-
1. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Scott Falkner Feb 14, 2011 12:32 PM (in response to Canned Pug)InDesign will do what it can to display the image accurately. Ideal effective resolution for display on screen is 72 pixels per inch. If Indesign’s info panel shows the effective resolution as 72 pixels per inch and your view is 100%, then the image will look just dandy, or at least as dandy as is possible. But the ideal resolution for print is usually much higher than that, depending on the printing method and linescreen. For high quality printing you would probably need an image to have an efective resolution of 200 pixels per inch. Lower than that and you start to lose detail, although you might not see the actual pixels until the resolution dropped quite low.
A typical magazine is printed with a linescreen of 150 lpi (lines per inch). If your image is 75 pixels per inch, then each pixel will be printed with about 4 dots (2 across, 2 down). At that size your image would start to look like an array of small squares.
What is the effective resolution of the image in questions? How will you have it printed? At what linescreen or using what other screening method? Have you spoken to your printer to determine the ideal image resolution? (If you were told 300 ppi you are talking to a sales rep. If you were told 300 dpi you were talking to a bad sales rep.)
-
2. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
[Jongware]-9BC6tI Feb 14, 2011 12:44 PM (in response to Scott Falkner)Agreed with Scott. If an image looks "good enough" while you are viewing it on your low-resolution screen at 100%, even in high-res, that doesn't tell anything at all on how it will look in print.
Check the effective ppi. Never trust the screen -- what you see as purple may some day get printed with green ink.
-
3. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Stix Hart Feb 14, 2011 1:36 PM (in response to Scott Falkner)Scott Falkner wrote:
(If you were told 300 ppi you are talking to a sales rep. If you were told 300 dpi you were talking to a bad sales rep.)
Hmmph, I slightly resent that. I'm a sales rep too and that's the quickest answer that will lead to the best result. And with decent plates you will notice lower res these days.
If you were told well it all depends on the image, let me have a look at it, you might be able to get away with that, personally I often go down to 220ppi and it looks fine although I never would on a cover etc etc you are talking to an Indesign user.
However all totally off topic...
-
4. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 14, 2011 6:45 PM (in response to Scott Falkner)OK my new BFF's,
I have a PS file (image on right) in an InDesign file. I duplicated it and cleaned it up (diff color profile) and made it a tif (image on left) in another InDesign file, for illustrative purposes..
The photos are the same res (200dpi) and effective res(92) I didn't change any sizing. Why is the PS file so jagged when the tiff is not? High Quality Display on both. If it's the same file, it should display the same...
That's why I keep asking about not trusting what I'm seeing because the effective res is so low but it looks fine for my purposes.
thenk yew.
-
5. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Joel Cherney Feb 14, 2011 6:47 PM (in response to Canned Pug)If it's the same file, it should display the same...
that's why I keep asking about not trusting what I'm seeing because the effective res is so low but it looks fine for my purposes.
Once again, um.
They're not the same file - one is a TIFF and one is a PSD, right? They're the same image but they are not the same file at all.
That being said, I have a really hard time understanding how they can both have the same effective resolution and the same image data and the same view quality setting, and yet the PSD looks awful while the TIFF looks okay. Perhaps it's because you're scaling the image in ID? I was always told to never scale raster data (like your images) in ID by more than a few percent, as the algorithms it uses to scale are inferior in comparison to the algorithms used by Photoshop. I never went against this instruction, and never wondered why.
I suppose you could test to see if my poorly-remembered admonition had anything to do with your question by taking the same screenshot of the same two placed files, but without scaling the images in ID.
(Also, the folks posting in your thread know about 15,000x more about these fiddly raster data matters than do I, so don't let my advice throw you off if one of these other gentlemen says something contradicting what I've said.)
-
6. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 14, 2011 7:49 PM (in response to Joel Cherney)No theyre arent the same file but the tif from the psd file, no resizing
Well you know I was wondering the same thing. And that was another question... I did redcaps both images in ID because even though the orig PSFile is 5x8" it came into ID too small. (200dpi 82 effective)
I never knew to do everything in PS first though usually I do. And did this time Why didn't it come in to size?
This is so hard to do online. I will do as u suggest tomorrow. Thx.
...from Miickii's iiPhone
-
7. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
P Spier Feb 15, 2011 5:35 AM (in response to Canned Pug)I'm having some difficulty believing the PSD is really dispalying at high quality. Right click it and see what the object level settings are...
-
8. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 7:37 AM (in response to [Jongware]-9BC6tI)Thanks everyone for all your knowledge and generosity.
