I really have no problems with the Hardware parts of a PC it's just that crock of crap Windows I have issues with the software is just stupid. Mac all the way. Anyway back on topic: I have never really taken any notice of the size of my images/work in pixel dimensions. Only needed to for web design work. I find it much easier to just use normal old Millimetres or Inches and then once I have decided the size I want say 800MM width I just make sure it's 300dpi for printing. I always create my profiles at 800mm width and 300dpi as you never know whether you may need to print it large. Say for instance you create a beautiful profile but only 300mm width at 300 dpi and then a client contacts you and wants a print @ 800mm. Youre not gonna upscale a 300mm, 300dpi image upto 800mm with it looking anything other than very pixelated and rubbish. So in this situation you would have to start the profile from scratch.
Most performance problems with windows are user configuration errors, every problem or annoyance i hear about Vista is due to users being too lazy to use Google and change a few settings or overestimating their machines and trying to run aero on a integrated videocard and 512mb of RAM. I've used Snow Leopard, it has little over windows, of micRosoft could dictate the hardware it ran on it would be a lot more stable too.
Click my signature picture to visit my site showing my profiles
I have not seen any examples of genuine fractals upscaling capabilities but I suppose if in desperate need it might be a reasonable tool. But it is not ideal, I mean your relying on the software to fill in the gaps and intelligently guess what colour pixels should go in those gaps. We put a lot of effort into our profiles to make them as detailed and sharp as possible then to let some software blur them when you could just create them at the larger size in the first place seems to me to be a bit unprofessional. I suppose that's what the software is for really a last resort when the ---- hits the fan in the studio and for long distance view situations (billboards etc). I would be interested in seeing some examples of what Genuine Fractals can do if someone can post say a 300mm profile upscaled to say 800mm width.
There's a simple solution to the problem of size.....stop working in image manipulation programs like Photoshop. Work in Illustrator which is strictly vector based. It can do everything (and more!) that Photoshop can and is no more difficult to learn. There's a reason why it's called Illustrator....it's used to create images. You can do this in Photoshop, but really all it can do is manipulate pixels. In Illustrator size is totally irrelevant since it's vector based. Blow the image up 6400X and it won't make a difference. Go ahead, try this trick with Photoshop and all you'll get is pixelated crap. Your call people.
Last edited by Otterkins2; 16th December 2009 at 01:00.
Hi all, Hi Locke, how are you ? First you need to change pixels/cm to pixels/inch, Here's the rule, printing anything is usually done at 300dpi. For example a set up for A3 is 420mm x 297mm at 300dpi. The problem with raster images is they are resolution dependent meaning they need a defined resolution for output (printing). 300 dpi (or you can use ppi pixels per inch to work out your dpi) came about because the human eye sees photo prints with printer equivalent output resolutions as a continuous tone image, even though the image is actually made up of slightly overlapping DOTS. Here is another rule, increasing the size of you final image (scaling up) with fixed dpi, will decrease the final output resolution of your image thus degrading the quality of the print.
Example
Finished size - A3 = 420mm x 297mm @ 300dpi
A3 scaled to 150% 630mm x 445.5 resolution now @ 200dpi, and so on.
However we can have an image increase its resolution when the file is reduced and the resolution is resampled.
Finished size A3 = 420mm x 297mm @ 72dpi
Resampled image to 300 dpi has a finished print size of 10.08mm x 7.13mm
See also interpolation (You should NOT interpolate (rez up) an image. Also different resolutions can be used for different paper stocks, newsprint, billboard etc.
Blowhard do you get the feeling Supah has never been on a Mac if he had he would have realised all the programs he is using are probably original Mac apps ported to the PC (lol) Blowhard forget the extra 60 in your resolution you will not be able to tell 300 from 360. If you have prints going to process (litho) it will most likely be re rezzed by the RIP to 300dpi.
You do have another option, go vector! It's resolution independent, no pixels and freedom ahh beautiful illustrator...on a Mac with the ram of a rendering farm, erm, where was I.
Final note, all computer monitors display a resolution of 72dpi so any image if it is 300dpi or 72dpi, if they have the same dimensions (not resolution) they will look the same on screen, until you zoom in that is.
Hope this helps
Last edited by Grafikco; 17th December 2009 at 03:32.
Reply With Quote.
Senior Member
. Anyway back on topic: I have never really taken any notice of the size of my images/work in pixel dimensions. Only needed to for web design work. I find it much easier to just use normal old Millimetres or Inches and then once I have decided the size I want say 800MM width I just make sure it's 300dpi for printing. I always create my profiles at 800mm width and 300dpi as you never know whether you may need to print it large. Say for instance you create a beautiful profile but only 300mm width at 300 dpi and then a client contacts you and wants a print @ 800mm. Youre not gonna upscale a 300mm, 300dpi image upto 800mm with it looking anything other than very pixelated and rubbish. So in this situation you would have to start the profile from scratch.
Posting Permissions
