Billboard Design

(Mike) wrote in news:46cdc619.0312262315.37044c21
@posting.google.com:

Hi all,

I’m a web designer, and have 0 experience in billboard design. Due to time constraints, though, I’m forced to create a billboard for my own company based on the tools I already have (Photoshop and Illustrator, mainly).

The company that is supplying the space created a terrible billboard, which is why I’m doing it myself. They told me that in order to use any images, I need to supply them at 2400x3000px, 300dpi.
This sounds pretty unrealistic to me,

Why? It barely qualifies as medium-sized for anyone used to print.

That’s only 300 dpi if the "billboard" were 8 x 10 *inches*. Common billboard size is twice that in *feet*.

I’m willing to bet the final dpi with that many pixels will be less than 50. You give them art that that is 1/7 the size they are asking for, your dpi values will be in the single digits at full size.

considering the board is going
to be seen 300 yards away, or more. I almost think that they are just being spiteful. While I have hundreds of images on file that I use for the web, roughly 300x300px or whatever, 72dpi, they’re saying that these are useless.

Unless you are working the pixellation into your design, they are entirely correct.

Do you guys think it would be safe to use an image like what I have on file with this board design?

Only if the image was very small.

If I’m going to do this, I need to be able to design the board at 980x450px (roughly 1/7 of what they’re asking for).

That wouldn’t even work for a decent sized print ad.

I’m assuming they
would be able to blow it up.

Sure, you can blow anything up.

Any idea what the smallest text size I
could really get away with would be?

Is this a troll?

In article , Eric Gill
<ericvgill@***yahoo.com> wrote:

(Mike) wrote in news:46cdc619.0312262315.37044c21
@posting.google.com:

The company that is supplying the space created a terrible billboard, which is why I’m doing it myself. They told me that in order to use any images, I need to supply them at 2400x3000px, 300dpi.
This sounds pretty unrealistic to me,

Why? It barely qualifies as medium-sized for anyone used to print.
That’s only 300 dpi if the "billboard" were 8 x 10 *inches*. Common billboard size is twice that in *feet*.
[…]

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution. They are unreadable close up. It is all about Viewing Distance. They look just fine from the road. (Well, as fine as those atrocites can look.)

The better billboard is hand-painted. Yep, it’s still done that way – in the case I’m familiar with it’s painted over a low-rez pattern laid on the board.

But there is someone here, or maybe on another of my favorite groups, who does billboards professionally. Mike, if he doesn’t speak up get over to an Adobe Illustrator group. He’s probably there.

(jjs) wrote in 251.sprint-rev.hbci.com:

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution.

John, look back at what he’s being asked to supply. 3000 pixels spread out over 20 *feet* = less than 13 dpi. He’s wanting to give them a file that will be less than *four* dpi(!).

I’m guesstimating the size for illustration purposes, but wanting to run a an oversized web banner on anything that can be called a "billboard" boggles the mind.

http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/Tips/9807/109.html

In article , Eric Gill
<ericvgill@***yahoo.com> wrote:

(jjs) wrote in 251.sprint-rev.hbci.com:

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution.

John, look back at what he’s being asked to supply. 3000 pixels spread out over 20 *feet* = less than 13 dpi. He’s wanting to give them a file that will be less than *four* dpi(!).

Whoops. I diverged. Sorry, Eric.

I’m guesstimating the size for illustration purposes, but wanting to run a an oversized web banner on anything that can be called a "billboard" boggles the mind.

Yeah, I don’t know what the billboard people have in mind, but if they are reasonable they must be asking for something the user can handle and then they will make the facimile from that. Interpolating like C R A Z Y. Truly crazy. but ow it gets to the billboard hasn’t been covered, and I don’t want to go there.

(jjs) wrote:

The better billboard is hand-painted. Yep, it’s still done that way –

Yep, it’s still done that way if you’re Ford or Anheuser-Busch or Gap or Marlboro. It doesn’t sound like the original poster is working with that kind of budget.