-
9. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 9:20 AM (in response to P Spier)Peter,
Your suspicions are correct...Opening my file fresh this morning it opened like the PS file...jagged. The R-click Display setting was "Use View Setting" and looked the same as "High Quality". This kept happening at various times and with various files, that's why I kept questioning it. Even thopugh I had "saved' the file, until I close ID and re-open (I'm thinking it is), that it views as it should.
Does ID have it's own way of temporarily viewing something and how was it doing this remains the question.
-
10. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
P Spier Feb 15, 2011 10:01 AM (in response to Canned Pug)What's set in View > Display Performance for this doc? Sounds like it might be set to typical. It's also remotely possible that the settings for High Quality have been edited from their defaults in the preferences. Of course, that jagginess wouldn't be atypical of a 96ppi image, so it's possible the other preview was anomalous.
-
11. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 10:27 AM (in response to P Spier)Peter,
(I'm so sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. I have weird ways of trying to understand stuff that ends me really tangled up).
High Display, on both file and image.
also made these comparison. I bumped the dpi to 300 and made it to the size I wanted (HUGE!) which smoothed out the image. Then I dragged screen shots (the orig image and the new one into ID) and this is the result. I think the new one looks fine for what it is. Not even sure what this means....or if it means nothing: -
12. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
P Spier Feb 15, 2011 10:48 AM (in response to Canned Pug)The one on the right has been upsampled and has 250% more pixels which is why it shows less jaggy.
-
13. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 11:00 AM (in response to P Spier)You're right about the pixels, but it is resampled, it's been cut off in the image.
-
14. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
P Spier Feb 15, 2011 11:29 AM (in response to Canned Pug)Let's se if I can help you withthe concepts of pixel dimensions and resolution.
In Photoshop, an image has a grid of pixels. The number of pixels in an image is independent of the resolution and does not change when you change the image size listed dimensions UNLESS you also check the resample box. Try it. Open any image in Photoshop and go to image size, uncheck the resample box, but leave Contrain propoertions checked. Make a not of the pixel dimensions in the top of the dialog, then enter a new number in the width or height fields in the lower half. The resolution number will change, but the number of pixels will not. When you return to Photoshop the image will not have changed at all.
Imagine a checkerboard printed on a balloon. As you blow up the balloon you are doing the same thing as making the height or width field larger in Image Size with reample turned off. As the ballon gets larger, so do the squares on the checkerboard, and few of them will fit in an inch. The resolution is going down. Let soome air out and the squares shrink and the resolution goes up. The number of squares didn't change. Resolution only has meaning when the image is printed at which point the the resolution becomes the number of pixels across the image divided by the distance those pixels are occupying on the page.
The term "Actual" resolution in ID is really misleading. That number is the one you see in the photoshop image size dialog and represents the resolution if you simply click and release to place the image at the dimensions listed in that dialog. The same 300 pixel x 300 pixel image will be 300 ppi at 1" x1" on your page, but only 150 ppi at 2" x 2", or 600 ppi at .5" x .5". These are the "effective resolution numbers" that ID provides, and the ones that have a real meaning.
When you upsample your image in Photoshop you are making up new pixels by interpolation. If you go from 150 ppi to 300 ppi without also changing the dimensions in the Image Size dialog you will see the pixel counts double, and at any particular size that you place the image in ID the area covered by each individual pixel will be one-quarter of waht was covered by 1 pixle before upsampling. If the upsampling is smooth and the color transitions are not too sharp in the interpolation this will effectively reduce the apparent jagginess, but the overall quality will be somewhat softer. On the other hand, if the interpolation were to result in simply dividing each pixel into 4 (remember, this is a grid, so when you double the resolution it happens in both directions), you would see no apparent difference in the image at all.
-
15. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 11:43 AM (in response to P Spier)Yes, I do understand what you're saying..the analogies are very good. I understand that the image is softer and I'm going to use a bit of sharpening on it.
(Crud, I thought in your earlier answer you said Unsampled, not Upsampled...)
Peter maybe I could run some errands for you...thanks...it must get tiring explaining something over and over ..esp to the same person. You have done your duty!
-
16. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
P Spier Feb 15, 2011 12:07 PM (in response to Canned Pug)Well, I'm not known for my typing, but I checked and I really did say UPsampled.
-
17. Re: Display Performance settings - wysiwyg?
Canned Pug Feb 15, 2011 12:24 PM (in response to P Spier)You really did. So much for cataracts...
Miickii







