Final output size

Similar Questions

• the image to the final output size print

  Hello forumers.

  Ive been asked to do a poster A2 size 594 x 420 mm 300 dpi

  but when I enter those dimenstions my pc slows down unfortunately.

  What is the best way to get better performance?

  Thank you.

  Seems to me that your PC can be the source of the problem. Can you put the specifications, CPU, memory etc. While the size of the A2 (approximately 23.4 x 16.5 in French) - easier for me to work in inches is a good size, it's about the same size that a file directly from the D800 and without layers must be about 200 MB. While I have a pretty good system (16 GB of memory with a core i7) I can easily manage the sizes of files 5 x this size.

  I also have an old XP machine with 4 GB memory in the course of running CS3 that can, well a bit slow, to easily manage the files of 400 MB

  While 300 dpi will give a good impression, if you resampled to somewhere between 200-240 DPI, you will always get a decent print and reduce the size of the file. With a print at 300 ppi to 200 MB A2 format, resample to 240 ppi would bring the size of the file down to ~ 130 MB and 200 ppi would bring the size of the file down to ~ 92 MB

  MK

• ducc Webhelp output size

  Tool: Robohelp 11, webhelp, using DUCC (dynamic user story-centricnt)

  
  

  Question: DUCC generates its own output files for each category of content you create. However, my use of the DUCC is simple, only the table of contents/index. Output size can be reduced?

  ( Reason: 1) good to know. My use of the DUCC can be more complicated next time.  (2) a software build process a lot of markets and players. Whereas an addition 50 MB is sizewise small potatoes, it would be courteous reduce time if is not necessary.

  Possible method, I think: there are maybe a dialog box option to redirect the DUCC table of contents/index to key topics rather than generate a separate set of files.

  Details

  
  

  My output size

  • Non-DUCC webhelp output is 25MB
  • Addition of 2 categories of content DUCC totals 75Mo

  Help the user selections

  • Product help (by default, used by about half of the users, inclusive table indexes materials)
  • Manager (single table of contents/index)
  • Help user (single table of contents/index)

  My use of the DUCC is perhaps the simplest:

  • Table of contents/index of only differ
  • All have the language and even conditional text
  • Search finds all topics

  Thank you

  There currently is no way to do this in RoboHelp, other than the creation of outputs or DUCC multiples. (Essentially the same as DUCC.) I encourage you to drop a wish with Adobe: Adobe - feature request/Bug Report Form

  More people to submit a wish, more likely, to be implemented.

  Kind regards

  Willam

• Final output rendering: CPU vs CPU + GPU

  Hallo,

  I would use my Nvidia GPU to speed up the rendering of the final output of the projects of Premiere Pro and After Effects to Adobe Media Encoder. Now as far as I know, which allows the GPU acceleration for rendering of the final output in the AMEncoder really accelerating him process significantly. But I have a question about the quality of the production. The addition of acceleration GPU has an influence on the quality of the final result make? I read on some for a comment indicating that only using the CPU for the final rendered result gives results of superior quality, then when using the CPU + GPU acceleration combined? But on some other blogs I actually found that adding statements to process the two GPU speeds up the time required (becomes much faster), and actually increases the quality of the result final render?

  Does anyone know if there is a difference in quality between CPU vs CPU + GPU rendering to final output? I'm working on a 64 bit Windows 7 computer)

  Thanks in advance,

  Sebastiaan

  GPU accelerated export is expected to equal or exceed the software quality in all cases

• Problem Super complicated with rendering (horizontal lines occur in my final output)

  So my problem is sort of double.

  1. I create some graphics kinetic typography in AE CS6 for a customer, and when I go the Compositions of the hand, my output file is stretched.  I can't understand why this is happening.  The parameters of my computer are 1920 x 1080 D1/DV NTSC widescreen (1.21), 29.97 Drop Frame (although I changed these settings to try to solve this problem and, "no dice").  Don't forget that I have other comps in main compositions which have completely different parameters.  Some of them are calibrated at 4000 x 4000.

