8 Replies Latest reply on Aug 6, 2008 8:23 AM by Newsgroup_User

    Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes

    MalRom
      Hi there we have been using Fireworks for a few years now and recently have had comments about the resolution of the images that we create with the program.

      As an example, we have an image of a magazine that is 900 px high and 700 px wide.

      When we reduce the image to 90px x 70px. The image is barely recognisable. I have notied that there are many images on the internet that have been reduced to this size and still look good. "Recognisable".

      Dont get me wrong, you can still recognise that our image is a magazine, it just isnt clear at all.

      Does anyonw have any suggestions with this problem?

      Shane
        • 1. Re: Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
          JoeDaSilva Level 4
          Your question makes no sense. You're asking why you can't recognize an image when you reduce it's height to 1/10 of the original size while maintaining the original width? Obviously it won't be recognizable.

          Research the term "crop".

          • 2. Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
            pixlor Level 4
            quote:

            Originally posted by: MalRom
            Hi there we have been using Fireworks for a few years now and recently have had comments about the resolution of the images that we create with the program.

            As an example, we have an image of a magazine that is 900 px high and 700 px wide.

            When we reduce the image to 90px x 70px. The image is barely recognisable. I have notied that there are many images on the internet that have been reduced to this size and still look good. "Recognisable".

            Dont get me wrong, you can still recognise that our image is a magazine, it just isnt clear at all.

            Does anyonw have any suggestions with this problem?

            Shane


            Under Edit>Preferences, on the General tab, try changing the Interpolation mode and compare the output you get from the four modes. Maybe you'll have a preference for one over the other.

            You could also try sharpening your image prior to reducing. Try all three options under Filters>Sharpen. Sharpen and Sharpen More are one-click actions while the Unsharp Mask takes a little experimentation.

            I searched for "unsharp mask tutorial" and this one was at the top: (Almost) Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sharpening in Photoshop but Were Afraid to Ask
            While the tutorial is written for Photoshop, the principles are the same. (Only the first page really applies to Fireworks.)

            Hope the info is useful...
            • 3. Re: Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
              MalRom Level 1
              quote:

              Originally posted by: JoeyD1978
              Your question makes no sense. You're asking why you can't recognize an image when you reduce it's height to 1/10 of the original size while maintaining the original width? Obviously it won't be recognizable.

              Research the term "crop".



              Im not sure which part you didnt understand. Also not sure where you got the idea that we are reducing by 1/10 and keeping the width.

              As an example we are reducing the size of an image by 1/10 or 1/20. When we do this the resulutions degrades dramaticaly.
              • 4. Re: Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
                MalRom Level 1
                Hi Lorraine, I see what you mean. I will give it a try and see how it goes. Thanks for your help.
                • 5. Re: Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
                  JoeDaSilva Level 4
                  Read that question wrong, my apologies!

                  quote:

                  Originally posted by: MalRom
                  Im not sure which part you didnt understand. Also not sure where you got the idea that we are reducing by 1/10 and keeping the width.

                  As an example we are reducing the size of an image by 1/10 or 1/20. When we do this the resulutions degrades dramaticaly.


                  • 6. Re: Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
                    MalRom Level 1
                    quote:

                    Originally posted by: JoeyD1978
                    Read that question wrong
                    quote:

                    Originally posted by: MalRom

                    Lolz, I do that all the time. In a rush I suppose. Thanks anyway.
                    • 7. Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
                      Level 7
                      what i find works well is to

                      - reduce it by 25% first (assuming it won't end up too small, which in
                      this case it won't)
                      - then use the unsharp mask (in Filters > sharpen > unsharp mask ) at
                      around 30-50% amount and 2-4 for pixel radius, but be careful not to
                      oversharpen it!
                      - reduce it by a further 25% or 50% unless you're near your target size
                      in which case resize the image to the specific pixel dimensions.
                      - use one more pass of the unsharp mask, probably with lower values: say
                      20% and 2 pixel radius.

                      some people prefer 2 passes of unsharp mask at lower settings after
                      *each* stage of resizing.

                      resizing images in steps of 25% (and therefore 50%) works a lot better
                      than say at 33%. think of how the image looks when you use the ZOOM in
                      the view menu at say 50 % compared to 43%... :)
                      MalRom wrote:
                      > Hi Lorraine, I see what you mean. I will give it a try and see how it goes. Thanks for your help.
                      >
                      • 8. Re: Loss of resolution when reducing image sizes
                        Level 7
                        On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:58:44 +0400, dave prescott <davepk@regionline.fi>
                        wrote:

                        <snip>
                        >
                        > some people prefer 2 passes of unsharp mask at lower settings after
                        > *each* stage of resizing.
                        >
                        <snip>

                        Frankly, using two UM with the same radius doesn't make much sence to me.
                        Other than that, the technique you described, indeed, works best in
                        majority of cases.

                        --
                        Ilya Razmanov
                        http://photoshop.msk.ru - Photoshop plug-in filters