Martini Hour 025, In Which Colleen Experiences Deke in High Resolution

Submitted by colleen on 29 July 2009 - 8:12pm.

I did it. I created a monster. I grabbed myself a Kaluha and coffee (thank goodness there was coffee in the lounge) and innocently asked Deke about image resolution. Then, I listened, diligently, as you should, as the master discussed this challenging subject. (I think it's challenging, but in part because people give me different answers to my resolution questions.) It's a secret handshake, but Deke does his best to guide us through the labyrinth.

Here's where our resolution immersion takes us:

If you've ever been faced with that Image Size dialog box in Photoshop and you weren't quite sure how to navigate it for your desired results, then this week is for you. If words like resampling, interpolation, dpi, ppi, and even lpi make your head spin, Deke will either cure you or make it infintely worse with his in-depth knowledge. (Either way though, you will come out better on the other side.) You gotta know it's intense, when halfway through this longish episode, Deke says, "Here's where it gets dicey." Folks, I thought it was dicey about two minutes in. But ultiumately, there is no better guide than Jedi Master Deke when one is facing the darkness.

At the end, we toast to bicubic interpolation. I kid you not.

Where else can you experience a discussion on image resolution with your shoes off and cocktail in hand? Here's the regular-quality (192kbps) audio file. You can stream, or for best results, right-click and choose Download or Save.

For you geek-loving audiophiles out there, here's the high-quality (320kbps) file. Definitely download this one (as opposed to streaming it).

Don't want to miss a single episode of this half hour full of an hour's worth of relaxation and information? Subscribe via iTunes. And don't forget, this is a separate subscription from your regular dekePod podcast.

Got a question you'd like us to rant about on the show? Call 1-888-dekepod. (That's 1-888-335-3763.) Practice, be charming, and ask us something really intriguing. Or just ask a damn fine question with great earnestness.

. Tagged with:

Comments

That's good...

Submitted by castercad on 19 August 2009 - 3:06am.
Deke that good news... Gratz... I wanna do that sample also...

Wow Deke! Nice Job!

Submitted by giansim on 19 August 2009 - 1:20am.
I have been following your works for quite some time now! Cheers! Keep it up!

very nice

Submitted by onegawad on 10 August 2009 - 1:54am.
love to listen

Great tips and downloads.

Submitted by Bird Toys on 9 August 2009 - 5:52pm.
Great tips and downloads. Thanks.

bicubic sharper vs bicubic

Submitted by djaef on 7 August 2009 - 5:35am.
Deke, you da man, but why does Chris Orwig suggest that Bicubic Sharper is the better interpolation setting as a default? And he is not the only one. Yet I feel your voice has some authority on this issue. Could you elaborate a bit more as to why you think Bicubic is a better option than Bicubic Sharper? PS. I love the Martini hour. You are full of information and Colleen's voice is very sexy ;)

Sharpening when downsampling

Submitted by deke on 7 August 2009 - 7:13pm.
. . . has its attraction. After all, you're asking Photoshop to make sharpening decisions based on a larger number of pixels, which may theoretically produce crisper results. But Bicubic Sharper falls short in two regards:
  • Like any sharpening algorithm, Bicubic Sharper introduces halos and edge-enhancement artifacts. Those halos are typically slight, but any further sharpening (which you'll need when preparing an image for print, for example) will exaggerate them. Those of you who've seen my "Photoshop CS3 Sharpening Images " series for lynda.com know that I have many uses for multi-pass sharpening. But applying thick-halo print sharpening on top of hairline-halo Bicubic Sharper sharpening produces "crunchy" results at worst and strikes me as bad form at best.
  • Bicubic Sharper doesn't let you control the amount of sharpening or the size of your halos—or any other parameters, for that matter. You get tiny edges all the time. It's analogous (but not exactly equal to) a 50% application of the old single-shot Sharpen filter. Which, as those of you familiar with Sharpen know, ain't all that useful.
I use Bicubic Sharper fairly regularly for sizing Web graphics. Otherwise, I'm more likely to stick with the reliable old default Bicubic option.

My first listen

Submitted by seekersharer on 6 August 2009 - 8:25pm.
really enjoyed your podcast. will listen to a few more when i can. I am looking to learn as much as I can.

I also enjoy your podcasts.

Submitted by Danielthompson on 10 August 2009 - 8:14am.
I also enjoy your podcasts. I am learning a lot from them. Thank you

Whoo hoo

Submitted by deke on 11 August 2009 - 1:50am.
So happy to hear! That's why we do them.

Very nice

Submitted by danfoley on 6 August 2009 - 5:37pm.
This is very nice. I find it easy for me now, this tips help me a lot. I don' t wanna miss a single episode of this very awesome tips to be proud of.

Great tips

Submitted by agunawanika on 6 August 2009 - 12:02pm.
thanks for sharing this...I appreciate it.

Big files but worth to

Submitted by stopdreaming on 4 August 2009 - 1:40am.
Big files but worth to download,.. awesome tips by the way

dots per inch

Submitted by marioja on 3 August 2009 - 8:04pm.
Deke (I just realized that rhymes with geek, I wonder why), You said that a 600DPI printer will not pack 600 dots per linear inch but rather that it will take more space than 1 inch for 600 dots. Was I under the effect of the Kaluha or did I read this correctly (more like listened correctly)?