  I rendered out as a QuickTime codec 'Animation' 1920 x 1080 (although I changed these settings several times also in an attempt to solve the problem and still "no dice") the output video is always extended.  When I format the output for H.264, I get a caveat which reads the incompatibility of settings.

  I found a solution, however.  I drag the media encoder and output format as QuickTime ProRes 422 (or that, is not serious, still get the same problem), deinterlaced, 1920, 29.97, field order: first superior, appearance D1/DV NTSC widescreen 16:9 (2.2121).  Stretching issue fixes, but now I have these horizontal line that occur during the time when there is movement.  I have set all the parameters I mentioned several times and I can't understand why he did this.

  
  

  Can anyone help with this problem.

  Notice that your comp says always personalized. This means that you have changed something. You should always use the presets.

  The size of the image does not change because EI is pixel based. In the Composition Panel, if you enable view correcting the format of pixels so you would see the form of the change of model window. For example, when you view a DV (standard non square pixels) in perfect circles of Viewer Comp are oval until you put on pixel aspect ration correction in the Viewer. The number of pixels remains the same. Non square pixels were designed as a way to get digital data on digital broadcasting at a rate reduced data so that digital television would work. For example, a standard TV has a 4:3 and 486 scan image report lines. with the information of the visible image. The standard DV is 720 X 480 pixels. They cut the first 2 and down 4 scan lines because they were in the region of overscan and not visible to most of the viewers for broadcasters filled with missing persons aligns black because it is easy to compress, and then they did the format of the pixels, which is the conversion of a digital bit of information in time for an analogue electron beam moving on the screen at a fixed rate would put 720 of them on a line scan keep the image distorted and circles still circles. Make sense? At the time, it's all digital cameras faster and digital video might work. Now he's okay and nothing is broadcast in the United States in non square pixels. Only still DVD rely on pixels not square to the video of the reading. Same reason is as much information as you could successfully and reliably remove a DVD at the same time the standard was written.

  There is absolutely no reason to never work except non square pixels so absolutely, you know exactly what you do and why you do it. AE and all other NLE will automatically adjust images of non square pixels fit in a project of pixels square without distortion.

  Probably more than you wanted to know, but now you do. The reason for which only conceivable that someone would never made it or implement a master comp with non square pixels would be they should send the rendering in a digital format that accepts only non square pixels. IOW, if you have an old camera DV DV cassette and a way to digitize that digitally (which has not been manufactured for about 8 or 10 years) and you absolutely have to create a digital format DV master so that you can transfer this basic to the DV tape form digitally (no record) so that you have a digital copy of the video recorded on a format that only people with antiquated equipment can read using only that material so that you do not want to use the DV project (any format of X 720 in the menu drop down) from the beginning in Finnish. In my humble OPINION, all of these formats should be average at the bottom of the list so that a note should be that it is not deprecated square formats to use with caution.

• Determine the ratio of output size in BI Publisher

  Hello

  We need to send to printer large and smaller reports to be sent by e-mail. Does anyone know how to determine the result of running the report and change the method of delivery based on size?

  We are using 11.1.1.6.10 BEEP and using webservices to run the report. In runReport(), the report is sent as Base64Binary data and the deliveryMethod must be changed according to the size of report output. We use PDF, HTML, and CSV output formats, but do not know how to retrieve the size of the content of the report.

  Any help appreciated.

  Thank you

  We used 'sizeofReportDataChunk' tag in the runReport() XML request to determine the threshold of the size of the file output and inspiring as we do the logic for the features.

• Final print size does not match the view screen.

  Hello

  I have problems to make my final prints to match the screen display.  Recently, I had this problem: I have an image which is of size at 5 X 7.  I have it on a 5 X 7 model in the Lightroom print module.  The dimensions of the image in Lightroom say 5 X 7.  I have printing on 5 X 7 paper (I actually measured it to be sure).  ON the screen, they look perfect, corresponds to the templates and measure fime with leaders at the screen.  Without fail, a part of the print is cut on final printing.  Along side printing is the most affected.  It is not only limited to 5 X 7, it happens in all areas.  Is this a common problem or I'm I have something wrong?  In the 5 X 7 example above the impression comes from 5.2 X 7.3 give or take.  I use Lightroom 5.3 on an iMac running OS 10.9.1.  The printer is a Canon Pro 100.

