[Lunaray]

Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size in
pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Thanks,
Ray

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:15:59 -0700, "Lunaray"
wrote:

Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size in
pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Thanks,
Ray


That sounds wrong. With printers currently producing numbers like 9600
dpi, a good size would be more like 45000 square. 342 would be very
blocky indeed.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Romeo Rondeau]

Lunaray wrote:
Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size in
pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Thanks,
Ray



The graphics for CD's are commonly supplied at 300dpi, making it 1500 x
1462, however bleed is gonna be different for different printing houses.
My suggestion is to use the templates provided for the specific printing
house or if you are printing it yourself you can find generic templates
at diskmakers.com. Keep in mind that only the photos are gonna be in
pixels, the text is gonna be vector based. You may need to do a little
googling and learn the difference between vector and bitmapped graphics.
You will need to use something like Quark or Illustrator for this, a
bitmapped graphics editor will yield pretty crappy results. I generally
use photos at 600dpi or higher so I still have resolution left over
after cropping and sizing.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:15:59 -0700, "Lunaray"
wrote:

Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size in
pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Show us the link?

Seems a bit small. But make an image that sixe, stretch it to CD
cover dimensions and see if you like the way it looks.

You realise that pixel cound doesn't determine the printed size? You
can always have too MANY pixels, the only disadvantage being increased
storage size.

[Richard Crowley]

"Lunaray" wrote ...
Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum
size in pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this
true?

No. That seems dramatically too small. Most laser printers
at home print 300 dpi. 342 pixels would be slightly over one
inch square. Where is this link? Sounds like you either
interpereted it wrong, or it is just plain incorrect.

When you are printing physical paper to fit into a jewell case,
(or an Amray case for DVDs, etc), dimensions tend to be physical,
like inches or mm. Pixels don't tell you anything about physical size.

[Carey Carlan]

"Lunaray" wrote in
:

Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum
size in pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this
true?

That's 72 dots per inch--fine for your screen, unacceptable for print.

Jewel case cover is 4.75 inches square. My minimum dots per inch for
printed are (and this is a minimum) is 150 dpi. That's 712 x 712 minimum.

I usually print at 720 dpi (near photo quality). That's 3420 x 3420.

[Scott Dorsey]

Lunaray wrote:
Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

No.

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size in
pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

That seems like phenomenally low resolution. You want the final resolution
to be limited by the offset printing process, NOT by the photograph you are
starting out with.

I'd suggest 1500 X 1500 minimum... that gives you a shade over 300 dpi
which would seem the minimum acceptable resolution to pass on to the
printer.

But ask the pressing plant... they will usually give you a Quark template
that you can use to lay your cover out, and it will mention the maximum
possible resolution of the final document. You want to be at LEAST that
high resolution.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Lunaray]

"Lunaray" wrote in message
. ..
Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size
in pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Thanks,
Ray

Thanks all! Yeah, I think I was confused, but I'm straightened out now.
Here's the link where I got the 342 x 342 idea:
http://home.real.com/product/help/rp...Jewel_Case.htm

Now that I think about it, 342 x 342 would indeed, make a pretty small
print!

[Richard Crowley]

"Lunaray" wrote ...
"Lunaray" wrote ...
Is there a standard size for CD cover photos? (in pixels)

I did some searching and one link that I found said that the optimum size
in pixels for a jewell case cover is 342 x 342 pixels, is this true?

Thanks,
Ray

Thanks all! Yeah, I think I was confused, but I'm straightened out now.
Here's the link where I got the 342 x 342 idea:
http://home.real.com/product/help/rp...Jewel_Case.htm

Now that I think about it, 342 x 342 would indeed, make a pretty small
print!

Thats more like the size of those little "thumbnail" images used in MP3
players (iPod, et.al.) Certainly not worth printing at 4.25 inches square.

[Lunaray]

The graphics for CD's are commonly supplied at 300dpi, making it 1500 x
1462, however bleed is gonna be different for different printing houses.
My suggestion is to use the templates provided for the specific printing
house or if you are printing it yourself you can find generic templates at
diskmakers.com. Keep in mind that only the photos are gonna be in pixels,
the text is gonna be vector based. You may need to do a little googling
and learn the difference between vector and bitmapped graphics. You will
need to use something like Quark or Illustrator for this, a bitmapped
graphics editor will yield pretty crappy results. I generally use photos
at 600dpi or higher so I still have resolution left over after cropping
and sizing.

Thanks Romeo,

I'm doing some covers for a musician so that he can sell his CD's. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that I should use a program like
Illustrator to compose the artwork? I know a little about vector-based
graphics, but I admit that I don't know as much as I should, so I'll go and
do some searching, but I think the main point here is that if the artwork is
vector-based, you can resize it without compromizing the appearance, is this
correct? So far, I've done everything in Photoshop and I've noticed that if
I use a large photo image and add my text, it looks and prints fine, but if
I reduce it to make a size suitable for viewing on the web, the text is
degraded and hard to read. Is this why I should convert everything to a
vector-based image?

Thanks for your help.

Ray

[Romeo Rondeau]

Lunaray wrote:
The graphics for CD's are commonly supplied at 300dpi, making it 1500 x
1462, however bleed is gonna be different for different printing houses.
My suggestion is to use the templates provided for the specific printing
house or if you are printing it yourself you can find generic templates at
diskmakers.com. Keep in mind that only the photos are gonna be in pixels,
the text is gonna be vector based. You may need to do a little googling
and learn the difference between vector and bitmapped graphics. You will
need to use something like Quark or Illustrator for this, a bitmapped
graphics editor will yield pretty crappy results. I generally use photos
at 600dpi or higher so I still have resolution left over after cropping
and sizing.