I'm not sure what part of the show you're referring to

Submitted by deke on 4 August 2009 - 1:57am.
But whatever I said, here's how it works: A 600dpi print packs 600 dots per linear inch--that is, 600 dots per horizontal inch and 600 dots per vertical inch. That makes 600 x 600 = 360,000 dots per square inch. The same holds true when measuring the resolution of an image, except you talk in terms of pixels per inch, or ppi. So a 300ppi image packs 300 pixels per linear inch, or 300 x 300 = 90,000 pixels per square inch. Upshot: It takes a hell of a lot of pixels to produce a continuous-tone image.

Awesome!

Submitted by lillybaby123 on 3 August 2009 - 9:31am.
I've been looking for this quite long ago. Thanks!

I am with you. I have been

Submitted by erinwentworth on 6 August 2009 - 6:12am.
I am with you. I have been look for this for ages

interest

Submitted by JasonOne on 3 August 2009 - 3:03am.
It took me so long to download the file but worth the wait, Thank you for sharing the information. I always had the interest of learning photoshop. I like experimenting on things.

You are right buddy

Submitted by marlen456y on 3 August 2009 - 8:25pm.
I have got to agree with you. Since I have a dial up connection, the download took a while. In fact once I thought it is going to take forever. But I am glad with the downlaod file. It is such an awesome picture and I appreciate your article too! Keep up the good job please!

Wow..

Submitted by rockyjacobson on 3 August 2009 - 2:55am.
That's seriously, almost all I have to say.. Wow! Incredible tips. Great, great work, keep this up! It's gold!

Resolution

Submitted by sylvaticus on 2 August 2009 - 1:47pm.
Deke, Thank you for this episode. I belong to lynda.com so i will go check out your videos there to see if you cover this there, but if not, my I suggest (request?) you consider producing a book or video that goes into this subject much more fully? When I hold up an 8x11 piece of paper to my monitor next to an 8x11 document, why don't the two objects match (but they're not far off)? Why when I create what appears to be a lovely, "slender" design on my computer, does it look big and fat, and what can I do to prevent this? Again, thanks so much for this introduction to the topic of resolution! Best regards, Keith Fabricando fabri fimus.

Not all pixels are equal, unfortunately

Submitted by marioja on 3 August 2009 - 8:07pm.
Keith, The slender design looks big or fat because not all devices have square pixels. For example, some device will have x pixels per inch horizontally and y pixels per inch vertically. But martini hour was too short to get into these fine details.

low resolution

Submitted by jjbaulikki on 2 August 2009 - 1:36pm.
hehe thats awesome. Thanks I run in to these issues at times.

Fixing low resolution

Submitted by ironmal on 1 August 2009 - 11:35pm.
Hey Deke, I've run into this problem a bunch of times over the years and it has to do with resolution and the images size dialog box. Lets say I make an image in PS to use as a background for a header file. Whatever I did to create the background... I cropped the image to a better shape. As I add a new layer for text and click on the new layer with my text tool, the cursor is super tiny. As I type the text, I can't see it. I look at the image size dialog box and I find the document is 50 to 100 inches wide, the resolution is way low like double digits, and the width and height in pixels is like 500 to 1000. How do I retain the interesting image I created for a background but change the document size or canvas size to be reasonable so I can add my text? Thanks in Advance, Mal

By default, text is set to work in points

Submitted by deke on 6 August 2009 - 3:08am.
Which means its size is resolution-dependent. Try this: Take your 500 x 1000-pixel image. Choose Image > Image Size. Turn off the Resample Images check box. Change the Resolution value to 300 ppi. Click OK. Now click with the type tool and try typing again. You should get nicely sized type.

Worked Like a Champ !!

Submitted by ironmal on 16 August 2009 - 10:42pm.
Deke - that solution you provided worked like a Champ and I'm stoked. Thanks !! I was hung up on the resample option thinking that I needed to resample to make the correction. There are probably thousands of us wandering around on the PS frontier with text not showing up on images we somehow made 50 inches wide by accident. Mahalo Aloha - Mal

Yes I am also having trouble

Submitted by carmen539tu on 5 August 2009 - 12:37am.
Hi Mal, Glad to see I am not alone. I have been trying to do it all the time and I thought I am a dumb at Photoshop. I am also looking forward to an answer to that question. Thanks for your post :)

Your not alone by any means.

Submitted by shawnbecklar on 5 August 2009 - 9:42am.
Your not alone by any means. I am also having trouble. Whilst no the most computer literate person i am also struggling.

The dark side of resolution

Submitted by mrkeaney on 30 July 2009 - 7:05pm.
Deke, I am stunned! I have been a Deke padawan for quite some time, and you always amaze me with your digital knowledge and silly banter. I've listened so long that I actually giggle at toasting the bicubic interpolation (or am I giggling at the fact that I might even know what you are talking about). Either way, keep up the great work.