  I look forward to help with this.

  Thank you

  Joe

  If the problem is that the printed image is proportional to the largest, it is a very common side effect with the mode parameters borderless print drivers. In general, (although sometimes you can avoid this where alternative options without borders are given)-edition special unrequested % scale ensures that any physical wrong registration or the inaccuracy of the size of the paper, does not allow accidental white edges.

  It's nothing to do with the end of LR in the process, as appropriate.

• Export the file to help... output size seems to be too much

  I have a movie of 12 minutes with audio, video and still images in it.

  Currently when I export the file is 865 MB...  I need whether less than 100 with a decent quality.  This is a video tutorial that will be downloaded from the web.

  Can you please give me advice on how to do this?  On which variables to change etc.  I don't know if I have it exported out of Camtasia Studio, it is around this benchmark 100 or less... the problem is I don't know what are the settings for the presetting of Camtasia.

  I use the following configuration:

  QuickTime format

  Summary:

  Output:

  1400 x 790, 15 (fps), high quality 100

  48000 Hz, stereo, 16-bit

  H.264

  Source:

  Encode, 01-OverviewSWKit

  1920 x 1080 (1.0), 24 fps, progressive, 00:12:03:12

  48000 Hz, stereo

  Parameters:

  Video codec: H264

  Basic Settings:

  Quality 100

  Width/height (1400 x 790

  Appearance: Square Pixels (1.0)

  Go to maximum depth - "United Nations"-checked ".

  Depth: 24 bit

  Advanced settings

  Key Frame, each 1 frame - 'A' checked

  Optimize stills - "ONE" checked

  "UN" reorganization framework checked

  The flow setting:

  Restrict flow to xxxx 'UN' checked

  Use the highest quality Render - "ONE" checked

  Use previews 'UN' checked

  Use of interpolation "VERIFIED."

  ------------------------------

  The flow setting:

  Restrict flow to xxxx 'UN' checked

  Check this box and set a value. Bitrate is the main single determinant of output file size. If you reduce the bitrate, you decrease the size of the file, of course, when you lower the transmission speed, you decrease the potential quality of output. Welcome to the balance that is a video encoding...

• How can I check the output size of the Image of an image with a variable

  I have problems with a filter, I write because I can not enter the output image size (x and y) in a filter without doing it manually with a parameter

  Yes, it's currently the only way, but we do not realize that this is a problem and are working on solutions.

  Thank you!

• How can I make the output size of "Web" animate CC to adapt in an HTML page?

  In animate CC, I've set the width and height of the canvas as 720px 650px X. It doesn't seem to be an option per cent.

  The width/height appears in two places, one in the < canvas > element, the other in the .js file. I'm trying to find out if there is a way to adjust these to make re-size/scale dynamically with the size of the container (for delicate design).

  <! - snippet of HTML file - >

  < head >

  < script src = "js/canvasProject.js" > < / script >

  < script >

  var canvas, stage, exportRoot;

  function init() {}

  canvas = document.getElementById ("canvas");

  exportRoot is new lib. JeffersonRoseBand();

  Stadium is new createjs. Internship (Canvas);

  stage.addChild (exportRoot);

  internship. Update();

  createjs. Ticker.setfps(25) (lib.properties.fps);

  createjs. Ticker.addEventListener ("tick", stage);

  }

  < /script >

  < / head >

  < body onload = "init (); « ; >

  < div >

  < canvas id = "canvas" width = "720" height = "650" > < / canvas >

  < / div >

  ...

  Start of canvasProject.js

  (function (lib, img, cjs, ss) {
  var p; // shortcut to reference prototypes
  lib.webFontTxtFilters = {};
  // library properties:
  lib.properties = {
    width: 720,
    height: 650,
    fps: 24,
    color#292929",
    webfonts: {},
    manifest: []
  };
  
  
  

  Hi all

  Sensitive scaling options are now part of the HTML5 canvas publication settings in the latest version of animate CC (2015.2)

  See here: new feature summary (June and August 2016)

  Creating ads with CC HTML5 animate: canvas reactivates the scale. Animate Adobe blog

  Update your copy of Animate through the creative application of cloud and try it now!

• Change the output size

  Sorry if this is already the answer, but part of my problem is to know how to phrase the question correctly.

  I'm using Premiere Pro CS3 on Windows XP. I capture images using a screen recorder on my screen which is about 1800 pixels wide. Import images and displays it in the left pane 'source '. I drag the images in the timeline and read it. The view on the 'sequence' part - i.e. the output, only shows that about 1/4 of the screen. How can I view the entire screen?

  Thanks for any help, even asking the question properly!

  Sarah

  Use the scale to frame.

• Transparency of the final output image

  A final 22 minutes, including several graphics file (all PNG) and audio (including bg audio).
  
  While PNG images display the transparent backgrounds desired, when the final file is published, encompassing the image appears as a white background. VERY ugly.
  
  Licensed version of Captivate 2.0, graphics created in Fireworks MX2004, also under license.
  
  

  Hi Peter at FedEx and welcome to our community

  You could try to remove the transparency of PNG before its importation of Captivate. I noticed that Captivate 2 does not seem to behave when I make pictures because already have transparency, then I use the transparency of Captivate feature.

  It almost seems Captivate becomes confused about the colors should really be the transparent color.

  See you soon... Rick

• Acrobat Pro XI behaving badly, crashing and bad output size distilled files.

  System i3 PC 4 months with 16 GB of RAM.

  On board graphics graphics card Intel HD 4000 with 3072 MB is assigned the RAM.

  Main BOAD has Ivy Bridge Z77 Intel chipset.

  This PC has worked flawlessly for 12 hours per day before you install Acrobat Pro XI (via installation cc).

  Operating system is Windows 8 Pro.

  Until yesterday, my subscription to the CC ran well. I uninstalled Acrobat (version pre CC) and installed the CC version. The first installation will begin and then crash requiring the Windows Task Manager to end the process.

  When the online assistance service said it wasn't their problem, wait until tomorrow to try CC support. I deleted the app and install a new copy. I can distill a ps with that file but the dimensions of the PDF will appear are different from the InDesign created the Postscript file. Now InDesign CC will not free start by double-clicking a file... A problem Ive had before with Win 7 Pro.

  Now when I open Acrobat, as soon as I click on a menu item, it shows a menu of VGA quality. I can get rid of this and do some minor tasks using the keys alt f4 but it always hangs in the VGA screen when I try to do something with a menu item. It is of severely affecting my work flow. I need these applications to make a living. How is it I can't get support from Adobe?

  I guess that's not a common problem, but with the help of a specialist Adobe, the problem was a set of files of Windows used by many applications (for example printer command menus and several configuration menus pop up who use a system font is left aside if you install fresh windows an upgrade of Windows 8 on a hard drive. It is a legal facility. I had Windows 8, 32-bit but necessary for Windows 8, 64-bit, so I bought the upgrade version and credentials to Win 32 to verify the eligability upgrade.

  The problem when it is a family of fonts (Segoe) system used in the full version of Win 8 or the OEM version isn't in the version upgrade. This means by it not installed during the upgrade on an upgrade disc clean disc. Any reason, Microsoft has to do this, the nightmare of the problems it caused me took over a week to track it down. I would like to take credit for this solution, but it was a discussion session online Adobe with a helpful technician who really deserves.

  All works fine now, thanks to Adobe.

• During text export JPEG becomes pixelated when printed

  I created a few art text in Illustrator I want to print as a poster. Whenever I have save the file as PDF (300 DPI) and print it myself the text will appear crispy with no pixelation. However, I want to post it to 18 x 24, that I can't do with my basic printer so when I print I print only part of the picture, but whatever lines are perfectly clear.

