Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

graphicpush · Feb 27, 2004, 10:53 PM

Just letting you know I posted a new tutorial on capturing and optimizing screenshots for print delivery. It discusses how to convert a raster screenshot into vector art that can be scaled, and more tips on tweaking. It covers both Mac and PC.

The article is here:

http://www.graphicpush.com/tutorials/screenshots.shtml

Thanks!

AWShuttleworth · Feb 28, 2004, 09:50 AM

Really nice work. That's exceptionally helpful.

No sarcasm. Thanks.

graphicpush · Mar 2, 2004, 09:24 AM

Thanks! I hope some others out there can take advantage of this as well.

lenox · Mar 3, 2004, 04:24 PM

That was quite cool. A very informative and concise tutorial!

siliconwarrior · Mar 3, 2004, 08:07 PM

I fail to understand what is to be gained by any method of resizing a screen capture. Crop it and clean up the corners etc, sure, but for best results don't change the pixel dimensions - there's no point.

Screen captures are the one exception to the 300dpi print rule; all you will achieve through resampling is a blurred (anti-aliased) image. As for file size, a 1024 x 768 screen capture is 2.25MB uncompressed, and this needn't be increased for print output.

Make 'em as big as you want but you don't add more pixels. Think about it - magnify a photograph and you'd expect to see more detail, but magnify a monitor and you'd expect to see pixels.

sw

PookJP · Mar 4, 2004, 03:54 PM

Handy! Cheers.

graphicpush · Mar 6, 2004, 04:07 PM

I fail to understand what is to be gained by any method of resizing a screen capture. Crop it and clean up the corners etc, sure, but for best results don't change the pixel dimensions - there's no point.

The raster resizing is just to get the screenshots in sync with other images (300 dpi, CMYK). It is also a useful technique when creating a unique graphic from screenshot -- for example, several screenshots clustered together with nice shadows could be rendered as a single TIFF and imported. But you still have to cleanly resize those screenshots up to 300 dpi before tweaking them in PS, and the Nearest Neighbor technique avoids anti-aliasing.

Also, we regularly create large banners and whatnot for trade shows, and we often have screenshots on there. Converting them to vector just provides a means of exactly controlling the output, and it guarantees a crisp and uncompromized image. (Not to mention a file a fraction of a comperable TIFF.)

Resizing screenshots is not critically necessary if they're just being placed on a page. But for the control freaks like me, who want the absolute best quality, it is a necessary step.

Super Glitcher · Mar 6, 2004, 04:34 PM

you print a lot of these tutorials?

s_surfer · Mar 6, 2004, 04:41 PM

I tried the tutorial on a sample screenshot. Although I ended up with a vector version the resultant eps was not smaller; in fact it was larger. The screen capture was 332KB but after I converted it to EPS in flash the file was 856KB (and when I opened it and resaved it in Illustrator it blossomed to 1.4MB. Interestingly, if I saved the save file to PDF and optimized the file it shrunk to a tiny 92KB.

...Steve

graphicpush · Mar 7, 2004, 04:50 PM

Perhaps I should have been clearer in the original piece. The vector screenshots are smaller than their 300 dpi Tiff cousins, especially at larger sizes. 1.4 MB EPS file is much smaller than a 30 MB Tiff.

siliconwarrior · Mar 9, 2004, 07:27 PM

No no no no no.

What's the point of resizing without anti-aliasing? You're getting the same image!

Think of a chess board: 8 squares (1 pixel each) by 8 squares = 64 squares (64 pixels). Resample this to 4 pixels per square so that you're using 256 pixels and you still have the same chessboard with the same amount of detail, you're just using unnecessary pixels.

You cannot make up resolution that is not there so don't waste your time.

s_surfer · Mar 10, 2004, 12:44 AM

What's the point of resizing without anti-aliasing? You're getting the same image!

There must be some point to it since Adobe went to the trouble to include it in the program and document it in the manual "When you resample up (or increase the number of pixels), new pixels are added based on color values of existing pixels"

I don't see how you are getting the same imagine. Create a rectangle that is 10 pixels by 100 pixels. Resample it up to 100 pixels by 1,000 pixels. Are you suggesting they are the same image and will print the same?

You cannot make up resolution that is not there so don't waste your time.

Sure you can. Whether the added resolution improves or degrades the quality of the printed image depends on the original. Nearest Neighbor may not be the best results but it has its uses. Again as per the manual, "...Nearest Neighbor (Jagged) for the fast but less precise method. This method is recommended for use with illustrations containing non-anti-aliased edges"

...Steve

siliconwarrior · Mar 10, 2004, 05:00 AM

My point is that it only takes 8 x 8 pixels to make up a chess board, there is no need for any more; similarly it only takes 1024 x 768 pixels to make up a screen grab - you will gain nothing from adding more pixels.

I am only talking about screenshots, resampling has many uses outside of this but screenshots are unique in that they are 'perfect' images already, ie no pixels have been interpolated whatsoever in their capture, unlike a scan or digital shot.

And yes, your 10 x 100 image will print the same at 100 x 1000 - the only difference will be the amount of blurring, which is determined by the resampling method.