—
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

On 27-Dec-2003, Eric Gill <ericvgill@***yahoo.com> wrote:

(jjs) wrote in 251.sprint-rev.hbci.com:

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution.

John, look back at what he’s being asked to supply. 3000 pixels spread out
over 20 *feet* = less than 13 dpi. He’s wanting to give them a file that will be less than *four* dpi(!).

I’m guesstimating the size for illustration purposes, but wanting to run a
an oversized web banner on anything that can be called a "billboard" boggles the mind.

Billboards are printed as low as 2ppi. Viewing distance is the issue.

http://www.signindustry.com/outdoor/articles/2001-03-19-view ingDistance.php3

—
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it’s reserved for spammers)

They told me that in order to use
any images, I need to supply them at 2400x3000px, 300dpi.

Yes, that’s about right. That’s only a 27 MB CMYK image–quite small for billboard work. The billboards I have done have typically been higher resolution.

This sounds pretty unrealistic to me, considering the board is going to be seen 300 yards away, or more. I almost think that they are just being spiteful.

No, they are not.

While I have hundreds of images on file that I use for
the web, roughly 300x300px or whatever, 72dpi, they’re saying that these are useless.

They are correct. Those images are useless.

Do you guys think it would be safe to use an image like what I have on file with this board design?

Absolutely not. A billboard image should be larger than a Web image, and should be CMYK, not RGB. Listen to your billboard company. They are not steering you wrong.

The specifications they gave you produce only a 27 MB image–quite small by professional billboard and prepress standards.

If I’m going to do this, I need to be able to design the board at 980x450px…

Why???!!! Design it at the size they requested! If you create a billboard from a 980×450 pixel image, you are going to be *very* unhappy with the results, even from 300 yards away!

I’m assuming they
would be able to blow it up.

Nothing–no algorithm, no technique, nothing–can enlarge a pixel-based image and create detail not in the original. If you create a billboard at 980×450 pixels, I guarantee you will be extremely disappointed when you see the finished billboard.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution. They are unreadable close up. It is all about Viewing Distance. They look just fine from the road. (Well, as fine as those atrocites can look.)

Typical billboards printed on a Vuetek machine–the standard in the industry–print at 18 pixels per inch or 36 pixels per inch. Drum printers print at 50-60 pixels per inch.

A billboard image 980 pixels wide would be about 3.8 pixels per inch on a standard 24-foot billboard. You think a billboard at 18 pixels per inch looks bad? A 980-pixel-wide image on a billboard would be so absolutely staggeringly ugly that even a casual observer a great distance away could not help but notice!

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Why? It barely qualifies as medium-sized for anyone used to print.
That’s only 300 dpi if the "billboard" were 8 x 10 *inches*. Common billboard size is twice that in *feet*.

I’m obviously wrong here, but my thought was that for a billboard, a 4dpi image would be just fine. The board is 12′ x 25′, and while I know I would lose print quality, I figured (incorrectly, I see) that it wouldn’t be noticable from the road.

Any idea what the smallest text size I
could really get away with would be?

Is this a troll?

Oops, didn’t mean for it to be! I hoped that there was just a general rule of thumb for that.

Thanks,

Mike

"Tom Thackrey" wrote in
news:cwjHb.2530$:

On 27-Dec-2003, Eric Gill <ericvgill@***yahoo.com> wrote:

(jjs) wrote in
news: 251.sprint-rev.hbci.com:

Eric, I may be lucky or damned, don’t know which but every month I walk past a half mile of billboards and they are not high resolution.

John, look back at what he’s being asked to supply. 3000 pixels spread out

over 20 *feet* = less than 13 dpi. He’s wanting to give them a file that will be less than *four* dpi(!).

I’m guesstimating the size for illustration purposes, but wanting to run a

an oversized web banner on anything that can be called a "billboard" boggles the mind.

Billboards are printed as low as 2ppi. Viewing distance is the issue.

It is indeed – but with 1/2" dots, that distance better be pretty extreme, and the board very large.

