Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

InDesign CS6 resolution for pixel documents not the same

May 7, 2012 10:41 AM

Tags: #resolution #indesign #pixel #cs6

I have just opened in InDesign CS6, a document made originaly in CS5.5. This document is in pixels. At 100%, the document should be pixel for pixel with my monitor (iMac 27" at about 104 ppi), but it seems it is more at 100% if you calculate at 72 ppi. So a document of 980 pixel wide measure 13 inches on my screen! This is different from the previous way of showing pixel documents. And I can't see any preference that could bring back the resolution to the old way of showing the scaling.

In Adobe Acrobat, you have preferences to control this.

This count as a bug for me.

 
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 11:03 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    Same issue here.

     

    Just drew a 20px box at 100% in CS6, and it measures 31px on screen.... effectively making it useless for pixel-perfect screen design.

     

    id6.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 11:30 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    I'm not going to pretend to be able to explain why this is working the way it does, but it's the result of new code that queries your monitor for the ACTUAL resolution it is using and then displays a 100% view at a real 100% size, at least in theory. Apparently it doesn't work correctly in Windows 7, but it is supposed to be accurate on Mac, and there's a pretty good chance that if you spec a page in something other than pixels and hold up a ruler to the screen it will be pretty darn close.

     

    ID uses a 1:1 correspondence between points and pixels on the ruler, however, and as there are 72 points/inch that means you are designing at 72 ppi when you spec pixels, even though ther probably isn't a monitor on the planet outside of a museum these days that actually uses 72 ppi internally. if you divide your pixel dimension by 72, and hold up a rule to the screen, does your page measure correctly in inches?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 1:30 PM   in reply to Peter Spier

    This is obviously an embarassing omission on Adobe’s part, especially given the recent push for InDesign to be used as a web design tool. The problem was successfully solved in Acrobat, where "actual" user resolution can be set as a user preference. Even better would be for it to be document type relevant (ie default CS6 behavior for Print, 72dpi for Web).

     

    A quick and dirty trips from the smart minds at IDS allows us to keep working in the meantime:

    http://indesignsecrets.com/custom-zoommagnification-settings-in-indesi gn.php

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 1:54 PM   in reply to obsub

    OK, I found a two-line script that John Hawkinson wrote that will get you back the old display zoom factor at 100%:

     

    app.generalPreferences.customMonitorPpi = 72;
    app.generalPreferences.useCustomMonitorResolution = true;

     

     

    When you want to switch back again to accurate 100% view  run this:

     


    app.generalPreferences.useCustomMonitorResolution = false;

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 6:42 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    That worked for me. Thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 3:47 PM   in reply to jessebc

    This is truly, completely, insanely, incomprehensibly, and unfortunately, TYPICALLY Adobe. I wish with all my heart they didn't have a monopoly on creative tools the way they do. They are the Microsoft of Creative tools. Look at us, we have to do terminal style code changes to make a product look the way it should?! THIS IS CRAZY! Adobe is trying to enter the epublishing market with an app that give you the wrong pixel sizes on your screen? Ohhhhhhhhh/ Myyyyyyyyyyy. Woooooooooord! Adobe, ADOBE! Are you listening?! Stop it.

     

    If you are still reading. Let me offer a word of advice: We want the power of In Designs grid and guide creation, BUT can we have the simple, pathetically-normal-to-expect ability to have new objects snap to pixels?!!? I know this looks like a teenager wrote it, with excalmation marks, un restrained exasperation and ALL CAPS, but i'm just finished. I draw a square, the edges are fuzzy. I have to go to the inspector and nudge the 0.5 px off the square. Even then, it soemtimes doesnt do it. Can you image the scenario that MAYBE UI AND UX designers would like to have, oh I dunno, WYSIWYG!? I'm trying to figure out what is going on through your heads when you're designing a program with UI UX designers i mind, technally, it's being made by, oh i dunno... UI/UX designers?!? But the funny thing is, the adobe interface is beautiful. How on earth did you design that with blurry lines all over the place?

