60,000 px on the long side for print-quality banners of small / medium size. Huge thanks for the amazing advice. ... View more

In the context of professional printing, 3.3 inches is smaller than a modern phone screen (iphone 7 screen with 4.7 inches was small but still bigger then your example). As I already mentioned, this means that for any large-format printing task, Dimension—like any software that lacks the ability to set export size and resolution—is simply unusable. So essentially, Adobe is developing a product that is only suitable for web use. It would be great if you could not only bring back the feature but also reconsider the needs of professionals working in 3D graphics and print design. The suggestion made earlier in this thread to "try other programs" doesn’t exactly align with Adobe’s business interests, especially since the Adobe product lineup does not offer viable alternatives. ... View more

This is a common misconception, and I appreciate the discussion. However, with 25 years in professional photography and 6 years in large-format print design, I’m well aware of how PPI impacts quality. I understand that not everyone relies on this feature, but many professionals—including myself and my colleagues—do. The function was there for a reason, and its removal adds unnecessary complexity to an established workflow. In professional printing, PPI is crucial. Printing the same image at 72 vs. 240 PPI produces a clear difference in sharpness and detail, just like a RAW file retains more flexibility than a compressed JPG. More data in the file = more control in post-processing and better print quality. That’s not an opinion—it’s just a fact. My concern is not about debating theory but about practical workflow efficiency. Reintroducing this feature would benefit professionals who need precise control over their output, rather than forcing workarounds for something that was already solved. ... View more

So instead of a simple, clear, and widely used professional feature that was already in the program and worked perfectly, you’re suggesting we now have to do manual calculations? Let’s say we’re talking about vehicle wraps, where we need a file that corresponds to 1500mm x 5000mm with a minimum required print resolution of 150 DPI. That now means generating a 29,528 × 8,858 px file. And if we need full 300 DPI print resolution, that jumps to 59,055 × 17,717 px. I’d love to know how that’s supposed to work with Adobe’s file size limitations (hello 30,000 px cap for JPGs). Instead of keeping physical dimensions reasonable and controlling detail through pixel density, we’re now forced to inflate file resolution and just hope the whole system doesn’t break. Not exactly nostalgic for the days when Illustrator’s workspace was physically limited, and anything exceeding it could cost me hours of work. Given these limitations, I’ll be exploring alternatives like Cinema 4D or Blender, which still allow precise physical dimension control for high-resolution renders. ... View more

Setting the PPI after generating an image just to make it 240 is complete nonsense. PPI stands for Pixels Per Inch, meaning how many pixels fit into one inch of the image. For example, a 5000-pixel-wide image at 72 PPI results in 69.44 inches, whereas the same 5000-pixel image at 240 PPI is only 20.833 inches. Naturally, 240 PPI means more data per inch, leading to higher detail and sharpness, which translates to better quality when printing—something professionals require. Simply changing the setting from 72 to 240 after rendering does not increase the actual data; it only provides misleading information about the file. The only thing this achieves is deceiving the person handling the print process. There’s a reason why professionals shoot in RAW instead of JPG and record video in LOG instead of a baked-in profile. The same principle applies here: both I and other professionals need actual, not artificial, data in our images. At the same time, the physical size of an image—whether 5000 or 10,000 pixels on the long side—has a much smaller impact on its detail and quality than the PPI value. And this factor has a huge impact on post-processing. Adjusting contrast and color at 72 PPI is vastly different from doing the same at 240 PPI—the range of possibilities is simply incomparable, just like with photography. "Resolution" in PPI, not just metadata, is a crucial measurement actively used in professional printing, significantly affecting the final image quality. Unfortunately, at the moment, dimension feels more like a tool for generating pretty blog images rather than a real application for professionals. ... View more

I am a car wrap designer with six years of experience, so I have "some understanding", thank you. And no, resolution in the context I’m referring to is very important. At the very least, to get a file suitable for printing, I would have to inflate the file size by at least 2.5 times, increasing rendering time. Considering that I need files of at least 5000 pixels on the long side with a resolution of no less than 240 dpi, using dimension can be completely ruled out. Essentially, this change kills the interest of professionals in the printing industry and limits usage to those who create images for the web—something that any MidJourney-like tool can easily handle. A very unnecessary change, given that this function was already available. ... View more

And now Dimension also dont have Resolution settings anymore. Sad. ... View more

And then the Team prefered to delete dpi settings from Dimension, why? ... View more