Thanks Romeo,

I'm doing some covers for a musician so that he can sell his CD's. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that I should use a program like
Illustrator to compose the artwork? I know a little about vector-based
graphics, but I admit that I don't know as much as I should, so I'll go and
do some searching, but I think the main point here is that if the artwork is
vector-based, you can resize it without compromizing the appearance, is this
correct? So far, I've done everything in Photoshop and I've noticed that if
I use a large photo image and add my text, it looks and prints fine, but if
I reduce it to make a size suitable for viewing on the web, the text is
degraded and hard to read. Is this why I should convert everything to a
vector-based image?

Thanks for your help.

Ray

Your images will stay in bitmapped format, however all lines and text
will remain in vector form. Also, make sure that you are composing in
CYMK color and not RGB. When you reduce a photo with text on it,
sometimes the detail in the text will disappear a little bit. You
generally have to fatten the text up a bit for smaller images at
low-resolution. Anyway, beyond the scope of this NG... :-)

[Larry Green]

Lunaray wrote:
The graphics for CD's are commonly supplied at 300dpi, making it 1500 x
1462, however bleed is gonna be different for different printing houses.
My suggestion is to use the templates provided for the specific printing
house or if you are printing it yourself you can find generic templates at
diskmakers.com. Keep in mind that only the photos are gonna be in pixels,
the text is gonna be vector based. You may need to do a little googling
and learn the difference between vector and bitmapped graphics. You will
need to use something like Quark or Illustrator for this, a bitmapped
graphics editor will yield pretty crappy results. I generally use photos
at 600dpi or higher so I still have resolution left over after cropping
and sizing.

Thanks Romeo,

I'm doing some covers for a musician so that he can sell his CD's. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that I should use a program like
Illustrator to compose the artwork? I know a little about vector-based
graphics, but I admit that I don't know as much as I should, so I'll go and
do some searching, but I think the main point here is that if the artwork is
vector-based, you can resize it without compromizing the appearance, is this
correct? So far, I've done everything in Photoshop and I've noticed that if
I use a large photo image and add my text, it looks and prints fine, but if
I reduce it to make a size suitable for viewing on the web, the text is
degraded and hard to read. Is this why I should convert everything to a
vector-based image?


If you create the design as a vector graphic you can resize it repeatedly to
suit your individual requirements (i.e. poster, CD cover, web use etc.) and then
create a new raster graphic from the new size. Vector graphics are not really
suitable for web use so it is going to have to be converted at some point but it
is far better to resize the vector source material than trying to resize a
larger raster graphic.

If you are using photographs as part of the design they should be resized in
Photoshop and then placed into the vector art at the correct size for the task
at hand rather than trying to resize them within the vector art program.

--
Larry Green

[Scott Dorsey]

Lunaray wrote:
I'm doing some covers for a musician so that he can sell his CD's. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that I should use a program like
Illustrator to compose the artwork?

You need to use whatever program will produce the format the pressing plants
want. Most pressing folks will handle Quark files. A lot will handle
Illustrator files.

I don't know of anyone today who will take camera-ready pasteup or who
will take raster images without charging an additional fee.

Your goal is to reduce the amount of additional fees you have to pay. That
means using whatever the pressing plant asks for and probably using their
templates.

Vector applications are just a lot more convenient to work with when you
are mixing text and graphics together.... but the REAL reason you want to
use an application is because it saves you money.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 13:25:28 -0700, "Lunaray"
wrote:

Thanks all! Yeah, I think I was confused, but I'm straightened out now.
Here's the link where I got the 342 x 342 idea:
http://home.real.com/product/help/rp...Jewel_Case.htm

Now that I think about it, 342 x 342 would indeed, make a pretty small
print!

I don't think "back cover art" in this context refers to the entire
back cover area.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 14:55:59 -0700, "Lunaray"
wrote:

I'm doing some covers for a musician so that he can sell his CD's. If I
understand you correctly, you're saying that I should use a program like
Illustrator to compose the artwork? I know a little about vector-based
graphics, but I admit that I don't know as much as I should, so I'll go and
do some searching, but I think the main point here is that if the artwork is
vector-based, you can resize it without compromizing the appearance, is this
correct? So far, I've done everything in Photoshop and I've noticed that if
I use a large photo image and add my text, it looks and prints fine, but if
I reduce it to make a size suitable for viewing on the web, the text is
degraded and hard to read. Is this why I should convert everything to a
vector-based image?

No. It's why you should retain a high-resolution version for printing
as well as a low-resolution version for fast Internet download.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Your goal is to reduce the amount of additional fees you have to pay. That
means using whatever the pressing plant asks for and probably using their
templates.

Vector applications are just a lot more convenient to work with when you
are mixing text and graphics together.... but the REAL reason you want to
use an application is because it saves you money.
--scott

Really? I use them because they get the job done properly :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Vector applications are just a lot more convenient to work with when you
are mixing text and graphics together.... but the REAL reason you want to
use an application is because it saves you money.

Really? I use them because they get the job done properly :-)

You could get the job done properly with an X-acto and a wax machine. But
it would take a lot longer and cost more.

There are lots of tools that will get the job done, but some of them will
save you time and money and some will cost you time and money.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Vector applications are just a lot more convenient to work with when you
are mixing text and graphics together.... but the REAL reason you want to
use an application is because it saves you money.
Really? I use them because they get the job done properly :-)

You could get the job done properly with an X-acto and a wax machine. But
it would take a lot longer and cost more.

OK Scott, there are many things that are commonly done with computers
that a razor blade and wax machine can't touch.


There are lots of tools that will get the job done, but some of them will
save you time and money and some will cost you time and money.

Agreed.