity but the size of the pixels and thus the size of the final image - the clarity is  by-product of this. In order to define clarity you have to add the viewing distance in the equation. I have created images for billboards and huge digital murals with pixel density of 10 ppi and I can assure you that all images with such sizes are created with similar pixel density. According to your logic they should be completely unclear and impossible to see comparing to images displayed on i-phones.

     

    When creating for phones and other small displays, in order to see exact details of the final raster image with nothing less or more, the vector graphic in illustrator has to be zoomed to the same physical size on your screen that Photoshop is displaying at 100% zoom using an image with the final pixel dimensions. it is also a good idea to have the image on an additional window zoomed out to the real physical size of the phone screen to get the feel of the final physical dimensions. But because desktop monitors don't have the high pixel density of the phones, the detail will be lost when displaying the real size. Moving a little bit away from the screen to Increase the viewing distance when looking at the larger image with all details in it, can very well approximate the final experience.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 5, 2012 3:25 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    The Correct Pixel Size thread lives.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 5, 2012 5:59 AM   in reply to RSD_88

    This whole thread could be avoided if when you set an Illustrator document to pixels, an export option of "output pixels 1:1" would appear instead of the (soon to be obsolete) "screen 72 ppi" option.

     

    (It also could have been avoided if people learn the difference (of worlds) between pixels, points and inches.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 5, 2012 8:25 AM   in reply to eobet

    eobet wrote:

     

    This whole thread could be avoided if when you set an Illustrator document to pixels, an export option of "output pixels 1:1" would appear instead of the (soon to be obsolete) "screen 72 ppi" option....

    Please, define what do you mean by "output pixels 1:1" or just simply say what will be the new number replacing  the 72 ppi.

     
    |
    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