     

    Have you seen how type renders in Indesign at "Actual Pixels"?! Have you seen how the elegant forms of Helvetica Neue which we all know so well is output to look like it's done a bag of Ketamin? Shame on you. For reals, shame on you. These are things that your users NEEED. We need to see things as they will look. It's call attention to detail. It's like designing in the dark with you guys.

     

    Please dont tell me what a true pixel is. That is the most retarded thing i have ever heard, you will lose users in droves. Oh wait, where will they go to?! Nowhere! You are all they have! Nice one Adobe! But watch out you have pixelmator nipping at your feet. Soon your super overpriced stinking business model and your dicatative havent-got-a-clue, disrespectful to common sense ways will get you.

     

    ARE YOU LISTENING ADOBE? :-((((((((

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 3:56 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    Feeling better?

     

    For what it's worth, a large driver of the new behavior is the new Alternate Layout feature and the desire to be able to preview accurately how your layout will look on a variety of mobile devices (this is not part of my workflow, so I'm not really fluent in the finer points). Web users, like long document folks, didn't necessarily get a lot of love in this version.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 3:57 PM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    +1 for snap to pixels! Just sent that in as a feature request today.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:05 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    I don't suppose it is a lot of help, but the problem here is that InDesign does not know what a pixel is.

     

    Yes, yes, it says that it does and it offers pixels as a unit, but it is a bald-faced lie.

    Internally, when you say "pixel," InDesign treats that as 1/72 of an inch, or 1 point.

    And later, when you export to something where pixels are the units, it converts points to pixels.

     

    As a result, it has no idea how many physical screen pixels should really be displayed for every "pixel."

     

    This is, of course, a legacy of the InDesign's history. It was designed for print work, where no one would design to a pixel, and in fact, where if you are trying to design at the pixel level, you are almost certainly doing something wrong.

     

    This new feature, in CS6, of 100% View being actual size, was viewed as a boon to CS6 users. And indeed, for many of us, it is. But unfortunately, it does change the question of whether there is a 1-point-in-your-document to 1-pixel-on-your-screen relationship. It's fairly difficult to have both.

     

    I'm sure in the future, InDesign's treatment of pixels will improve, and it will grow a real understanding of them. It seems inevitable in the digital publishing world, but a lot of ID's internals would have to change.

     

    But fortunately enough, you can turn back display to 72ppi, and restore the legacy behavior. There may be cleverer solutions, as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:09 PM   in reply to jessebc

    At Peter Spier and at jessebc, I'm not, I'm truly exasperated about this.

    I was so excited to see InDesign CS6 promoting all these enhancements and features for ePublishing and digital. But i was thinking: "OK, they seem to realize the power of InDesign as a rapid prototyping, even design tool for digital! Surely if they have created all these new features, they'd have finally realized that it actually quite literally IMPOSSIBLE to even draw an object without it being hairy/fuzzy/not WYSIWYG? Surely?!"

     

    Nope. I draw an object, it's hairy. Fuzzy. Blurred.

    But now, Adobe has been so kind as to now throw another spanner in the works.

     

    Seriously, Adobe, please listen. I BEG you:

    I'm on a 1440x900px Mac book pro. I'm designing a site at a safe 1280x800px.

    I need to see things as they are!!

    Now, not only are the objects i create still blurry and fuzzy. I now cannot see my layout as i would in illustrator, fireworks and photoshop!

    Or Chrome. Or Firefox. Or Safari.

    Who makes these insane decisions?

    I've used Adobe products for 16 years. I know what's up. I'm a power user of your products. I can tell you I'm speaking for the majority of people here. This is a bad move.

     

    One more thing: Hoenstly, how hard can it be for you to just have object sit correctly on pixels when the user creates them?

    You obviosuly undersatnd the importance of this since you implemented so well in PhotoShop. You implemented it in Ilustrator, but terribly, it displays differently at actual pixels then it does when you zoom in (again, incredibly slack of you). Fireworks does it. Why not Indesign.

     

    I give up.

