Simple Text Graphic

[Gail Schmitt]

I'm creating a simple desktop background in a blue with one row of text in a lighter shade of blue. When I save this as a bitmap and replace my desktop background with it, the text is very pixelated. The screen is 800x600 and the resolution is 72. The font is Arial and it looks fine in PS. I'm probably missing a very simple step, but what is it? Thanks.

Gail

[dave milbut]

bump the resolution up to 300. (image image size). you may (will) need to adjust the type size when you do this.

[Cheesefood]

The screen is 800x600 and the resolution is 72. The font is Arial and
it looks fine in PS. I'm probably missing a very simple step, but what
is it? Thanks




What's your desktop screen resolution set at? If your desktop is set to above 800 x 600, that will could cause the problem.

Since you're looking to put this as a desktop background, 300 dpi will eat up way too much memory. What you should do is create a document that's 1024 x 768 at 96 DPI. Then add your text, save it as a JPEG at the highest level and use that as your background image.

[Greg Gaspard]

Resolution will not matter in this case. The size is 800 pixels by 600 pixels. If you're displaying it as a desktop, your best bet will be a 1 to 1 ratio. In other words, if your screen resolution is 800x600, make sure your file's resolution is 800x600. If your monitor is set for a higher resolution, make your image size that resolution.

PPI (pixels per inch) should not matter because your screen only displays pixels. 800x600 at 72 ppi and 800x600 at 96 ppi are the same, according to your monitor. Why? Because there are only 800x600 pixels in the image. You monitor will display a pixel as a pixel. You can change the size of the pixels by changing your screen resolution in your Monitor control panel.

Also, try anti-aliasing the text and saving as a .JPG. Windows can use .BMP, .JPG or .GIF (if memory serves) as desktop images.

[EDIT] D'oh. Cheese beat me to it. What he said.

[dave milbut]

the resolution change won't affect file size if the resample box isn't checked.

I suggested that to get a better look out of the rasterized text. <shrug>

[Cheesefood]

A PC monitor displays 96 dpi, that's why I recommend 96 instead of 72. The differences are so slight as to almost not be noticed, but it's my preference to never go all the way down to 72.

[Greg Gaspard]

But dpi (or ppi) doesn't matter in this case. Only pixels. 800x600 pixels is 800x600 pixels, whether the pixels are 1/72" (72 ppi) each or 1/96" (96ppi). A 19" monitor running at 800x600 has a pixel size way larger than 1/96", probably closer to 1/32" (or 32 ppi). Introducing a ratio with a factor other than the actual screen resolution setting is just irrelevant in this instance.

[Cheesefood]

Good point.

[Thomas Madsen]

Cheesefood wrote:

> A PC monitor displays 96 dpi

A monitor doesn't know what ppi is.

> The differences are so slight as to almost not be noticed, but
> it's my preference to never go all the way down to 72.

An image of 800 x 600 pixels at 1 ppi would look exactly the same as
an image of 800 x 600 pixels at 10000 ppi on a monitor. The file size
would also be the same.

If you're interested you can read much more about it on this page:
<http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html>.

--
Regards
Madsen.

[Greg Gaspard]

Oh, and don't forget to uncheck "stretch image to fit" when setting your desktop. That's probably what caused this whole rigamarole in the first place. :)

Good link, Madsen. This writer's really taking it out on his pet peeve. Gotta love the internet...

[dave milbut]

at 72 or 300 ppi, whatever. Doesn't matter. Irrelevant




it DOES matter while the text is vector. don't resize at all (when you change resolutions, if you wish, uncheck resample).

when creating 2 images of 400x200. the text is at 12 points in the 300ppi image. the text is at 52 points in the 72 ppi image to get roughly the same size. both have anti-alias sharp. font used is courior (T1) medium.

Flattened it looks... well the 72 ppi w/52pt text looks better than the 12 pt at 300 (both zoomed to 300%). So I guess I'm wrong! :)

Interesting exercise though. <G>

[Gail Schmitt]

I took the resolution up to 300 and higher but the text didn't look any different. I was about to give up, when I logged on to see what replies I might have here. In the end, the problem was what Greg suggested. I had "stretch" selected instead of "center". Such a simple solution to a frustrating problem! Thanks for all the advice.

Gail

[Greg Gaspard]

If you set your text size in pixels, you wouldn't have to jump through those hoops. Photoshop is using the formula 72 pts=1 inch to calculate the size of the text (in pixels) based on the ppi of the file. If you set your text in pixels (which is what I was doing in my test), you can change your ppi as much as you want and you'll wind up with the exact same thing, as long as you don't resample. When entering the text size in the character dialog box, just use the suffix "px" insted of "pt". Photoshop will calculate the relative point size on the fly. (I say relative because the point size is dependent on the ppi. Pixels are absolute.) You're seeing differences in the quality of the type because the text is being hinted and kerned differently at different point sizes.

[EDIT] Glad you got it, Gail!

[Gail Schmitt]

I took the resolution up to 300 and higher but the text didn't look any different. I was about to give up, when I logged on to see what replies I might have here. In the end, the problem was what Greg suggested. I had "stretch" selected instead of "center". Such a simple solution to a frustrating problem! Thanks for all the advice.

Gail