  I would be fine with leaving in PDF format, however, I have noticed most all plants ask a JPEG file for prints, which I can't understand because based on what I've read online, JPEG files automatically reduce the quality. Whenever I have the same export to JPEG (300 DPI) the text becomes pixelated.

  Is there anyway I can export this file to JPEG and not lose quality?

  If your document is set up at the scale 1:1 to the final output size then jpeg 300 dpi should look ok, as long as you choose 'export' in the menu file, DO NOT use the backup for web option, which will be released at 72 dpi.

  Make sure that you "the installation document" is 1:1 scale in the right units. so do 18 x 24 and make sure that your text is the size you want in this area.

  then choose file - export

  Choose jpeg

  then in the next window that appears, make sure that you choose at least 300 dpi (it may be higher if your computer has enough ram etc in order to treat her)

  ID choose the RGB color model if you print on the type of place that requires a jpeg file. and make sure that the "quality" slider is completely to the right for best quality compression.

  If its really not workign out, then you can try sending them a TIFF instead, which usually have compression artifacts (you can zip to reduce the size of the file after you save it)

  copy shops more low effort can usually work with tif or jpeg if they avoid pdf for some reason any.

• Display settings for effective resolution and INDD

  Hi guys,.

  I recently have been doing some memory problems and questions-exporter etc and wanted to know if my effective resolution is well above 300 who asks the questions.

  now...

  INDD shows typical display @ 72 dpi OK?

  It would be an image with 300 real and say 1500 effective (20% of original size) tries to display on typical to 360pp

  (1500/300) x 72 = 360 (the image is 5 x less that 100% resolution is so the preview 5 x 72 dpi - 360ppi?)

  She's redimmensionnement down then by the conversion of an extract of 72 DPI or is what makes the image 72 dpi @100 % and then reduce this x 5 to get a glimpse?

  because the images with a high-power much clearer than images with 300 effective overview

  and with more than 140 images in my catalog, this additional treatment would be the cause of my mistakes on export and just chuggy Preview in typical fashion?

  
  to simplify a little

  That's how work the previews?

  300 and 1500 @ high quality
  72 and 360 @ typical display

  or is it like this

  300 and 1500 @ high quality
  72 @ typical display

  the numbers "BOLD" is the resolution that indesign will display

  DammitRAWR wrote:

  Where can I turn off resample in indesign to test this point?

  or do you mean the resampling when I scale down the image in photoshop?

  and the general consensus that placing images and their downward revision, is only a bad design practice?

  all images must be placed as close to the possible final output size?

  Resampling is set in Photoshop. ID scales only, that's why you see the actual resolution.

  In photoshop, you can use the same pixels to create a really big image (physical dimensions) at 72 DPI or a smaller physical size at a higher resolution. If you record at 72 dpi, the bishoprics of preview ID is essentially the same size as the image itself, while if you save at 1200 dpi preview will be greatly sous-échantillonnées (and it will look like in typical preview mode to identity card).

  With respect to the scaling in ID, my feelings are that the scale is OK when the result will take you to the beach target for your desired effective resolution (i.e. it is not a big problem, enlarge a 1200 dpi image to get an effective resolution of 300 ppi or reduce an image of 100 ppi for 300 effective ppi) Although a lot of people will tell you it's better to do the scaling in Photoshop (and I'm usually in this camp for high-end work) to be able to fix the sharpening, etc.. Ideally, your images will be on your page inside more or less 10% of the target effective ppi, but it would be better to be a little down to cadence in Photoshop. Downsampling in Photoshop or ID to output will result in still a certain lack of details and if the effective resolution is too high you will be downsampling output, thus, nothing is taken for granted by usingf images that are too large, and your performance will suffer.

  If your desired resolution is 300 ppi and your effective resolution is 4500 PPI, you should really be resizing in Photoshop.