Like the Cover Art? Tell us why...

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:59 pm

Er, enlarging an image interpolates it to the target DPI too. Also DPI is fairly meaningless when you're targetting a specific pixel size, as opposed to a specific display size.

A better way to go would be to resize to twice the target size, run a sharpen filter (lightly, not so much that you start to see "cracks" form), and then an edge-directed smoothing if your software of choice has such a thing, and then resize to the target size.

The best way is to just draw it from scratch in a vector graphics app.

[NOTE: Although I do a lot of image processing stuff for a living you might want to just ignore me anyway because it's not like this is going into MoMA or anything.]

j$ · Post by j$ » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:12 pm

All I'm saying - If you want to use an internet image, usually to be found at 72 dpi, a good way of reducing pixel fluff, is to change its dpi to 300 or so, first thing, using image size within photoshop. Up to a certain point, the definition will hold.

I may not know what i'm talking about, but I know what works for me.

j$

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:17 pm

And all I'm saying is that 1) most monitors are between 96 and 120 DPI, 2) DPI doesn't matter when you're targetting a specific pixel size anyway (in this case, 400x400), and that 3) upsampling something to 300 DPI does the exact same algorithms as what you do when you upsample to your target size, and as long as you're using bicubic interpolation there shouldn't be any noticeable difference between the two.

Post by **Spud** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:59 pm

DPI is a useless measure unless you are targeting print, and should be outlawed on the web.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:03 pm

And it's only even useful for print for things like halftoning or publication of digital imagery.

sausage boy · Post by **sausage boy** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:29 pm

YAY! DPI discussions! Finally work and play have seamlessly merged together to form a mutant musical DPI monster.

j$ · Post by j$ » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:19 am

Well, it seems we are having two discussions - I was offering a specific solution using photoshop to a perceived problem, and Fluffy & Spud appear to be leading a seperate discussion on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of dpi in the professional marketplace, something about which I know little and care less.

If I am wrong, and the two are irrevocably related in a way that I am too stupid to see, then you'd better start by taking down all my art in the archive. I am not sure which of them I used the technique on; the lion's share, for sure. I'll also be sure not to submit any more in the future, as the technique works for me, and I am not changing my working style for the benfit of someone who would hijack a well-intentioned suggestion for their own personal print jihad.

Now if only someone can f*ck me off about my sequencer, maybe you can be rid of me altogether

sausage boy · Post by **sausage boy** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:06 am

Personally I couldn't give a toss how you make your art j$. Not give a toss in a good way.

As long as you don't, by some feat of international cross company advertising, supply me with some horrible picture blown up to 400% and 300dpi to put in a magazine, I am happy.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:09 am

Please phrase all suggestions in Fireworks lingo...I don't have PhotoShop

The problem is, like an idiot, I didn't save my project files (I'm sure in graphic design circles that's a common noob mistake).

I tried blowing it up, sharpening it, and reducing it but the end product looked worse that the original. Is there any way to extract layers from the merged down jpeg in Fireworks?

j$ · Post by j$ » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:37 am

Sorry, I don't know fireworks at all...

j$

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:43 am

Ok, I made some changes as best I could to bring out the letters a bit:

Blue, did you have something like this in mind?

By the way... I've always had a fascination with warning signs like you see on stickers on lawnmowers and high voltage boxes and everything else. Does anyone know, do all of those come from one place? Who invented the little stick man/woman used in all of those? And any idea where I could find like a compendium of those?

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:18 am

I think the dude's shoulders should be there too, but that looks better. Oh and use the same border on the thumbnail that you have on the sign.

Umm, man, somebody posted a link to a compendium of those the other day, oh I think it was Brad Sucks. Hold on.
Ok, Here it is. 2779 photos, that should keep you busy for a while.
-bill

Edit: Also you owe it to yourself to check out Brad's site and go listen to some music.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:36 am

Heuristics...you rock! I've been looking for a collection of those forever.

Here are a few front page experimentations. Thoughts?

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:14 am

j$ wrote:Well, it seems we are having two discussions - I was offering a specific solution using photoshop to a perceived problem, and Fluffy & Spud appear to be leading a seperate discussion on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of dpi in the professional marketplace, something about which I know little and care less.

I was starting out by explaining where your reasoning behind that specific solution is wrong. If you have your resize filter set up correctly there's no difference between "upsampling to 300DPI" (which is meaningless for a computer display, and also doesn't necessarily have an effect since changing an image to 300DPI from 72DPI without changing the pixel size means its print size is now about 1/4 as big) and just resizing the image to the target size (in pixels).

In either case, KMS said he uses Fireworks which, IIRC, doesn't pretend to work in DPI, since it's intended entirely for the web (Photoshop only provides DPI-based stuff as a convenience for print preprocess work, which is what Photoshop was originally intended to work on).

Also the technical term for "pixel fluff" is "resampling artifacts." Though I think "pixel fluff" sounds better. :D

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:50 am

kill_me_sarah wrote:Heuristics...you rock! I've been looking for a collection of those forever.

You're welcome! It was good timing since Brad's post had just gone up recently.
Anyway, I like the first of the three best.
-bill

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:06 am

kill_me_sarah wrote:Is there any way to extract layers from the merged down jpeg in Fireworks?

JPEG doesn't store layers. It also doesn't store the original pixels, but an algorithmic approximation of them, which looks close enough to the human eye but is really quite different and is not suitable to be worked on unless it was saved at really high resolution and quality.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:22 pm

I posted another for Rate of Decay. Not for the squeamish

This time I was smart and saved the project file so if you have any suggestions, let me know.

Rabid Garfunkel · Post by **Rabid Garfunkel** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:40 pm

Nice ones Niv' and Khaoti too. (I liked mine better, but that's just me

)

Was thinking about Niv's talking heads style when I did mine. Way too much, heh. Digging the Louis Wain feel, Khaoti!

Gemini6Ice · Post by **Gemini6Ice** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:51 am

kill_me_sarah wrote:By the way... I've always had a fascination with warning signs like you see on stickers on lawnmowers and high voltage boxes and everything else. Does anyone know, do all of those come from one place? Who invented the little stick man/woman used in all of those? And any idea where I could find like a compendium of those?

The child drowning in a bucket is my favorite.