The majority I’ve dealt with in the 20′ to 40′ range, to be viewed at 100 + yards, are output at 18 ppi, and my view on the results is about on par with John’s.

If I’m going to do this, I need to be able to design the board at 980x450px…

Why???!!! Design it at the size they requested! If you create a billboard from a 980×450 pixel image, you are going to be *very* unhappy with the results, even from 300 yards away!

I meant to say that, if I were to be able to use any of my existing images, I would need to create the board at 980x450px.

I guess what’s blown me away is that literally every board in this area has nice (from the road) images, even the micro businesses. I can’t believe that they were able to take snapshots at that high of a resolution any better than I can, so the board company must be supplying the images. Unfortunately for me, they weren’t able to supply any, so I’m on my own.

FYI, this is going to be a digital print on a poster billboard.

Thanks for the advice! Back to the drawing board…

Mike

(Mike) wrote in news:46cdc619.0312271426.1744e290
@posting.google.com:

Why? It barely qualifies as medium-sized for anyone used to print.
That’s only 300 dpi if the "billboard" were 8 x 10 *inches*. Common billboard size is twice that in *feet*.

I’m obviously wrong here, but my thought was that for a billboard, a 4dpi image would be just fine. The board is 12′ x 25′, and while I know I would lose print quality, I figured (incorrectly, I see) that it wouldn’t be noticable from the road.

That does, of course, depend on distance, but are your viewers really going to be that far away?

Any idea what the smallest text size I
could really get away with would be?

Is this a troll?

Oops, didn’t mean for it to be! I hoped that there was just a general rule of thumb for that.

Sorry. It just seemed going that way.

I don’t have a rule of thumb other than three to five lines total (perfereably three), with one larger than the rest as the hook. What size that translates to depends on the ad.

Unless you are counting on traffic jams, your readers are going to a moving target-literally. You’ve got almost zero time to get your message across.

One piece of advice – get your art to the printers with the text as vector, if at all possible. That way your text will at least be at whatever resolution they normally print at, even if you are forced to use lo-rez graphics.

Good luck.

I guess what’s blown me away is that literally every board in this area has nice (from the road) images, even the micro businesses. I can’t believe that they were able to take snapshots at that high of a resolution any better than I can, so the board company must be supplying the images.

More likely, they have an advertising agency supplying the images, or they are getting the images from a stock CD.

Stock CDs are an inexpensive way for small businesses to get access to professional-quality photography and imagery.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

I guess what’s blown me away is that literally every board in this area has nice (from the road) images, even the micro businesses. I can’t believe that they were able to take snapshots at that high of a resolution any better than I can, so the board company must be supplying the images.

More likely, they have an advertising agency supplying the images, or they are getting the images from a stock CD.

Stock CDs are an inexpensive way for small businesses to get access to professional-quality photography and imagery.

Heck, a lot of them have online sites for dealers to download the corporate images, ads, and so-forth. Sure, the images are sometimes large, but they can mandate they be downloaded. If you (not you, Tacit) don’t believe it, just go to the corporate customer sites and when you have to log in, try an obvious userid with a password that’s the same. No shit. It’s just amazing how easy they make the sites. OTOH, it doesn’t hurt to give away more ads. (I won’t tell you my clients, but they do follow that norm.)

Stock CDs are an inexpensive way for small businesses to get access to professional-quality photography and imagery.

I apologize that this is slightly OT for the group, but any suggestions where I might look for such a stock CD? The ones I’m finding (searching on Google) are in the neighborhood of $500 for 50 images, and that’s too much for a one-time use.

The ad that I had created before posting the original message could survive if I had an image large enough that is basically a screenshot of the Internet Explorer toolbar and Address bar. Everything else is pretty much just text (at least, nothing I can’t recreate from scratch).

So, if I can bring this thread around to Photoshop for a second, any thoughts on how I could take a screenshot of IE and blow it up to 6800px wide, and still keeping it "clean?"

