bitjas.blogg.se

There is too much information to be seen in the number of pixels available. You can see this is because the paths don't align with the pixels. View the same thing at 16 × 16 pixels and it looks terrible. The original vector on the left looks great. The problem appears when your vector is no longer a vector-i.e. Vectors have no inherent size so most of the time it doesn't matter, you can scale as much as you like. The problem is that your SVG wasn't designed to be shown at 16 × 16 pixels. If you're working in Illustrator and exporting for screen always export at 72 PPI (assuming your document is at the intended size), but this actually has nothing to do with the PPI value assigned to the output file, it's just a shortcut to output it at the correct size. a 16 × 16 pixel image at 300 PPI and 72 PPI are exactly the same thing. The PPI value itself makes no difference at all, all that matters is the pixel dimensions. Alternatively you can set the grid to pixel/ half pixel sized and use the jooSnapToDocumentGrid.jsx on points you deem most problematic.Īs Joojaa says, the PPI doesn't matter. * Or scale up enable pixel snapping and scale down for quick and dirty approach. This is the reason fonts are hinted, as there is really no way around the fact that tweaking points is the best strategy. However, Because your image is extremely small i doubt this helps you in any practical way. It is possible that switching over to, type optimized rendering or a windowed Sinc filter (Lanczos), see this post. You could try to enable pixel snapping for your art the tweak the points*.Īlternatively, more closely to what you think is going on, you could try a different filtering technique. Particularly small icon sizes require you to manually tweak the content to hit the pixel grid.

If you have a hard time understanding DPI just ignore it, you will know when you need it and it basically only applies for printing anyway.Īs you have discovered having a vector file vectors does not mean infinitely scalable content. This does not mean that your question is broken, the only reason I brought the previous up is that very many people make your mistake and quite frankly you should not even go there.

It is universally understood that displays do not even begin to try to heed this. It is like putting a post it note on the image saying that this is the size I would wish to output on your hard copy device i.e. For images the DPI value is a piece of metadata. Only devices have a resolution property images do not. Doing what you ask would accomplish absolutely nothing. There is no such thing as higher screen resolution in this sense. The DPI value simply does not change the image clarity in any way! 16 pixels is 16 pixels, a pixel is a sample the sample is the same irrespective. There is no difference between as a 16x16 pixels image at 300 DPI and 16 x 16 pixels image at 72 DPI.