Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

16

The answer applies both to vector and to rasterized icons. If quality matters, you can't. Large icons contain more details. Those details, which are nice on a 128×128 icon, would be disturbing on a 32×32 icon; instead of helping visually identify the icon, they will do the opposite. For example, a large icon of a keyboard may contain every key of the ...


13

In the Preferences > General area, make sure Scale Strokes & Effects is selected.


11

Photoshop interpolates pixels. This means when you scale in Photoshop, Photoshop uses mathematical algorithms to determine either the best pixels to remove (if reducing) or the best color pixels to add (if enlarging). When you scale a raster image in Photoshop you alter the pixels of the image itself. Illustrator does not interpolate pixels. Illustrator ...


9

Ignoring the how old the onlooker might be, how high up, low down, indoors, artificial light or not, dark train stations, weather, is it a print sign or a screen, reflective road sign etc etc. There are a few tools that will help you calculate this, and there are some best practices. If you really want to get into this, your keyword will be signage. ...


8

Select the triangle and go to "Object" -> "Expand Appearance."


7

Further to Jin's answer, you can maintain scaled appearance properties by checking the Scale Strokes & Effects box on the Transform palette.


7

Illustrator has horizontal and vertical scale options just like Photoshop. But because Adobe are... special... they thought it would be fun to hide a lot of their settings and leave no clue that they are there. Open up the flyout menu with the button at the top right of the character settings window. Choose "Show options", which is Adobe speak for "Stop ...


7

Sounds like your display performance is on the low setting. In your InDesign document, go to the top menu View > Display performance and choose High quality display. The lower settings exists when working with heavy documents, it improves performance. Hope this helps!


6

Ok, I've worked this one out. Photoshop has a single, global setting to determine the scaling algorithm used, for everything. It is in Preferences > General > Image Interpolation. Setting this will make all image scale transforms use this algorithm. So set this to nearest neighbour, perform the scale, change it back, is the rather tedious solution. UPDATE ...


6

The very short answer is "No." Oldstyle figures ("lowercase") are specifically drawn that way. Legacy Postscript and TrueType fonts, for the most part, contain only tabular figures, which are lining or oldstyle according to the way the font is designed. The Unicode Consortium isn't suggesting that lining figures can be distorted into oldstyle figures, ...


6

You'll want to scale first. Downsizing the image will compress your palette to some extent in and of itself. Indexing before hand would throw color away that may be helpful in the down-sampling step.


6

I've tried under Windows with your version and with the most recent one and it works as usual. In order to maintain the border stroke while scaling the object, the first button should be up (in your screenshot seems to be down, i.e. the stroke is scaled with the object):


6

There are too many variables for one answer. The first thing to evaluate is the typeface. If you are using a face designed for signage, the general references Ilan provided are probably roughly accurate. On the other hand, if you're working on a branded piece where the typography is part of a larger brand standard, you'll have to do your own research. The ...


5

The absolute best way to work is create the document using only vector shapes, layer styles and (if you have to) Smart Objects that are high enough resolution to cover the @2x size. If constructed properly, your document can be scaled up and down with no loss at all — Photoshop will rerender shapes and layer styles at size, so they'll be as good as ...


5

As you probably know, the viewing distance of two feet is ludicrous. If people were going to view whatever this is from two feet, it wouldn't need to be 34 feet tall. When people get up close to something that big, they're used to seeing image issues. From a reasonable distance (20 plus feet?), Scott has the right idea. Depending on the photo, the ...


5

I would take a different approach to this, because the task is like wishing for the moon. There's no unicorn filter in Photoshop yet. (And I'm surprised nobody has so far pointed out that Photoshop's pixel limit for a PSD is 30,000 in either dimension, so 86,400 would only be achievable by slicing the image into separate files and enlarging those.) The ...


5

I would scale then Index - I can't think of a technical reason why, but.. If in doubt try it both ways, it won't take long and you can compare them both afterwards to see which best fits the purpose. [added]: Scale, then index: Index, then scale:


5

Please look at these resources Distance Legibility Chart additional explanation crazy resource also, you probably want to learn what the visual acuity is... If you want to calculate the proper 20/20 letter size based on distance you can use this formula: tan(5 minutes) = distance in feet/20 but it is not the BEST letter size, only the size that a ...


5

These four options define how to scale the image. Each option describes an algorithm used to do this. See image sampling. None: The nearest-neighbor algorithm is used. There is no smoothing after scaling. Linear: Touching pixels average their values. Cubic: Touching pixels average their values so central pixels maintain the most value. Lanczos: Pixels are ...


4

320 / 541 = .591 (that is, 320 pixels is 59.1% of 541 pixels) 600 * .591 = 354.6 (so 354.6 is 59.1% of 600) rounded up to 355 pixels There's your width; do the same calculations for the height. //edit for height: 240 / 341 = .704 449 * .704 = 316.1 round down to 316px


4

Off the bat.. Place image in Adobe Illustrator Use the Live Trace feature to convert the photo to vectors Scale all you want. It's best to import the photo as large as possible to get as much detail as possible with Live Trace. And Live Trace tends to work better if photos are not exceptionally intricate. But it's a possible solution. Sticking with ...


4

This particular set is composed of shapes and text, so resizing is not going to impact quality, but you can't just downsize these icons. An icon is a special kind of infographic. Its purpose is to communicate easily-recognized information at any given size, so your first step, before you start scaling anything, is to identify what parts of the icon carry the ...


4

Converting to a smart object won't change the quality when the image is reduced, it will only allow you to resize the image afterwards back to normal without loss of quality. Convert to smart object anyway, as it's good practice. Go to Settings -> General Change 'Image Interpolation' to 'Bicubic sharper' see if that helps maintain some detail.


4

Essentially, you have to draw or re-draw your small icon. Ideally you work from a vector based version that you scale down and then tweak the details on pixel-level, but scaling down a rastered version will work, too. Your scaling results will be better, if you scale exactly 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc, because photoshop has to blur less between pixels. ...


4

I would add a stroke to the shapes, as a stroke would be consistent Then you can expand your object so that the stroke is a shape as well. So just draw your shape, put a stroke on it, then go to Object -> Expand. Then fill your expanded shape, now you have two separate shapes, one of which is scaled up properly to your initial shape. EDIT You can ...


4

When designing for a variety of resolutions you want to scale down, not up. Do your design in a @2x resolution (640 x 960 @72ppi) and for the @1x assets you duplicate them to a new document (preferably) and scale them down by 50%. You can set up a Action script for this also to make the process go by faster. To learn a bit about Photoshop action script you ...


4

For live trace, it may be better to scale it up to larger pixel dimensions (2-3x), place it, and then trace it. This way you provide more data for the trace. Quality loss from over scaling the raster image is OK in this case because you will be using it as an intermediary step to the vector. IGNORE PPI, the only thing that matters is pixel dimension.


4

I think @Scott is right, you should be able to just use a negative value for Object > Path > Offset Path and achieve the new inner paths. You may have to manually adjust the stroke weight though to achieve each iteration looking thinner.


3

import the vector paths and raster images into illustrator and redo layout. Illustrator CS5 has in the transform pallet a check box for constrain to pixel grid. Select all of your vector paths and check this box. Then when you resize it will stay aligned to the pixel grid. It may be some work but if your raster images are placed from photoshop and your ...


3

If you are asking: "I just got a retina display and noticed how blurry some web graphics look even when they are saved at the actual size they are used. Should one save images for the web twice the size because there are retina displays out there?" Then this is my answer: You are correct. You should make your images for the web twice the size you ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible