After closer examination, I've also noticed that between the 72 dpi, 200 dpi and 600 dpi images, there are very little changes to the actual model and edge clarity. They are almost just as pixelated in 600 dpi as they are in 72 dpi. So the results I'm getting from my own test is that this more of a magnification of the text, arrow and perhaps the other small items like screws, nuts or bolts, than an actual increase in dots per inch. I wouldn't be surprised if those nuts and bolts are just magnified clear off the screen. Looking at various examples, I see the same quality issues across all the different formats I've tried. The edges are still chunky like they are made with legos, regardless of the dpi settings. Can any of you confirm the same results?
ya, that seems to be consistent with what i have seen too.. despite increasing the dpi, image quality doesnt change at all. Its like you said, dmjessup, there is probably some issue in the graphics processing system.
Ah. I see what the problem is. Let me give you an example, and then I think you'll see it too.
1. Set publish area to 640x480.
2. Create or select a snapshot and zoom out far enough so that a component disappears because it is too small. Now zoom back in one notch so it reappears.
3. Publish this snapshot to PNG format, using defined publish area, 640x480, 72dpi. Look at this in your favorite image viewer, and confirm that it is the same as what is shown in Publisher.
4. Without changing anything else, republish to a custom size, 640x480, 300dpi. Look at this in your image viewer again, and confirm that (at least) the component has disappeared.
5. But notice that the two images are the same size in the viewer. That's because you said in the Publish command, "640x480". That controls the number of pixels. The 300dpi is ... advice to Publisher that you're going to display/print it on a 300 dpi device. A 640x480 pixel image, shown at 300 dpi, will only be about 2" by 1.5". Now if you look at your 72 dpi image on a 72dpi screen (all screens are considered 72dpi), and imagine it reduced by a factor 4.1, because the "pixels are smaller", I think you can see that the little component *should* disappear.
Solution: If you're trying to get a certain pixel-sized image, just use 72 dpi. If you're trying to get a certain physical (inch) sized image at a certain DPI because you're using a certain printer, then set the size in inches or mm's.
I hope this explanation and 'solution'(?) addresses the problem. I know it feels a little weird. At the very least, I hope it adequately explains the behavior.
Thanks Jon, I appreciate you addressing this. In addition to the vanishing items (which will probably now not vanish because I will leave the settings alone), I still have the issue of needing graphics at a quality level that is acceptable for reprint on a literature level. Whatever the combination of screen size and dpi, if the edges of things are pixel squares, I cannot use them for reprint, and have to create all the graphics I need for publications in another program. This makes Publisher a good tool for little animations that can be sent to portable devices, but not good for end-quality documents that we can use to create user's manuals, literature, sales sheets and many other needs.
So how do we get "quality" graphics sent to our Word, PowerPoint, PDF, PNG, etc? In the right color? Matching our snapshots in size relations (like arrows and texts that stay WYSIWYG)? I get better quality at the moment using a screen capture software on the models I have in Publisher.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.
Start with some of our most frequented solutions or visit the Installation and Licensing Forum to get help installing your software.
Upgrading to a 2015 product? Make sure to check these out 1st!