-
1. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 9, 2011 2:53 PM (in response to Canned Pug)I don't know how big you've made it, but I'd say the new preview is probably pretty accurate. Select it and check the info panel to see the effective resolution.
-
-
3. Re: What are we looking at here?
Scott Falkner Feb 9, 2011 3:14 PM (in response to Canned Pug)In each screen grab the image has been scaled to a different size. The larger you make an image, the larger you make the pixels that define that image, and thus the fewer pixels you can fit into an inch at that size (what InDesign calls “effective ppi”). A 300 ppi (Pixel Per Inch) image at 100% prints at 300 ppi. Scaled to 360% the pixels are bigger, so the output resolution become 83 ppi.
-
4. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 9, 2011 3:32 PM (in response to Scott Falkner)In general terms I can understand this, but why is there such a difference between the two big images, as the only difference is because the last one has been viewed in soft-proof..otherwise it's the same images, same size.
-
5. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 9, 2011 4:12 PM (in response to Canned Pug)The info panel says they are differnt sizes...
-
6. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 9, 2011 4:32 PM (in response to P Spier)essentially that's true, but even if I make it bigger it's still looks
better.
-
7. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 9, 2011 4:36 PM (in response to Canned Pug)I'm not sure what you mean here. Bottom line, though is 83 ppi is not enough for print.
-
8. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 9, 2011 4:49 PM (in response to P Spier)....hate to beat a dead horse, and I understand, by rote if anything else, that printing needs a good 300dpi.
But because I'm still learning about all this, I'm not understanding why it wouldn't print close to what I'm seeing? Why are the two images so different visually but essentially the same size?
Does it have to do with the interfaces between software and monitor, or the fact that the file isn't embedded?
(My questions concern more what I'm viewing, looking at).
thanks...
-
9. Re: What are we looking at here?
Joel Cherney Feb 9, 2011 4:52 PM (in response to Canned Pug)I think that what you mean is "the one on the right looks like it is at an obscenely low resolution." Could it be that the view settings you're using are showing you only the low-res preview you get when you choose View -> Display Performance -> Typical? (It's also possibe for the whole document to be in High Quality display performance, but for one image to be displaying in Typical because you can right-click on an image and tell it to either obey the document-wide display performance settings, or for the one image to have its own display performance settings.) Try right-clicking on the low-res image and telling it to use High Quality and see if that gives you what you expect.
-
10. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 9, 2011 5:13 PM (in response to Joel Cherney)thanks for your input...I feel this is sort of connected to what I was
talking about except for the image below...
It doesn't seem to matter if an image is "chosen" or not,- in the
display settings, it doesn't matter if you "allow" or "clear" object-
levels display settings; It seems if you chose a setting, it is
global...affecting the whole file.
This is the image if I put it on Typical, everything is of lower
quality, as to be expected.....so the image on the right has been
changed somehow when I viewed it in soft-proof mode earlier, (these 3
images are just duplicates of one another)... but when I went to view
all this again in the soft-proof mode, it didn't pixelate as before!
This isn't the first time this has happened so I don't think it's a
corrupted file. Ack!
-
-
12. Re: What are we looking at here?
Joel Cherney Feb 9, 2011 5:53 PM (in response to Canned Pug)It doesn't seem to matter if an image is "chosen" or not,- in the display settings, it doesn't matter if you "allow" or "clear" object-
levels display settings; It seems if you chose a setting, it is global...affecting the whole file.
Yes, unless you right-click on an image and go to Display Performance in the context menu and choose something that is not "Use View Setting." I don't think that is what has happened here, but it's one possibility (out of many) that can cause a low-res preview to be displayed instead of the actual image.
This isn't the first time this has happened so I don't think it's a corrupted file. Ack!
It could be corrupt InDesign preferences... this is also unlikely, but another possibility. It could also be a corrupt file, which you could check by exporting INX or IDML and re-opening the exported file in the same version of ID from which you exported it. There are how-tos posted for both possibilities (replacing corrupt preferences, exporting & re-importing a corrupt file) at the top of the ID forum page.