     

     


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:15 PM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    Hi John, that's pretty good to explain why Indesign is so hopeless. But it does smack of dishonesty that they'd even consider doing that.

    About the pixel perfect "snap to pixel" issue, I wonder if they couldnt just hack it somehow, quite literally. I have an idea for this:

    If you view objects in Fast Perfromace display settings, all aliasing of object paramters are pixel perfect. If there was a way that one could choose which object type to alias, and which to keep smooth, it would fix the entire problem. This view state would have to extend to when a user saves for web, and it's problem solved.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:16 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    Seriously, Adobe, please listen. I BEG you:

    I'm on a 1440x900px Mac book pro. I'm designing a site at a safe 1280x800px.

    I need to see things as they are!!

    Now, not only are the objects i create still blurry and fuzzy. I now cannot see my layout as i would in illustrator, fireworks and photoshop!

    Or Chrome. Or Firefox. Or Safari.

    Who makes these insane decisions?

    I've used Adobe products for 16 years. I know what's up. I'm a power user of your products. I can tell you I'm speaking for the majority of people here. This is a bad move.

    I give up.

    I know you couldn't have read my post before you wrote this, but let me say it again:

     

    InDesign is not a tool that is designed for web design. If you're using it for web design, that's fine, but you are a minority interest (not majority), and not what ID is really architected for. That doesn't mean it's not an effective tool, and it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to use it, or that it is isn't evolving to work for those purposes. But it's not how it is architected, and that means that its implementors make make some decisions that don't work well for web design.

     

    That's what happened here. What was fixed was really a bug in the program -- that it assumed monitors were 72ppi when in fact they weren't.

    But one of the consequences of that bug was that "pixels" in InDesign mapped 1:1 to pixels on the screen.

    And so when one bug was fixed, another was introduced.

    But only for those who use InDesign's pixel feature.

    Which is decidely not everyone.

    Which is doubtless why this was either unnoticed or at least, under-appreciated.

     

    Fortunately, you have a workaround.

    And there may be more elegant workarounds available soon; mine was really very simple, and there are fancier choices. But I'll let others speak to those right now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:23 PM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    Hi John, I'm in the Scripts panel, i see a bunch of samples, and a User folder, but for the life of me, cant find an icon or a link for creating a new script? Could you let me know where thats done? Thanks. And pareciate the explantion. it does make sense.

    I think Adobe are being shortsited. Google: Indesign rapid prototyping UI UX wireframes etc and you'll see their is a swelling of interst in the application for digital. Obviosuly it's a print focussed thing. But it could also be because of the fact that they arent taking these crucial things into consideration. I know firsthand, many of my colleagues have expressed the same issue with indeisgn as i have, so stick to photoshop and fireworks. these are great apps but with HTML5 and the immense power we now have for typography and almost print style design on the web, indesign makes more and more sense. I really hope they listen and take note. They're missing an opportunity here.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:34 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    therealrgbk wrote:

    I'm in the Scripts panel, i see a bunch of samples, and a User folder, but for the life of me, cant find an icon or a link for creating a new script? Could you let me know where thats done?

    See if this helps: How to install scripts in InDesign | InDesignSecrets

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 4:58 PM   in reply to Peter Spier

    What I find are more helpful instructions are to save the 2 lines as a plain text file (say, "72ppi.jsx" using notepad or textedit), and then follow http://www.danrodney.com/scripts/directions-installingscripts.html. But both set of instructions work fine.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 5:02 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    I think Adobe are being shortsighted. Google: Indesign rapid prototyping UI UX wireframes etc and you'll see their is a swelling of interst in the application for digital. Obviosuly it's a print focussed thing. But it could also be because of the fact that they arent taking these crucial things into consideration.

    I think it's definitely the case that the ID team is well aware of the digital future of things, and to the extent that this problem is causing trouble for non-print users, it is inadvertant and was undetected by them. So I think "shortsighted" doesn't really describe it. Maybe oblivious, but I think they really are investing a lot of effort into features that relate to this kind of thing. I guess "oversight" is maybe a better word.

