bitmap copy of clip very blurry

[BobInce]

if you create the bitmap copy at a high res (at least 300dpi), then export it at 96, you can get a much sharper image with better detail.

This is only really true when making a bitmap from an image perspectivised by the mould tool. It's an issue here because the mould tool renders images without proper anti-aliasing (even in VHQ mode), so by making a higher-res bitmap from it and then scaling it down you are effectively anti-aliasing it manually.

There are some other cases where it can pay to do this kind of ‘super-sampling’ manually, but it's pretty rare. The most common for me is when you've got two paths on top of each other with exactly the same shape; this can make the edges look wrong when rendered using Xtreme's implementation of anti-aliasing, but the effect can be vastly reduced using super-sampling.

When you're super-sampling for web images, it's generally best to use a multiple of 96dpi such as 192 or 384 rather than 300. This lines up the pixel boundaries of the output image to the source image, which results in a slight improvement in sharpness.

[Egg Bramhill]

Allison/Bob, thanks for the input. That's what I thought, I just couldn't follow Steves reasoning for creating a 300 ppi image. The only reason Samanthas image looked blurry was that she was comparing a 200ppi image alongside a 96ppi image whilst zoomed in.

[amoore]

This is only really true when making a bitmap from an image perspectivised by the mould tool.

It's true that I'm most likely to use it on a mould or something I've squished or skewed in some way. I don't do it unless it looks like I need to. But then, I use a lot of photos as objects, so I may run into it more often than most people.

TWhen you're super-sampling for web images, it's generally best to use a multiple of 96dpi such as 192 or 384 rather than 300. This lines up the pixel boundaries of the output image to the source image, which results in a slight improvement in sharpness.

That's good to know. Thanks!