4 replies to this topic

[benbakelaar]

Yes I know I have already asked this question, and it's driving me crazy. I looked back at the last post, but that was one of the restored posts and its missing some information. I've attached this screenshot, what am I doing wrong?

I am in layout view, not data view. I want it to export the full map at the resolution displayed on the screen. But as you can see, it is showing 799 by 1034 for full extent. The real full extent should be at least 2000x3000 pixels (approx). If I click "click output to graphics extent", it changes to 628 by 863. Although you will see on the screenshot that I have multiple layers selected, even if I go down to only one layer selected, it still shows the same numbers.

What am I missing? Sorry for the repeat question

Attached Files

•  carto2.JPG   135.89K   104 downloads

[mike]

Clip graphics to output extent means that it will export the file to the minimum and maximum extent of the objects contained within your layout. So it depends on your page size. if you have the option checked, and you have a large page size and small data frames, it will clip to the small data frame. if you leave it unchecked, it will export the entire page size.

I believe you're confusing the "real full extent" with the extent of just your layout. The spatial extent is something different. it is the extent of your data (in geographic measurements). In layout mode, the graphic extent is the extent of your data frames.

Therefore, if you wanted to show larger geographic coverage, go into page settings and enter dimensions for a larger page, then adjust your data frame size accordingly. If you want to increase the image size (in terms of pixels) enter in a larger resolution.

[benbakelaar]

Thanks Mike, I still don't understand most of the differences, but I was able to get what I wanted. I went into page size, made it custom by points, made it an arbitrarily large number of pixels (i.e. 2000x3000), then zoomed so the full layer was in the data view window. I then went to layout view, export map, chose a low dpi (94), exported, and it came out as I wanted. What I had been trying to do before was export a letter-size page at 300 dpi, instead of changing the resolution of the page itself. Thanks again! Yknow, since you work for ESRI and all, you might want to tell them that I went through the entire Teach Yourself ArcGIS from ESRI Press and did not find that concept anywhere.

Therefore, if you wanted to show larger geographic coverage, go into page settings and enter dimensions for a larger page, then adjust your data frame size accordingly. If you want to increase the image size (in terms of pixels) enter in a larger resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[mike]

Thanks Mike, I still don't understand most of the differences, but I was able to get what I wanted. I went into page size, made it custom by points, made it an arbitrarily large number of pixels (i.e. 2000x3000), then zoomed so the full layer was in the data view window. I then went to layout view, export map, chose a low dpi (94), exported, and it came out as I wanted. What I had been trying to do before was export a letter-size page at 300 dpi, instead of changing the resolution of the page itself. Thanks again! Yknow, since you work for ESRI and all, you might want to tell them that I went through the entire Teach Yourself ArcGIS from ESRI Press and did not find that concept anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad that you got it. I always start with a layout size that is planned before hand. this usually saves me time. I rather get it down close to final, so I don't have to go back into it and fiddle with scale, line widths, symbol sizes, text sizes, etc if the image size changes.

If you are aiming to show your work for on screen purposes, just do your exports at 72ppi. that is a good compromise and is historically (early Apple history) the screen resolution of monitors. it's a good measure of what you will see at 100% on screen. if you are aiming for print, 300dpi is pretty much standard. you can always go higher, but large scale printers usually downsample back to 300dpi b/c to the eye, anything larger than that is not a huge noticeable difference. if you have Adobe Photoshop, play with the image resolution and size settings to see what kind of results you get.

[benbakelaar]

Glad that you got it. I always start with a layout size that is planned before hand. this usually saves me time. I rather get it down close to final, so I don't have to go back into it and fiddle with scale, line widths, symbol sizes, text sizes, etc if the image size changes.

If you are aiming to show your work for on screen purposes, just do your exports at 72ppi. that is a good compromise and is historically (early Apple history) the screen resolution of monitors.  it's a good measure of what you will see at 100% on screen. if you are aiming for print, 300dpi is pretty much standard. you can always go higher, but large scale printers usually downsample back to 300dpi b/c to the eye, anything larger than that is not a huge noticeable difference. if you have Adobe Photoshop, play with the image resolution and size settings to see what kind of results you get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I am doing actually is generating a master file to use as a tileset for custom map overlays with Google Maps API. I have to generate a master file for each zoom level on the area (e.g. the 5 NYC boros), and play around with the DPI to get an exact (or as close as possible) match to the Google Maps resolution. Today, my settings were as follows:

ArcMap
Page size
2000x3000 pixels
Portrait

Zoom to NYCD layer
1:73,984

Export at
65dpi

Match to nyc-google-zoom5.jpg (print-screened compilation of 5 boros at Google zoom level 5)