     

    Also, are you familiar with Adobe Muse? http://www.adobe.com/products/muse.html

    Is it intended to be a more InDesign-like tool for producing websites.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 6:03 PM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    The marketing for InDesign CS6 is pretty ironic.

     

    Screen Shot 2012-05-08 at 8.16.04 PM.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 6:07 PM   in reply to jessebc

    Oh.

    My.

    God.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 4:36 AM   in reply to jessebc

    I guess that depends on the definition of "pixel-perfect." The new features in CS6 are all about tablets and phones, not web browsers on a monitor.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 4:55 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    I dont agree, iphone and ipads are even more high resolution then screens. There would be even a greater disconnect if you were designing for iOS. It's laughable. Thank god i didnt buy the app. I won't. I'll continue plodding along with photoshop wishing i had the features of indesign, using their broken Layer Comps system.

    It's funny with the 5 big Adobe apps, they are all *this* close to being great, but they just turn out shooting themselves in the foot. I just expect better.

    Regarding the blurry edges, all they have to do is have a Anti-Alias toggle switch in the "Display Performance" preference panel for *both* type and object. I turn anti-alias off in prefs, i get pixel perfect objects and lines, but then the type is pixelated.

    Maybe there is a way we can script that with the script that John provided? Wouldnt that be sweet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 5:39 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Even when working on Tablets and Phones you still need to view 1px at 1px. I can *maybe* see an option for retina type displays that would double the pixel count effectively allowing you to design at 50%... but for everything else... we need crisp pixels to make things look sharp.

     

    I suppose it doesn't matter too much for magazines where the user wouldn't expect things to be displayed crisply.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2012 6:46 PM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    DEAL BREAKER!

     

    But wait... It gets worse... Has anyone noticed this;

     

    In the InDesign CS6 preferences you can no longer set text or strokes using a pixel value. It has to be pt or millimetres. Am I missing something? Is this a Joke? Has some disgruntled Adobe employee replaced the InDesign CS6 download with QuarkXpress?

     

    Adobe, you've renderd this software totally useless to anyone who wants to design for screen.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2012 6:54 PM   in reply to Spen

    Yeah since last time i posted, I've stopped using In Design. I'm now trying Illustrator. It's painful. Like Snap to Grid only works if you draw, move by keyboard, or resize by drage the boundaries of objects. But the reality is you need to soemtimes just click the object and move it around by Mouse. But for some stunningly awesome reason, Illustrator does not snap to grid in this case. So the entire experience is basically runined.

    In a nutshell it's the same with all CS products. They are all ALMOST ok, in the end, all of them have what you need, but not in the same app. It drives me NUTS. I'm an, experienced, multiple Webby winning UI designer. I KNOW WHAT I"M TALKING ABOUT: Adobe, please listen up and fix these detials, they mean everything to our creative process and efficiency! Why is everything in your prodcuts executed in half measures. Half amazing, half absolute bull crap. And the stuff that brings the experience down for your users are SO easily fixed. If you'd just listen to us.

     

    One word: Monopoly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2012 7:20 PM   in reply to therealrgbk

    I hear you.

     

    After weeks of testing InDesign as a viable UI desgin tool it looks like I'll have to go back to my old friend Photoshop (the image editing program). After this episode I'm not looking forward to discovering its "new features".

     

    What a headache. And we pay for the privilege.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 2:01 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    Perhaps the "screen design" contingent needs more representation in the pre-release community.

     

    https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=prerelease_interes t

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 2:05 AM   in reply to Spen

    Spen wrote:

     

    DEAL BREAKER!

     

    But wait... It gets worse... Has anyone noticed this;

     

    In the InDesign CS6 preferences you can no longer set text or strokes using a pixel value. It has to be pt or millimetres. Am I missing something? Is this a Joke? Has some disgruntled Adobe employee replaced the InDesign CS6 download with QuarkXpress?

     

    Adobe, you've renderd this software totally useless to anyone who wants to design for screen.