...so the image on the right has been changed somehow when I viewed it in soft-proof mode earlier, (these 3images are just duplicates of one another)...
um, maybe. You say they're duplicates? Did you place the same image three times, or did you place once & copy/paste the other two, or did you paste one image in three times? I have just played around with Proof Colors and read its entry in the help file, and I see no reason why using it should change the display resolution of the images. My guess is that your use of Proof Colors is a red herring, and that the third image is breaking for reasons completely unconnected to soft-proofing. It's just a guess, though.
Can you package & post the file? Analysing the file and telling you what is wrong will be about 50,000x times faster than asking you about your file and trying to figure out what is wrong with it from your responses.
-
13. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 9, 2011 6:07 PM (in response to Joel Cherney)Yes, those are good questions..I "placed" the file 3 different times,
but am getting tangled at this point.
Let me think about posting whole file or not. More tomorrow as I'm
just closing down now.
Thank you for your help. More later.
mz
-
14. Re: What are we looking at here?
Eugene Tyson Feb 10, 2011 1:56 AM (in response to Canned Pug)Your image hasn't got enough resolution.
The effective PPI is only 83 ppi when scaled up.
In your first small placed image that's the actual size placed at 100% therefore it's 300 ppi.
When you made it bigger in InDesign it effectively decreased the amount of ppi - you scaled the image by 361.4% meaning it only has 83 pixels per inch.
What would happen if you walked into a room that had 9 tiles on the floor. And someone asked you take those 9 tiles and tile the floor of a much larger room?
You'd put a tile in each corner, in the middle of each tile, and in the center of the floor - leaving gaps between the tiles.
That's what happened your image - you made it bigger, the programme hasn't got other pixels to put inbetween the other pixels so it has to make up the information (called interpolation) and that's why the image looks the way it does.
-
15. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 10, 2011 5:51 PM (in response to Eugene Tyson)Thank you for the great analogy. I think I'm pixel-challenged!
...from micki's iPhone
-
16. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 11, 2011 6:29 AM (in response to Canned Pug)I think a better analogy is what happens when you blow up a balloon with something printed on it. When you enlarge the image, in ID you don't add pixels, and you don't put space between them, they just keep getting larger, to the point where individual pixels are clearly visible. In Eugene's analogy this would be like taking a rolling pin and stretching each of the nine tiles until they filled the larger room without any gaps between.
-
17. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 8:42 AM (in response to Eugene Tyson)ok since I have to use this photo, I'm going to scale up to 300 and
sharpen. Not the best but need it large. Not looking for Mapplethorpe
quality.
-
18. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 11, 2011 8:50 AM (in response to Canned Pug)Sharpening will accentuate any upsampling artifacts, so be careful.
-
19. Re: What are we looking at here?
Eugene Tyson Feb 11, 2011 9:16 AM (in response to P Spier)Bottom line is if you don't have enough PPI in the Effective PPI when viewed in inDesign then the image is going to be blurry.
Interpolation does add pixels, but that's in upsampling (going from 72 ppi to 300 ppi without changing physical dimensions) - not sure if the same term is used for going from 300 ppi and making the image bigger therefore having less pixels per inch? Is it the same process? It escapes me at the moment - it's nearly 10 years since I read anything on this
-
20. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 9:36 AM (in response to P Spier)ok thanks...any other suggestions? Just want to be able to see as closely as poss how it's going to print, but I guess this isn't poss.
m
-
21. Re: What are we looking at here?
rob day Feb 11, 2011 9:36 AM (in response to Canned Pug)In some cases a plugin like Genuine Fractals will do a marginally better job upsampling than PS—instead of blurred edges you get a facetted look.
-
22. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 10:27 AM (in response to rob day)better than a Smart Sharpen in PS?
-
23. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 10:29 AM (in response to P Spier)So does this mean to make sure I resample, or it may happen anyway?
I guess the only thing to do is upsize and go with it because what other choice is there with what I've got?
Thanks everyone for all the input.
-
24. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 10:31 AM (in response to Eugene Tyson)Eugene do you think I should then actually increase the size as well as the pixels? guess I should just do it and see. I'll repost at that point .
