I have a .bmp file at around 500x500 pixels and wish to resize it to around 215x215 pixels, but the image gets somewhat distorted after resizing (e.g. 2 lines that are the same size at 500x500 would look different sizes at 215x215). It looks relatively better if I halve it (i.e. 250x250) or quarter it (i.e. 125x125) but resizing to any number that is not a factor of 500 leads to the aforementioned issue. I have tried using all 3 resampling methods, and bicubic works the best but still does not prevent the issue. Also, there doesn't seem to be any difference whether it is a .bmp, .jpg, etc. I am using RBG Color Mode. Thanks for any help.
It's not necessarily so surprising...you say the lines are identical, but they're just pixels, and Photoshop's got to interpolate to do any reduction. So it makes sense that a line that's 4 pixels wide at 500x500 would work nicely at 250x250, when it would be 2 pixels.
But at 215, it not an exact number of pixels, and ps has some very complx algorithm that none of could ever understand that's got to decide how best to make it fit.
Where did the image come from...scanned, imported, etc. Why not just create it in the first place at the right size?
when you get down to so few pixels (215x215) some lines (especially diagonals or curved) will be distorted, or just pixelated...if it's an image, your eye will blur the difference, but if they are graphic lines, your eye will read the pixels...(am i making sense?)
having said that, my first thought was, also, the viewing percentage (ps distorts the view at 33.3 or 66.7%)
bmp files are already bitmaps. Unless you convert it to vector, which never works well for bitmaps, it will always be a bitmap image (some files, like PDFs, AI, EPS can be either).
Why do you need the pixel dimension smaller? Often times I would keep the dpi higher and just change the actual size. Let's say you need something to be .5 inches, no reason it can't be 100 dpi if it looks better. 215 is so little, that you are bound to lose some info.
I agree with trace.. DO not change the pixels just adjust the size of the image.. Keep the pixels the same, 500x500 is not a very big image to begin with.. You are actually diminishing the quality by reducing the pixels.. Or use the free transform, and it will proportionately distort the image.. :)
Photoshop Image Resizing Issue
I have a .bmp file at around 500x500 pixels and wish to resize it to around 215x215 pixels, but the image gets somewhat distorted after resizing (e.g. 2 lines that are the same size at 500x500 would look different sizes at 215x215). It looks relatively better if I halve it (i.e. 250x250) or quarter it (i.e. 125x125) but resizing to any number that is not a factor of 500 leads to the aforementioned issue. I have tried using all 3 resampling methods, and bicubic works the best but still does not prevent the issue. Also, there doesn't seem to be any difference whether it is a .bmp, .jpg, etc. I am using RBG Color Mode. Thanks for any help.
what version of ps, what is the question and could you post an example of what you are seeing?
that's peculiar. are you positive it's just not your screen or zoom percentage that makes it appear distorted?
It's not necessarily so surprising...you say the lines are identical, but they're just pixels, and Photoshop's got to interpolate to do any reduction. So it makes sense that a line that's 4 pixels wide at 500x500 would work nicely at 250x250, when it would be 2 pixels.
But at 215, it not an exact number of pixels, and ps has some very complx algorithm that none of could ever understand that's got to decide how best to make it fit.
Where did the image come from...scanned, imported, etc. Why not just create it in the first place at the right size?
will it do the same if you resize it via free transform?
make sure that you are viewing it at 100%. Most of the time PS displays things are weird sizes (as jk3hl noted).
Maybe try saving it as a jpeg, then playing with - i just don't like bmp files!
when you get down to so few pixels (215x215) some lines (especially diagonals or curved) will be distorted, or just pixelated...if it's an image, your eye will blur the difference, but if they are graphic lines, your eye will read the pixels...(am i making sense?)
having said that, my first thought was, also, the viewing percentage (ps distorts the view at 33.3 or 66.7%)
post the images, i am curious...
how about just keep it vector?
SVG is a good format
bmp files are already bitmaps. Unless you convert it to vector, which never works well for bitmaps, it will always be a bitmap image (some files, like PDFs, AI, EPS can be either).
Why do you need the pixel dimension smaller? Often times I would keep the dpi higher and just change the actual size. Let's say you need something to be .5 inches, no reason it can't be 100 dpi if it looks better. 215 is so little, that you are bound to lose some info.
I agree with trace.. DO not change the pixels just adjust the size of the image.. Keep the pixels the same, 500x500 is not a very big image to begin with.. You are actually diminishing the quality by reducing the pixels.. Or use the free transform, and it will proportionately distort the image.. :)
Image,
Images size
Resolution: Bump it up to about 300
Then try making the image bigger by constricting the proportions.
Should work.
You can also try converting the image to a JPEG or TIFF
Photoshop... lines
There's your problem!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.