    If you read my very first response in this thread you'll have noticed that I mentioned ID uses a 1:1 correspondence between points and pixels. Set your prefs for Points.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 4:13 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Hey Peter, you seem to be pretty embedded with the Adobe community and knowledgable about their policies, maybe you could recommend how Screen designers can get their voices heard? I know i've been having a tanturm on this thread and letting off steam, but ultimately i'd love to express my concerns in a effective manner as directly (and diplomatically, hah) as possible. It just seems so silly, they need help! Maybe they don't know any actual Screen Designers.

    Whether this is "An open Letter to Adobe from Screen Designer everywhere" in an influential blog, or another part of the Adobe site (it's massive). What do you think?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 4:18 AM   in reply to therealrgbk

    The very best way you can influence the future of InDesign is to fill out that form and join the pre-release team as a beta tester.

     

    Here's the link, again: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=prerelease_interes t

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 4:20 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    For some reason Jive is adding a space between the s and t in interest at the end of the link. It works fine from the web page, but it might be a problem if you are cutting and pasting from an email...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 4:33 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Just use http://adobe.com/go/beta. Short and simple :)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 5:40 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    I agree Peter, the screen design contingent does need more representation as Adobe clearly do not get it.

     

    Yes I did read your first post regarding the ID 1:1 ratio. This is all well and good but my questions still remain. Why can I no longer specify text and strokes using pixels? and why can I no longer preview my files as they will appear in a browser. These features were available in CS5 they are now gone. Why?

     

    I can only asume that Adobe are no longer focusing on InDesign as a UI design tool although they clearly state "InDesign gives you pixel-perfect control over design and typography". How they can say this and at the same time remove the ability to set type in pixels is beyond me.

     

    I just wish Adobe would stop misleading customers by giving us incorrect and or incomplete product information.

     

    At the end of the day it's my own fault for not downloading the trial.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 5:48 AM   in reply to Spen

    Spen wrote:

     

    I can only asume that Adobe are no longer focusing on InDesign as UI design tool although they clearly state "InDesign gives you pixel-perfect control over design and typography". How they can say this and at the same time remove the ability to set type in pixels is beyond me.

     

    First, as far as I know, Adobe has NEVER touted ID as a UI design tool. It is, first and formost, a page layout application for PRINT, and in the current generation, due to customer demand, the cpabilities are expanded in the area of ooutput for mobil devices. There was insufficient time to do everything that everyone wanted, as is always the case, and export for ordinary web browsers got short shrift, as basically any of the long overdue features that those of us in the print world have been begging for for at least 4 versions. I expect that better browser support will be forthcoming.

     

     

    Yes I did read your first post regarding the ID 1:1 ratio. This is all well and good but my questions still remain. Why can I no longer specify text and strokes using pixels?

     

    Perhaps you didn't understand what I was telling you then. If you specify points you get EXACTLY the same thing as if you were specifying pixels. In ID they are just different names for the same units. You are free to use whatever programs you like. I don't work for Adobe, and I don't care what you decide, but I think it would be a shame if you decide that InDesign CS6 cannot do anything for you because of that minor change. I'm a print guy, and I have no real interest in the interactive parts of the program, so I can't offer any concrete advice or solutions beyond what's already here (using the custom resolution feature mentioned above and spec'ing points should give you the same appearance you had in CS5), but I firmly believe that CS6 has a lot to offer for users like you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 5:57 AM   in reply to Spen

    Spen wrote:

    Yes I did read your first post regarding the ID 1:1 ratio. This is all well and good but my questions still remain. Why can I no longer specify text and strokes using pixels? and why can I no longer preview my files as they will appear in a browser. These features were available in CS5 they are now gone. Why?

    Your comment confuses me.

     

    Did you mean to say that you can no longer configure ID to display the units of text and strokes as pixels?

     

    This is not the same as you can no longer specify text and strokes as pixels.