-
25. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 12:31 PM (in response to Canned Pug)I've made samples of the various scenarios, set at High Quality Display.1. The orig image2. upped to 300, resampled.3. 72, unsampled. .... much larger...I Shift+Command scaled it down to size...not sure how it affects the quality or not.Soft edges, none have been sharpened.Frankly the two larger images are virtually identical to my eye, the effective ppi is identical.There is some artifacting on the gradations on both the larger images. I'm assuming it will print that way? (I used dithering earlier on in the process. If they were solid I could fix it)I'm guessing, use the 300 resampled = better quality for print, even though the 72 looks the same.Thanks friends. -
26. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 11, 2011 12:39 PM (in response to Canned Pug)Scaling in Photoshop without resampling is the same thing as scaling in ID. The pixels just change size.
Resampling has nothing to do with sharpening in the sense that you are thinking. Sharpening works by increasing the contrast along what Photshop sees as "edges." When you resample and increase the size, you are making up pixels by interpolation -- Photoshop is guessing what color to fill in the gaps created by moving the "real" pixels apart to evenly cover the new area. If the original image is low-resolution to start with, the odds are that edges that look jaggy before upsampling will continue to look jaggy after. Sharpening will accentuate that.
If there is enough data in the image, Genuine Fractals can sometimes do a better job of interpolating than Photoshop's own algorithms, but in my experience the difference is usually slight.
-
27. Re: What are we looking at here?
P Spier Feb 11, 2011 12:45 PM (in response to Canned Pug)The two images look identical because the ARE identical. In Photoshop the only thing that counts is pixel dimensions. Resolution, as PPI, doesn't really esxist until an image is printed onto physical media at a particular size. The number that counts when looking at resolution is the effective resolution. That's the actual resolution of the image when printed at the size it is on your page.
-
28. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 12:59 PM (in response to P Spier)Yes, I do understand that about the sharpening. I shouldn't have put that in the post, it was just something I was thinking of doing as a next step.
But of course I'm sure the artifacting will become more obvious too. If the color wasn't a gradation I could fix it but its not so easy to fix the grad in a short time.
Thanks Peter.
-
29. Re: What are we looking at here?
rob day Feb 11, 2011 12:59 PM (in response to Canned Pug)better than a Smart Sharpen in PS?
Any kind of sharpening will make upsampling problems more apparent—keylining and noise are revealed;
Here's an example of Genuine Fractal’s marginal benefit.
From left: 1.) image captured at 288ppi 2.) image captured at 72ppi 3.) 72ppi image upsampled with Photoshop's smoother bicubic 4.) 72 ppi image upsampled with Genuine Fractals.
-
30. Re: What are we looking at here?
rob day Feb 11, 2011 1:00 PM (in response to Canned Pug)better than a Smart Sharpen in PS?
Any kind of sharpening will make upsampling problems more apparent—keylining and noise are revealed;
Here's an example of Genuine Fractal’s marginal benefit.
From left: 1.) image captured at 288ppi 2.) image captured at 72ppi 3.) 72ppi image upsampled with Photoshop's smoother bicubic 4.) 72 ppi image upsampled with Genuine Fractals.
-
31. Re: What are we looking at here?
rob day Feb 11, 2011 1:00 PM (in response to Canned Pug)better than a Smart Sharpen in PS?
Any kind of sharpening will make upsampling problems more apparent—keylining and noise are revealed;
Here's an example of Genuine Fractal’s marginal benefit.
From left: 1.) image captured at 288ppi 2.) image captured at 72ppi 3.) 72ppi image upsampled with Photoshop's smoother bicubic 4.) 72 ppi image upsampled with Genuine Fractals.
-
32. Re: What are we looking at here?
rob day Feb 11, 2011 1:01 PM (in response to rob day)Sorry about the multiple post I was getting an error in my browser...
-
33. Re: What are we looking at here?
Canned Pug Feb 11, 2011 1:02 PM (in response to rob day)A definte improvement over Photoshop..but look how nice the original is!