It’s worth mentioning that while the ad I made IS more wordy than one would recommend, the board placement itself should let me get away with that. It’s in a 35mph zone, with no other boards near it to distract, and it’s within viewing distance from a stoplight. This means that people stopped at that light will have nothing better to do than to read the board 😉 (in theory, of course)

Thanks again, all,

Mike

Hi Mike!

You are asking about large-format printing. In the place where I work, we have (MUTOH) large-format printer. We use it for printing billboard flexfaces. The optimal resolution we accept (and really gives typical results) is that the artwork should be thenth (1/10) of the original’s dimensions, and have a resolution of 300 DPI. For example if you have a billboard of 3 x 12 meters, you will have to provide an artwork of 30 x 120 centimeters and a resolution of 300 DPI. The large-format printer is driven by a special RIP software that will resample the image for large print.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

"Mike" wrote in message
SNIP

So, if I can bring this thread around to Photoshop for a second, any thoughts on how I could take a screenshot of IE and blow it up to 6800px wide, and still keeping it "clean?"

Save a screen print (Print Screen button), paste in a new file in Photoshop, and resize with nearest neighbor (or bilinear) interpolation.

Bart

I apologize that this is slightly OT for the group, but any suggestions where I might look for such a stock CD? The ones I’m finding (searching on Google) are in the neighborhood of $500 for 50 images, and that’s too much for a one-time use.

You can find stock CDs for much less than that; Eyewire, Corbis, and Comstock have less expensive collections.

However, I doubt you’ll find a large image of a browser window. A computer window is an inherently low-resolution image.

The way I see it, you basically have two options:

1. Use a low-resolution image and accept the fact that it’s going to print at an extremely low resolution–it will be obvious, even from normal billboard distance, that it’s low resolution. Since it’s supposed to represent a computer screen, that might be OK, as long as the rest of the board is high resolution.

2. Completely create, inside Photoshop, a high-resolution version of a Web browser window. Using the low-resolution screen capture as a guide, create a new, blank, high-resolution image, and totally manufacture a Web browser window in that new image. That’s the approach I would take.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Mike wrote:

I apologize that this is slightly OT for the group, but any suggestions where I might look for such a stock CD? The ones I’m finding (searching on Google) are in the neighborhood of $500 for 50 images, and that’s too much for a one-time use.

Most stock image sites will let you purchase single images rather than entire sets.

In article <
rev.hbci.com>, says…

In article , Eric Gill
<ericvgill@***yahoo.com> wrote:

(Mike) wrote in news:46cdc619.0312262315.37044c21
@posting.google.com:

But there is someone here, or maybe on another of my favorite groups, who does billboards professionally. Mike, if he doesn’t speak up get over to an Adobe Illustrator group. He’s probably there.

….speaking of which – can anyone direct me to an
Illustrator group other than the almost always empty
alt.graphics.illustrator?

Mike

…speaking of which – can anyone direct me to an
Illustrator group other than the almost always empty
alt.graphics.illustrator?

Mike

Point your newsreader to adobeforums.com

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:05:50 -0500, Brian
wrote:

[snip]

Point your newsreader to adobeforums.com

And which is also mirrored on Usenet…eg adobe.illustrator.windows

….but the messages aren’t threaded properly though.

—
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice" – The Clash

And which is also mirrored on Usenet…eg adobe.illustrator.windows
…but the messages aren’t threaded properly though.

It’s best to use Adobe’s newsserver – adobe.illustrator.windows is not carried by all newsserves.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:43:32 -0500, Brian
wrote:

And which is also mirrored on Usenet…eg adobe.illustrator.windows
…but the messages aren’t threaded properly though.

It’s best to use Adobe’s newsserver – adobe.illustrator.windows is not carried by all newsserves.

True, forgot about that! Thanks.

—
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice" – The Clash

In article ,
says…

…speaking of which – can anyone direct me to an
Illustrator group other than the almost always empty
alt.graphics.illustrator?

Mike

Point your newsreader to adobeforums.com

Much thanks.