     

    So:

    • Ability to display fonts/strokes in pixels rather than points is a purely cosmetic feature. Internally, ID treats points and pixels precisely the same.
    • Since it is cosmetic, and the calculation from points to pixels is really easy (the same number!), could you help us understand what your actual concern is?
    • If you really want, you can still type in "12 px" in the field.
    • I was under the vague impression that when you created a document with Web or a Digital intent, then the displayed unit would be pixels instead of points. That doesn't seem to be the case -- my guess is it's a screwup.
    • If indeed it was supposed to be automatic, I suspect that's why the preference was removed.

     

    (Incidently, in case anyone in the wings was wondering, while the scripting API did let you set this value in CS5.5, with app.viewPreferences.textSizeMeasurementUnits=MeasurementUnits.PIXELS; that doesn't seem to work in CS6, it generates an error: "Error: textSizeMeasurementUnits")...

     

    To reiterate, I think this is probably a screwup in CS6 relating to a disconnect between what was actually implemented (removing the preference) and what was planned (automatic unit display), and not an intentional removal of the ability to show pixels. And yet, I don't understand why it really matters. Is it a warm-fuzzy feeling that you're seeking?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 6:44 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Peter Spier wrote:

     

    First, as far as I know, Adobe has NEVER touted ID as a UI design tool. It is, first and formost, a page layout application for PRINT, and in the current generation, due to customer demand, the cpabilities are expanded in the area of ooutput for mobil devices. There was insufficient time to do everything that everyone wanted, as is always the case, and export for ordinary web browsers got short shrift, as basically any of the long overdue features that those of us in the print world have been begging for for at least 4 versions. I expect that better browser support will be forthcoming.

     

    Yikes! Not sure Adobe would agree with your comment there mate. Are you aware of the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite? (which is excellent by the way)

     

    Perhaps you didn't understand what I was telling you then. If you specify points you get EXACTLY the same thing as if you were specifying pixels. In ID they are just different names for the same units.

     

    I understand exatly what you are saying 1pt = 1px. Simple! It's not a big a deal. I'm just curious to know why Adobe decided to do this.

     

    I think it would be a shame if you decide that InDesign CS6 cannot do anything for you because of that minor change. I'm a print guy, and I have no real interest in the interactive parts of the program, so I can't offer any concrete advice or solutions beyond what's already here (using the custom resolution feature mentioned above and spec'ing points should give you the same appearance you had in CS5), but I firmly believe that CS6 has a lot to offer for users like you.

     

    There is no question that InDesign is a great tool. It's full of amazing features and the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite is a game changer. I'd love to continue using ID for interface design. However I can assure you, not being able to preview files exactly as they will display in a browser is a MASSIVE issue. It renders InDesign totally useless for screen design. This isn't just my opinion it's a fact.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 6:52 AM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    Nope. Just curious to know why. That's all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 7:15 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    The problem with that Sylvian is that you then have hairy, fuzzy blurry icky and NON pixel perfect working environment. It's exaclty the opposite of pixel perfect.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Rob Day
    3,123 posts
    Oct 16, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 7:45 AM   in reply to Peter Spier
    app.generalPreferences.customMonitorPpi = 72;
    app.generalPreferences.useCustomMonitorResolution = true;

     

     

    Peter, the script you posted above apparently works for jessebc. Is this a case where there's a preference hook available via scripting, that's not in the GUI (haven't installed CS6 yet)? I have to agree  this seems like a major problem. If the solution exists in the scripting dictionary it  sounds like the preference got left out and someone needs to put it back in.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 7:44 AM   in reply to SylvainLemire

    The only solution, and this has probably been designed that way by Adobe, is to simply double-click on the magnification glass in the palette.

    In previous version, double-clicking the magnification glass would get you to a 100% view. Now, it gives me 66.7% wich is exaclty the magnification needed to bring my 108 dpi (imac 27") monitor to the equivalent fo 72 dpi (or ppi).

    I don't think that's as-designed, I think that's a failure to update part of the code.

     

    But please read this thread in entirety, with attention to Peter Spier's post from May 7, 2012 4:54 PM. He provides a script that will reset InDesign's monitor DPI calculation. It's a persistent setting, so you run the script once and that's it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 Previous Next
Actions

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